True enough, wider baffles isolate the waveform launch at the speaker, as opposed to the room. His included assumption is that the curved baffle is effectively diffusing meaningful surface anomalies and that an infinite baffle is ideal. I might agree with the later, but I am challenging the assumption of a perfect-curved baffle.
Also note that I judge models with similar side and top environments to sound more natural than those with small-dimension horizontals and large dimension verticals, both between drivers and above the tweeter.
One of our forum members is outfitting his CS3.5s with my current surface treatment for comparison to the stock control unit.
|
@tomthiel, your actually pursuing what I have from time to time briefly considered. Bravo! Years ago, when he was then demonstrating the then new CS 5's; I questioned Jim as to why he didn't use a more tapered narrower baffle, he told me that he would have preferred to use wider, yet still curved baffles. But succumbed to market considerations. He went on to say that wider baffles would offer the end user more predictable results with less room to room variability.
|
Unsound - I think you took issue with my paradigm restatement (but I could be wrong.) I see a paradigm as a lens through which to view the territory under exploration. The values and results might not be challenged or changed. What changes is the perspective, the point of view. I came to realize that 80% of my CDs were not suitable for sharing or showing off or enjoying. I am adopting a new paradigm which takes responsibility for that situation.
Regarding Dunlavy, I had issues with John's approach (my exposure was late 90s). I didn't fall in love with his products. And soft baffles were just part of his rather inclusive approach. His cabinets had sharp corners and I could hear them more than Thiels'. Of parallel meaning to me is the early Vandersteen baffle-less cabinets, which reminded me of my own early work of hearing and minimizing diffraction effects. I liked the rounded edge solutions we developed at Thiel and those solutions were later refined with larger radius easing. But that seems to have been the end of the story, and it shouldn't have been, and wouldn't have been if I had stayed at Thiel.
My "Realizing the Artists' Dream" paradigm encouraged me to pursue why and by what methods the V and D products attracted so many avid adopters. Both brands were enormously successful compared to Thiel's limited appeal. Last summer, my explorations got serious when reading cabinet wall vibrations with a stethoscope and found significant chatter on the CS3.6s baffles. The baffles weren't moving detectably at 3" well braced thickness. The noise was on the surface. That noise sounded a lot like the "hardness" attributed to Thiel products at high volume and musical complexity; and the 3.6 was far worse than the 2.2, which was worse than the PowerPoint1.2. I gradually came to terms with accepting responsibility for whatever I might find - easier since I was personally involved with 2.2 and 3.6 cabinet development.
I am now several iterations deep into soft, layered overlays on Thiel's curved baffles. The results are different than my assumptions predicted, and very encouraging. My work is also informed via previous work with laminar and turbulent flow management. So, I am thinking and experimenting a lot with "soft" baffles.
Presently I seek out any and all CDs, regardless of pedigree, to learn what they might teach. And I am constantly surprised that nearly all of them pull me into their Artists' Dream, their musicality and charm. I cross-check every cut with Cans and stock 2.2s and 1.6s, stock and modified.
Regarding Andy's point of cost. Indeed products are limited by their budgets. Part of the appeal of this exploration is that an effective solution will cost less than premium components and wire; plus the improvements are in parallel to those electronic improvements. Not either-or, but both-and.
|
@tomethiel, I'm sure you'll do a fine job. I think have more of an issue with the concept description than the actual work. After your experience with Dunlavy, what do you think of using soft surfaces instead of hard surfaces on the baffles? |
Tom,
You've talked me into a pair of 800s cans. Thanks!!
So now I have the 008s and the 800s .Really causes a dilemma, as both are excellent. I'll still use the electrostatics to check new CD s, but most likely will use the 800s for pleasurable listening, as they make the soundstage in the 600s appear cramped, and with less HF resolution. (Female voices sound much better.)
George
|
Unsound - I am being excruciatingly careful to avoid editorializing the sound. We called what many brands do "euphonic engineering" - to knowingly alter the sound-field for desired illusions.
