Thiel Owners
Andy, My ears agree with yours. If I had to generalize from what I hear in the Thiel first order upper frequencies vs many of the high order speakers, I’d agree with what you wrote: perfectly integrated in the Thiels. I simply can not "hear out" the tweeter at all. Where I often feel like I hear a little power/frequency dip in the transition to a tweeter, giving a slight pinched quality to the high end, on the Thiels the sound remains "thick and smooth" all the way up through the high frequencies. Where the best of the high order speakers do have a little bit more sparkle/shine and perhaps smoothness riding on top. I admit I can like both depending on mood. Same with tube amps vs SS. Though I’ve tried various tube gear, by far most of my experience is with my own Conrad Johnson stuff (originally an MV55 amp, then the Premier 12s, along with my CJ Premier 16LS 2 preamp). Every time I do an SS vs my tube amps test, one of the things that stick out is how the sound becomes more coherent and believable with the tubes. Vocal sibilance for instance which can take on a hardened electronic spikiness with an SS amp just seems to soften and sit back in to the voice in stead of stick out artificially, so then voices sound natural.Even when there are artificially enhances sibilance and transients due to microphone choices/mixing etc, the sound is still more comfortable and natural sounding. It almost feels like going from a not-quite-yet-integrated tweeter/mid driver to adjusting the crossover to a seamless presentation. (BTW, not that the Thiels in particular need tubes to be smooth and integrated. I think they are one of those speakers that is successful with any reasonable amplifier). |
I suppose the argument about 1st order vs. higher filter will go on forever. Too bad there are so few (besides Vandersteen I don't know who else) actually make 1st speaker so people don't get to listen and understand the actual sound so they end up instead hearing from magazines who don't understand themselves. Of course magazines have there own agenda so who knows if they tell the truth. I've had this little exchange with someone who has been designing speakers as if his life depends on it. And we are trying to “objectify” why the difference and we both agree that the biggest difference is how the high frequency or to be specific the treble is reproduced. With 1st order, the treble is part of the music whereas with higher order filter, and we actually agree that higher order generally has a cleaner, clearer music reproduction, the treble seems to be riding on top of the music, instead of being integrated within the music like 1st order. And since the treble is where lies the most differences, what he does is that for example with three way speakers, the xover between the mid and the tweeter, he would use first order. The xover between the mid and the bass which is around 400hz, he would use 2nd, and since the wavelength at 400hz is so long, the phase does not matter much, and of course, 2nd is much easier to implement vs. 1st. This is consistent with speaker design in which at the low frequency such as the bass, amplification quality is not as important and as said above, our hearing is not that sensitive in the low frequency due to the longer wavelength. Most sub woofers if not all using digital amplification since using linear amplification probably does not make much of a difference. Try using digital amp for your tweeter :-)
Interestingly, after listening to 1st speakers for awhile now, I seem to attribute the sound to that of tube amplification. There is something to 1st order sound that is similar to tubes. And I don't think that is a coincidence either. Tubes have a way to deal with treble better than transistors. Transistors although always sound cleaner and clearer, compared to tubes, but they always sound somewhat clinical and analytical compared to tubes. I won't go into detail as to why since it may take quite a bit of spaces with all the technical stuffs that might drive prof crazy.
This leads me to something a bit analogous to what have said above with a slight twist. I currently have two preamps – one is a Pass Labs X10 which is transistor-based, and the other is a Conrad Johnson 17LS which is tube. Both are very good in their respective domain. The X10 is actually very smooth and warm and fluid in a transistor sort of way. The 17LS is a touch bright and extended vs. the X10, so you would think I would hear more “treble” on the 17LS, but that is not the case, because with the 17LS I just hear music because the treble is so well integrated with the entire musical range. On the X10, although sounding a touch warmer vs the 17LS, I would hear the treble somewhat sticking out like it is “riding on top of the music” as I have mentioned above. BUT here is the KICKER. When I design my speakers, I always use the X10 to fine tune my speakers because the X10 is more neutral and it is able to tell me the strength and weakness of my speakers better than the 17LS, and it allows me to better optimize my speakers xover. And of course with better optimzied speakers, I can enjoy them better with my CJ 17LS :-). So I guess it's a complementary, symbiotic thing.