A look behind the curtain: I used my modified CS1.6s as sound reinforcement for a live acoustic concert last night in our 12,000 cubic foot Village Arts Center. As usual during sound check, I compare the unamplified house sound to that in the headphones (Beyer770Pro), to that through the speakers. The naturalness was comment and question-worthy from the musicians, two attendees and the house manager. To date there are no changes to drivers or electronics or cabinet walls. The baffle surfaces have been modified for a qualitative improvement which genuinely pleases and encourages me.
|
George - Nice system, nice room, and good solution.
|
Andy - No 2.7 and 2.4 are not the same woofers.
Longer historic perspective answer:A new model from Thiel included new drivers, either specifically developed for the new model or trickled down from a more expensive recent product. Ex. the CS1.6 woofer was borrowed from the in-house developed CS7.2 mid-woofer. A newly named generation had new drivers.
The 2.7 woofer may use the same cone as the 2.4 (I don't know). But the 2.7 woofer was developed in conjunction with Warkwyn-Canada, along with the crossover. That development consumed tremendous costs, proving that outside engineering could not be afforded for Thiel to keep breaking new ground. In Jim's time I believe the 2.7 coax would have been a new driver based on the 3.7 concept. In fact, he spoke of developing such a 7.3 coax. A smaller diameter mid-plate would allow a higher crossover and perhaps a smaller tweeter to higher resonsnce-free extension. That hypothetical driver, along with a star cone, would then be trickled down into the model 2 - and called the 2.5, the next generation of the model 2.
The 2.7 is certainly an accomplishment, and a tribute to Home-Team- Thiel's dedication to creating a legacy worthy of Jim's 3.7 work. But it is less of a product than Jim would have engineered, given the time.
|
I was wondering if the CS2.7 uses the same bass driver as the CS2.4? At least they visually look the same and about the same size. |
I spent several weeks going to my dealer's showroom to audition the 3.7s and 2.7s. I took a widespread selection of my classical CDs with which I was very familiar.
In the end, I selected the 2.7s, along with a SS2.2 sub to extend the lower bass. I'm still completely satisfied with the choice. Disclaimer: I listen to classical music, and not much else.
Living room is 16 x 24 x 12, with a large opening along one side of one 24' wall. Straight 12"ceiling. Speakers equally spaced from side walls, 9' apart and 2' from the end wall. SS2.2 centered between the speakers.
|
|
As their bass response and dispersion characteristics don't vary that much, I don't think there would be much difference in room adaptability between 2.7's and 3.7's.
|
batmanfan
Yup I went from the 3.7s to the 2.7s, not for sonic issues but aesthetic/ergonomic issues.
My room is 13' wide x 15 deep (that is at it's deepest point, which is the end of the bay windows behind the listening sofa, so really most of the room is between maybe 12 - 14 feet deep). I have a large room opening to one side of the room, which no doubt helps.
The 3.7s worked perfectly in my room, evenly balanced from top to bottom, and disappeared and imaged better than anything I've heard (except my MBL speakers).
I actually think I found the 3.7s a bit easier to place for even sound than my 2.7s!
The Thiel designs are very well damped and controlled in the bass which I think makes them easier to place and work in smaller rooms than many other speakers.
|
Thanks for your comments @tomthiel. I am not familiar with the process of developing speakers so the description you gave of the engineering chamber where speakers were put up with tweeters 10’ above the ground made me imagine the Bat cave with Thiel on pedestals, lol! I learn so much in this thread, thank you everyone.
Anyone other thoughts, especially from those who own (or have owned) 3.7s and/or 2.7s regarding the minimum size of a room for a pair of 3.7s? If you do provide dimensions, please let me know what assumptions you’re apply, such as how far into the room the speakers are placed and how loud they are played. Thank you! |
tomthiel
Thank You for continuing to inform us on Thiel Audio history. 3000 pair for the CS 1.5 and CS 1.6 is impressive indeed. Hope you are well this Fall day.
Happy Listening! |
@tomthiel, Perhaps not. ;-) |
my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily so.
That is true albeit at a rather high cost. If you were to build low cost speakers, then it's not likely you can get all three- neutrality, resolution and musicality. Depending on the cost you may only get one out of three. And the more you're willing to spend on R&D and manufacturing, the more likely you'll get all three in one package. The Thiel CS2.4 is one of those rare speakers that are close to getting all three. In stock form, it has neutrality and musicality. Its weakness is in the high frequency extension resolution. Based on what others have done, it probably came down to the xover and internal cables, and it seems like if you upgraded the xover and cables, you can get quite good high frequency extension resolution as some have reported. Of course by the same extension, the same would apply to preamps, amplifiers, digital front ends, cables and so on. |
Batmanfan - I was long gone at 3.7 time, so I can only give you a sketch. Rob says nothing had changed since my days. The tonal balance and hard-core engineering was done in the chamber, which was semi-anechoic with previously delineated dimensions, but roughly 20' high x 30' wide x 40' long with the tweeter at 10' above the ground. Outdoor measurements and ground-plane measurements all went in the mix for tonal balance.
Listening was done in our built-to-purpose room at 14' high x 22' wide x 34' long (more or less from memory). Big room with furniture, plants and some wall panels. Big enough to support and report on what the product was doing. Smaller rooms, especially approaching cubical and/or with half or double dimensions are more problematic. There are various ratios known to work better than others.
A room that sounds good is good. And women tend to feel it wen it's right. Good luck.
|
Hi Everyone,
3.7s owners I would like your feedback. What is the minimum size room you think is appropriate for them? I'm not asking for the optimal size, but one whereby if you went any smaller, it significantly damages the ability for the 3.7s to image properly. If you've moved from a 3.7s to 2.7s (I think that includes you Prof if I'm not mistaken), or moved from 2.7s to 3.7s, I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts. I've got a pair of 2.7s and there are a couple of 3.7s on the market that are whetting my appetite. The 2.7s are perfect for my current listening room right now but we're in the process of moving so I'm curious as to what size room I should have to fit a pair of 3.7s appropriately. Not sure the wife agrees with my priority list for the new home though:
- Short commute distance to work
- Quality schools for the kids
- Properly sized listening room for 3.7s...
Tom,
Curious when Jim was developing the 3.7s did he use a particular room for listening/voicing them? If so, what size was that room? Or was not a part of the equation?
Sincerely,
Batmanfan |
Prof - my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily so.
And Unsound's slippery slope is certainly slippery, but perhaps doesn't slope the way we thought.
The work I am doing seems to increase A/N/R and increase Musicality by removing some sources of propagation aberration which have plagued Thiel speakers in varying degrees over the decades. Trials in progress.
|
Thanks Tom, makes sense.
I keep meaning to address a very interesting issue you brought up earlier about the quest for neutrality vs...I guess..."musicality?"
I'll try to get back to this.
|
|
Prof - The 2.7 is on my long list. I am gaining experience by taking on older designs with more room for improvement and more urgent end of capacitor life issues. I am learning a lot as I go that will all apply to more recent models such as the 2.7, which I consider at the pinnacle with the 3.7 of Jim's art. I hope to form some sort of organization to implement the design modifications I am creating. But for now, the 2.7 seems stable and respectable as it is.
|
The CS1.7 is a different story. Its development was finalized by New Thiel via Mark Mason, formerly of PSB. Shortly after the sale, Steve DeFuria was hired as national sales manager and he contacted me to arrange a consultancy for product/ philosophical/ historical backgrounding for the new owners. The new owners were not interested in the "old perspective" and I was not invited until a couple of executive generations later when I judged all had been lost. The 1.7 was a focus of contention for Steve. The new CEO wanted to call it "Coherent Source", a moniker they had bought. Steve judged that it could not honestly be called such due to its 4th order crossovers and resulting phase distortion. I have read conflicting reports re its slopes, so I don't know where that argument landed.