A lot of time, with music and our hearing, things can get a bit complicated and people can get overly emotional, but there is something analogous to “sound” that can be more easily be “objectified” and generally agreed upon. And that is the physics of “light”. As with sound, it is frequency dependent. For example, lower frequency light tends to be reddish, whereas higher frequency light tends to be more bluish. And as analogous to sound, a image that has a lot of low frequency, it tends to be a bit less “sharp”, and likewise, an image that has a lot of high frequency content, the image will appears sharper and clearer.
Most people at one time or another have bought a brand new television set. The first thing you do when first receiving the TV is probably adjusting things like contrast, sharpness and so on. I am using “sharpness” as an example. So when you want more sharpness, what the TV would do is using a high pass filter or amplifying the high frequency range (similar to the high pass filter for the tweeter) so you get more high frequency and more bluish tonal balance on the picture hence a sharper image, just as the sound will get more clear if you have more treble. And of course as with sound, if the image gets too sharp, it can be “unnatural” similar to treble fatigue.
I am not an image processing engineer so I don't know the detail of image filter design, but someone told me that they actually face with something similar in speaker design, such that if they use higher order filter, the image can get “unnatural” albeit having more clarity. I suppose if you were to design a spy camera to search for weapon of mass destruction, you probably want to use higher order filter :-)
Anyway, back to speakers design with 1st or vs. higher order filter. Interestingly enough, if I were to run an audio recording studio, I would use higher order speakers to monitor the recording sound since I think higher order can tell me more about my recording sound, but when I go home, I'll use my 1st order speaker to enjoy the music. We human are yin and yang. Duality works. |
I auditioned some other floor standing speakers today - Spendor D7s. Meh. All it did was remind me the Thiels are sooooo good! The Thiels have such a huge, chunky, rhythmic sound with incredibly imaging yet (especially with my CJ amps) an organic beauty. Even though I'm probably adding another pair of speakers to my brood, I still can't see letting go of the Thiels. |
I just published in my virtual system the result of my online search and the great support from Rob Gillum, I finally realized my idea to make a special tribute to Thiel: a composed wall picture I made that captures some moments of Thiel life, now it's hanged in one wall of my listening room. The genius and every single contributors deserve it. A simple thing, nice to me. Hope you also appreciate it. |
Heads up! A pair of 3.7s just hit Audio mart if anyone is interested! Looks like they are in New York. https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649553539-thiel-cs37-speakers/ |
Jimihandtrix - I checked my CS1.6 tweeters and contacted Rob. The answer is that the CS1.6 tweeter is a custom-made driver from the ground up - there are no markings on it. The SEAS may physically fit, but that's where the similarity ends. Note that Thiel tweeters have very unusual requirements since they cross over low and with a shallow slope. A normal tweeter would not blend properly and would not last very long. Rob has good supply of moving system / rebuild kits, but I don't know his stock for whole drivers. Let us know what you find out. |
Heck, there’s a pair of CS 6 up for grabs right here on Audiogon for $1200, but either they are in pretty funky condition or the seller’s camera can’t do them justice. In the not too distant past I probably woulda jumped ugly on ‘em based on the seller’s price alone but, I’ve wisened up. A little. Like many sellers here, I have used US Audiomart to buy and sell my equipment. A lot of people here advertise their equipment there at the same time as well - why not? It’s free. My experiences there mirror those I have had here, all good. (I’ve had only ONE negative experience on Audiogon since joining, and that was from a buyer who claimed non-receipt of my shipment. Fortunately, but still unfortunate for moi, it wasn’t a “significant” amount of money so I simply refunded his payment in full. Never heard from him again.) What this site could benefit from, a nice touch on the other site, would be to allow us to narrow our searches by state if we wish. I used to be able to input my zip code here and that would produce relatively good results, but no longer. This matters especially when searching for Thiels or other large, or heavy speakers. Shipping can prove costly. Also, the folks on the other site aren’t as diligent in providing feedback. I have four transactions that haven’t been rated there. Methinks that’s important. On point to this thread; “breaking in” my newly acquired