The 1.7 had an upgraded tweeter and a woofer with a star diaphragm. It got some good reviews, but did not get formal reviews from Stereophile or Absolute Sound. I'm guessing it sold very poorly in the confusions of leadership transition.
|
The 1.6 was introduced in 2002 and sold approximately 3000 pair in its 10 year run, about the same as the CS1.5 from 1993 to 2002. All 1.6 cabinets, drivers, final assembly and testing was done in Lexington. My #1611-12 pair have Lex crossovers with Axon caps on printed circuit boards. "Late-date"CS1.6s (probably after Jim's death in 2009) had crossovers from FST.
I have done considerable investigation with the 1.6. I find it to be quite strong in all respects. My upgrade work has centered on physical elements with electronics review to come later. I am quieting the baffle for surprising increases in delecacy, harmonic detail and spatiality (as also is shown even more-so in the 2.2).I credit this forum for inspiring this exploration -specifically the questions about the Vandersteen baffle-less approach and the comments about being "harsh, aggressive, shouty". In reconstructing the product time-line, I realized that I had effectively dropped out of design evaluation by the time of mid 90s 3.6 finalization; and I would have been the person to explore non-electronic causes of subtle distortions. So, I'm playing catch-up 25 years later. And the results are enlightening on many levels of product performance and life's deeper questions.
|
Probably several hundred pairs of CS1.6 out there but, I would guess, not many 1.7. I had an early pair of 1.6 (2002) and I think the serial number was in the 200s. I could ask the man I sold them to. |
Upgrades for the 2.7s still down the road?
|
tomthiel
Looking forward to your impressions and measurements as always. Agreed, I do not believe the CS 1.6 nor CS 1.7 were sold to large numbers. Mr. Rob Gillum may have the number of pairs sold over the years of production?
Happy Listening! |
Beetle - thanks for the leads.
JA - I'm working on real quantities in the field. Thiel didn't compete well at its lower end. Dealers I knew thought those products made no market sense - they were too radically different from their price peers. In addition to quantities I'm looking into the 1.7 XO. A product announcement by Steve DeFuria (first sales manager of New Thiel, and old friend of mine) says they're 4th order Butterworth, and the Frequency Response Curve shows a 7.5dB fall from 100 to 20K Hz, a somewhat exaggerated Harmon Curve. I can't find reviews on the CS1.7 that show a bank of measurements.
|
|
|
tomthiel
Good to read that you own a CS 1.6 loudspeaker. I would like to see the numbers of owners for models 1.6 and 1.7.
Happy Listening! |
|
Pardon me, I mis-typed. The 2.2 and 3.5 will follow the 1.5. Lots of work is being done on the 2.2 which can be applied to the 3.5 which seems to have a strong following, especially in its sealed bass. I'm looking for a pair of 3.5s as well as 1.5s.
Tom
|
I suggest adding the second pair of posts when modding the
XO. Beetle may chime in - he looked in to that with his 2.4 upgrade.
My experience with bi-wireable Vandersteens led me to
explore this option with my CS2.4s and Tom Thiel encouraged me to try it. Also,
the OEM binding posts have brass whereas the Cardas CPBP are rhodium over
silver. The OEM hook up wire in my “SE” version was sourced from FST and, based
on the parts quality on the FST-sourced boards, I suspected was sub-optimal
(those of you with Lexington boards have higher quality parts). I replaced the
posts and wire with Cardas and added separate binding posts for the low and
high pass boards.
I sonically compared single runs of speaker cable from the
amp using Cardas copper jumper plates to double runs of identical cables. The biwire configuration consistently sounded more relaxed and
liquid. Some songs also sounded a bit more dimensional and clear via biwire. The latter characters are especially subtle but I heard
the effect on more than one song.
This is not an easy or inexpensive upgrade but certainly
worth it for me. The low-hanging fruit, however, is to upgrade the caps and
resistors, maybe the coils if you have boards made by FST (it appears that Thiel
Audio started using FST shortly after Jim Thiel’s passing). So, start with the
XO parts, especially if you’re on a budget. But if you’re insane (like me) and
want to squeeze every iota of performance out of your Thiels then dual binding
posts should be on the agenda!
|
@bighempin I would desolder. Note that Thiel used unleaded solder which
has a higher melting point. Your iron/gun should be at least 140 watts. Speaker
should be on its back so that the driver can’t fall out and prevents solder
from dripping onto the driver. There is enough slack in the wire to access the
terminal but not much more. A second pair of hands is very helpful. I did this
solo on my 2.4s by setting the driver on a shim above its hole which leaves plenty
of room to get at the terminal.
It’s not that difficult but you can gain confidence by
practicing soldering and unsoldering bare wire.
|
Looking for CS1.5s. I've spent a good part of the past year building a lab with measurement equipment, various playback chains, a hot-rod garage of models and accumulating knowledge and ideas. Many pieces of the puzzle are in place, and I have decided to take on the CS1.5 as my first project. It is highly rated, well loved, simple two way, good parts availability, and old enough to need assistance. I'll learn a lot from them to apply to more complex models. 2.2 and 3.6 are next in line.
But I don't have any CS1.5s, nor does Rob. So, please know that I am looking for a pair or two as workhorses, in any condition, with or without good drivers. Thanks for any help you can give.
|
George - I auditioned the HD600s and the 800s. The 800-S is a big step up due to controlling a resonance at about 8K and the angled circular transducer. As I mentioned, my decision was for alignment with the recording community, not doubting that your electrostatics might sound better. BTW, I see the Audeze cans making serious inroads into high end recording.
|
Tom,
WoW! 800S cans. They certainly must sound better than my HD 600s. The circular transducer must make a difference.
I agree. Everything that sounds coherent via the electrostatics also sounds coherent with my 2.7s.
I think the major difference between dynamic and electrostatic cans is in the compliance and mass of the respective transducers. (Thiele-Small parameters: Small signals.)
( I use the HD600s when my "bat-ears" neighbor grouses about my nocturnal listening habits .)
George
|
bighempin
From my experience ,
Set your soldering iron to 600 F , use a flat tip about the size of the wire ,
heat the wire and remove it , use solder wick to remove the solder
from the connector , use solder with silver ( Cardas for me )
to reconnect .
Good Luck
Rob |
Hello fellow Thiel Owners. I have a question for the tinkerers of the group.
I bought a soldering iron and I have been practicing soldering and desoldering in preparation for possibly removing the damaged driver from my 3.7s. I have been talking with Rob who suggested I do one of two things, either desolder the terminal connection, or cut the wires as close to the terminal as possible. It seems to me that desoldering would be the preferred method but I am curious which method you would chose.
Also, I sent a few questions to Rob and was hoping I could pose the same questions to you guys. Here is what I sent Rob:
"I had a few more questions about removing this driver. I bought a soldering iron and I have been watching youtube videos and practicing soldering and desoldering. I think I am ready to give this a try. What is the best way to position the speaker to remove the driver(on its back, on its side, standing up)? Is a desoldering wick the way to go and if so what size would you recommend? Secondly, once I remove the screws and have the driver lose, how much slack is there in the wire connecting it, will I need a second set of hands to hold it while I desolder it? Beyond the soldering iron, what other tools would I need or would you recommend? Any practical tips for a beginner trying to desolder this terminal connection?"
Thanks for the help guys.
|
George - I've never actually heard electrostatic phones. I use Beyerdynamic 770s live and Sennheiser 800S in the studio-lab. I chose them for high quality neutrality and because many top-notch recording and mastering engineers use them.
Of interest is that the handling of stereo signal is different for in-room stereo and in-can binaural playback. Great recordings play well in both environments, but many ordinary recordings do not. It would be fascinating to learn whether that qualifier makes for good playback on Thiel / Vandy speakers. A recording that plays well on both stereo and cans must have its phase-time information intact and refrain from 3-D tricks of the trade. I bet those "proper" recordings would sound right on phase coherent speakers. Anybody know anything about this topic? I'm just surmising.
Tom
|
prof,
I agree with your description of the 2.7s, although I'm using a Bryston 4B cubed with a bp17 cubed preamp. To me there is a clear difference in the 2.7s being driven by the 4BSST2 and the 4B cubed.