CS2.4’s with the Belles 250i Integrated has been an absolute joy. While I can’t speak for any other Belles product, this one has met and exceeded my expectations. From its rather large external power supply, (which attaches to the amp via an umbilical) to the simple design of the faceplate, this continues to impress. Solid state power, tubed preamplifier section - well done all around. I have to assume that it runs class A/B because it does warm up after a little while. It’s not going to raise your room temperature, but compared to virtually every amp/integrated I’ve owned it runs warmer. Since a previous post, I have removed the maple blocks from under the speakers, opting instead to place them on small isolation blocks which the spikes settle firmly into. At this minimally lower height off the floor I find the separation to have improved - not the sweet spot. That I’m getting accustomed to. It still strikes me as being narrower than any of the previous models I’ve owned. There is more than merely sufficient bass response from the 2.4’s as well. The two versions of Ginger Baker’s “Cyril Davies” and “Cyril Davis” - same composition with different titles, are a good place to start comparing. On one version - the more “acoustic” version, the upright bass is sinewy, taut, yet taffy-like flexible - and the effect is both felt and heard clearly through these speakers. No doubt the quality of the Belles contributes a lot to such timbre, tension, and resonance. And no doubt that these speakers are up to the task of faithfully reproducing it. Neato. |
It seems that I found here in Italy a specialist in repairing even such sophisticated drivers like the customized Vifa for Thiel. Actually he is a highly rated amplifiers and loudspeakers craftsman builder and his lab is provided of all needed professional euipment to do it right. As I already told here, I already bought a full set of drivers for my CS3.6's from Rob Gillum but the defective ones are still in my hands and I would be very happy to have the possibility to get them properly working again as new spares. Next week I'll give him two mids and two woofers to try the reparation., he told me to have some idea on what can be the cause of the defective sound (mine were not fully die but shown only a sort of break up transient at certain frequency). I will report here the result of this attempted ressurrection in case someone is on the need. |
I noticed 2 different sets of Thiel speakers available on USAudioMart , a pair of CS3.6s and 7.2s . Also I would like to clarify my last post , I was trying to point out that a Reviewer was using a pair of CS3.7 speakers as his reference , he had also owned a pair of 7.2s . I looked up other reviews from this site and found SCS4Ts and CS3.7s were reviewed . The reviewer of the 3.7s previously owned CS3.6s , this seems to be a Thiel freindly and knowledgable site . As for my McCormack DNA-250 amp made by Conrad Johnson , I can not reccomend it in it's stock form but after upgrading componets trying to imitate the CJ MF-2550se I am amazed at the transformation and will say if you can afford the MF-2550SE go for it and it's not that heavy . I can see why DNA owners rave about thier amps AFTER sending them in for upgrades and why CJ owners like their amps because of the custom Capacitors they use ( and won't sell me ) , |
Jafant - The amps have been struggling for over a year and are indeed back home in fine fittle. The first tech made a mess of it, changing some cap values, mis-regulating and stressing some circuits. The second outfit came highly recommended as a warranty repair center for McIntosh among others. But their senior tech who could make sense of the mess was out for extended medical leave; and on return was buried in urgent backlog work. BUT, he went through both amps and got everything into synchronicity and they do sound good. So, the DR-6 and 9s are like new, which is really quite good. My comparisons are the class A Benchmark AHB-2s and the Adcom GFA555II which I bought for entry level benchmarking. The Adcom really trails far behind in all audiophile ways, even though fairly well regarded in its time. The Classe and Benchmark are remarkably similar. I don't hear the "darkness" often attributed to the Classe. However I do hear a bit of gritty, dry hashiness in the Adcom (also repaired and tested as good.) Now with 4 bridged amps / 8 channels available, I can make real time comparisons with 4 speakers under test - what joy. I'll get to some progress reports when the legal matters are finalized. |