George |
|
Tom,
Electrostatic headphones use a very, very thin and low mass membrane, positioned between two stators that are driven by a high voltage signal. (The stators operate push-pull to ensure the membrane reacts in a near simultaneous move to the coming signal.
In effect, the membrane reproduces the signal, covering all frequencies fed to it, in a near-instantaneous time.
What this means is what you hear (for example) is what the CD spinner/DAC feeds to the headphone does not have the differences in both the reaction time and the physical distances in space that define a normal speaker system.
What you hear is essentially what the recording engineer and the manufacturer put onto the CD.
I've been using Stax headphones and amplifiers for years to "audition" every classical CD in my collection. (now using the 009 and associated amplifier)
Yes, an electrostatic can sound thin in the bass - - but very clean and precise, and the higher frequencies can appear bright - - but the accuracy and resolution cannot be beaten by dynamic cans, nor the arrival of complex sounds from my 2.7s. (and, no room effects! :-) :-) :-) )
I use my Thiel 2.7s for musical enjoyment. My Stax for finding out whatinthehell really is on that CD.
George |
Prof - the most modern Thiel I have in the HRGarage is the 1.6, which predates your 2.7s by a decade. And I don't hear any of those harsh attributes in it either. There was steady progress made through the years. But the early products could and would often sing sweetly. The positive reviewer experience rarely gives any mention to the complaints some observers proclaim. I'm developing some working models, but still there's a lotta mystery.
|
FWIW, I sure don't hear any harshness in my Thiel 2.7s driven by my conrad johnson premier 12 tube amps :-)
Not anywhere, not a bit. They are one of the smoothest sounding speakers (at least with this amp combo) that I've ever heard.
And the sound is big, rich and lush - not the usual descriptors that have been traditionally associated with Thiel speakers (in the mind of many audiophiles).
|
George - C'mon, please say more.Thosb - You're welcome. These questions fascinate me this time around.
|
thanks again tomthiel for your input. |
andy2
Get a decent set of electrostatic headphones (Stax) and you'll be even more confused. ;-) |
I’ve been thinking about the time/phase coherent and to be honest I’ve been back and forth - it matters, then it matters not like a girl choosing who to marry. One is for money and one is for love lols. A lot of it is more like personal experience than actual reasoning - like marrying.
But I think now know who but I need to know if she’s for sure lols. You guys probably thought I was gay right :-) ha ha ha ha ha |
Thosb - the broad brush paints a picture that the select few amps (which you guys end up with) seem to handle the difficult loads, mitigate "the harshness" or otherwise perform well without softening or sweetening the signal. Jim's view was that these are "good amps" which should be used with "good speakers". He tested amps and knew the designers and indeed many of the used our speakers for their design loads.
What I hear from the Adcom is somewhat bland / lifeless, grainy and dry. Not bad. Pretty good compared to many, but fairly vanilla compared with better.
Regarding dual inputs: I'll recap. We identified dual inputs as a good solution and used it in the CS3. Problems occurred when people used radically different cables for bass and treble and/or bi-amped with differing amps, including unmatched gain. These hassles were unacceptable to Jim, who put tons of energy into matching to within a fractional dB across the spectrum. Kathy polled dealers who thought at our price points life would be much simpler with single inputs. End of that story.
But the back story doesn't change. Since the current draw makes many amps misbehave, even if marginally, separating the bass loads from upper loads cleans things up enormously. There is a perceived problem by some that jumpers degrade the sound if you choose to single-input. I don't hear it when using Cardas high purity copper jumper plates, which are affordable and allow the user to substitute with jumper wires if desired. I like vertical bi-amping where one channel drives the woofer and the other channel drives the mid-tweeter. I don't have a good sample, since my amps are pretty good and I only have 1 Adcom stereo. (The second one arrived DOA and I opted for a refund unstead of repair.)
I suggest adding the second pair of posts when modding the XO. Beetle may chime in - he looked in to that with his 2.4 upgrade.
|
Thanks donzi, whichlevel anticables did you end up with? Assume speaker and interconnects, did you also try their power cables?
|
Tom, thanks for your very experienced discussions here! Fascinating reading. |