Kenazfilan - about doubled up speakers for a bi-pole. Today I gave the configuration a whirl with 2 pairs of CS2.2s back to back. I am driving with a pair of Classe DR-9s and Benchmark AHB-2s both at 100 wpc/8, both bridged to mono. 4 amps into 4 speakers. The back pair is driven by a PS Stellar Pre with remote volume control to bring up the back channels to suit. At some point of about equal loudness back and front, the sound takes 3-D form and moves back between the speakers and wall. The effect is delightful and doesn't seem to harm image specificity. The bass especially becomes big and round and clean. Since for the same volume level, each speaker is working half as hard, distortion is undoubtedly lower; and since the point source patterns are reinforcing each other front to back, a quasi hemispherical wave-front is being launched. For those who love omnidirectional launch, this is a wonderful way to get it. For fun, I reversed polarity of the back speakers (a button on the PS remote) which produces a di-pole pattern like a planar speaker. Indeed I got the phasey boundary effect. Back in bi-pole, the speakers just sound bigger. I suspect my room might be easier than some for this use. My walls are soft with lots of diffusion and little in the way of standing waves because 2 walls are sonically fairly transparent into a much larger space. The coupled bass from 4 speakers allowed me to pull the speakers about 6' from the front wall to image like champs while maintaining plenty of bass. Fun at the end of the day. |
Looks like the correct tweeter is a SEAS 25TAF/G H400 (at least that's what it says on mine). I just had a look on Ebay and found some which seem to be the same ones or would match up with mine - like this one here - (although this offer looks slightly different from mine on the underside). Do y'all reckon that would be a safe bet? |
Jimi - work with Rob. A voice coil is connected to the dome and surround as a moving system. Moving systems are specific to their end-use with varying mass, compliance, impedance, wire gauge and geometry. Your CS1.2 tweeter was made by Vifa, and I don't know about its repair particulars, but Rob will. |
Hey again, thanks for your responses to my post on Sunday! I also wrote Rob Gillum from Coherent Source Service, and he suggested I may have an "open circuit" on the voice coil - so I removed the fabric layer between magnet and dome structure and realized that the voice coil is broken at one point. Is there any kind of how-to guide you could recommend on replacing a voice coil? And can I use any old (or preferably new) 1" / 25.5mm voice coil? Thanks again for your help! |
While upgrading componets in my McCormack DNA-250 amp , I discovered that Conrad Johnson dropped the McCormack from the name but continued to use design . I've been using images of the MF-2550se for reference as to which componets to upgrade . I found this artical that fits in with this Thiel speaker forum ! www.theaudiobeat.com › equipment › conrad_johnson_mf2550se ( excerpt from artical ) These are the sorts of details the MF-2550 SE served up best. The 300-hour Teflon Rubicon had at last been crossed. Among the amplifiers I’ve heard in my system, the Conrad-Johnson MF-2550 SE stands out. Of those amps, its closest competitor in terms of price, specifications, and power is the Classé CA-2300. At $7000, this Canadian anvil delivers 600W into 4 ohms, and was quite capable of handling my Thiel CS3.7s -- and having spent many years with these speakers, I can tell you that, much like their predecessors, the CS7.2s, they will use every watt they can get. The MF-2550 SE produces "just" 400Wpc (confirmed by C-J’s Lew Johnson), but not all watts are created equal. The CA-2300 was a bit sluggish by comparison. The MF-2550 SE gripped the ’3.7s, handling every curve the music threw with agility and speed, and sounding significantly more transparent and musical (in all of the best ways) than the Classé. Rob |
Unsound, the OEM drivers are no longer available, nor can the mid-range be rebuild. Tweeters of dynaudio are still available used. The bass equaliser of the 3.5 is prone to damage from static electricity, and Rob is out of parts to repair them. Fortunately all of this can be managed with dsp and the 3.5 have a new lease on life. |
@thielrules, What an impressive undertaking and write-up! I must confess that I lack the knowledge required to judge the success of many of your choices in making mods on the original 3.5 design. My negative experience with equalizers in the past makes me hesitant to depend on EQ to fix problems in replacement drivers or make decisions on a "house sound," but I have absolutely no experience with modern digital EQ so I am not in any position to offer an informed critique. Above all, I will be very interested in what the speakers now sound like. Please let us know your listening impressions as you log some serious listening time with your "renewed" speakers. Thanks for sharing all this great information! |
Jacksky - nearly all CS5s have been converted to CS5i with upgraded lower midrange, woofers and subwoofer. Rob @ Coherent Source Service has conversion kits for your drivers. I suspect that your exaggerated / loose bass may be caused by the near 1 ohm infrasonic load and sub 2 ohm load through 50 hz. If you have two 7bs, you could split the woofers and run them with one channel and the upper 3 drivers on the other channel. |
