^That sounds most interesting. Though, I not sure doubling the amplifier budget comes across as quite easily fixed? Two short runs of cables cost more than one run of cable of equal length.
Still interesting.
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
13,552 responses Add your response
Unsound - Regarding impediments to CS5i ownership, I am confident we can address the primary shortcoming quite easily - and that the amplification problem would be reduced significantly. The impedance drops to 1 ohm in the deep bass and doesn't rise above 3 ohms till 200 Hz. That severe bass load drains the amp of ability for transient response in the upper bands. By adding a second input for the 3 woofer/ subwoofer drivers, we can sequester the "amp problem" to the bass. From history: Jim was aware of the problem and the solution. His personal make-up caused him to avoid the fix due to the potential chaos of cable and amp interactions in the field. However, if you used 2 identical amps with identical cable runs, you could successfully vertically bi-amp each speaker with its own channel for each band. As was mentioned earlier, each amp could sit close to its speaker so the 4 cable runs would be less expensive. While in the XO we could easily upgrade some caps and resistors if desired. |
@thielrules, while I agree with what you've posted, I think there are few things to consider. The 3.5's as supplied only have single amplifier inputs. What you are suggesting is not possible without modifications to the speakers, which could depreciate their resale value. Sending a separate signal to the eq and then to the woofers, and a separate signal to the rest of the drivers could present a time lag to the woofers compared to the other drivers. Time is after all really what makes speakers like Thiel different and special. Of course in the digital domain it could be compensated for fairly easily, but in the analog domain, well that might take someone like Jim Thiel to figure that out. Also, 6 dB may not be much compared to say what a port rolls off, but it still is rather significant. That 6 dB is per octave, and there are two octaves to cover. |
I've been using my 3.5's with eq on full boost in a moderately large room (15' ceiling peak) and play music at the volumes which were intended, scaled back for domestic room size, in other words; fairly loud on peaks, with an amp capable of 500 Watts (and double that for a couple of minutes at a time) per channel into their 4 Ohm load for many years now, without a hint of problems. Though, I do wish they could play even louder on dynamic peaks with less strain. My 3.5 midranges drivers were rebuilt by Thiel shortly after I purchased them. The previous owner used what IMHO was an underpowered receiver to drive them. Again, no problems since. Not using the eq would be an anathema for me. Even on steadily loud rock music, I would use the eq at least on the 40 Hz setting. With more lowered tuned 5 string basses and synthesizers being used, there's too much music below 70 Hz where the eq kicks in to compromise without it . That coherent sealed box deep bass is part of the reason I like the 3.5's so much. Without it, I might have kept my old CS 2's. I still prefer the 3.5's to the later Thiel offerings, except of course for the only other sealed box Thiel's; the CS 5i's. The amplifier requirements for which are the only obstacle towards my ownership. That up to 12 dB eq boost might seem a bit extreme, but it is mitigated somewhat but the concurrent rise in impedance. |
My recommendation would be 1. Carefully check your mid-range drivers with the willingness to discover cracks in the surround ring. It is common after 10 years of regular use with the equalizer that signs of deterioration develop, according to Rob G.. if you are fortunate and your mid range are fine, consider extending the lifetime by coating the surround ring with glue. 2. Get the second amp for Bi amping. Decoupling the woofer from the rest protects the mid-range from the eq that is applied to the bass. The sloop of the filler is only 6db, so the mid-range is getting some of the extra bass. This decoupling also increases the impedance and an easier load on the amp. The biamping is vertical, so you can place the amp near each speaker, have short cables and the amp can compensate for a higher load in the base channel by the lower load from the mid-high range. This is an easy and affordable improvement that increases the lifetime and Sonic qualities of the 3.5. 3. Check the eq carefully. Static electricity can blow out some transistors although for later eq this was fixed. You need the eq to get the best out of the 3.5. If your eq is needing repair or your mid-range needs replacement, it makes sense to switch to digital crossovers as I did and shape the mid-range to your system and compensate for differences in sensitivity of the speakers. You also create the opportunity to mitigate room effects. I have successfully done this with a minih dsp opendrc da8. The specs are only average but as far as I can tell, no Sonic weaknesses in the audible range. |
Power recommendations are really sketchy, since the manufacturer doesn't know your loudness requirements or room size which are the largest factors in the equation. Regarding the sensitivity increase, I remember that driver refinements allowed lowering of series resistors in all 3 drivers to gain the 1dB increase. The minimum requirement was increased because all driver failures were caused by overheating voice coils (mostly midrange), which is invariably caused by clipping. I would expect all sonic characteristics to improve with doubling your amplification. Your challenge will be self-control. The cleanliness of the response might tempt you to crank up the volume. The equalizer boost does make serious demands on the midrange driver, so keep it modest, or keep the EQ at 40Hz or off if you're gonna rock. Let us know how it shakes out. |
ronkent is right on! The 3.5’s recommended power was 40-50* (depending on vintage) to 250 (and even 300 in some circumstances) Watts per channel. Those recommendations were based upon standard 8 Ohm amplifier ratings, with the understanding that with quality ss amplifiers those power numbers would double with the halving of speaker impedances. So with the Thiel 3.5’s 4 Ohm nominal/ 4 Ohm minimum rating, you’d be well within Thiel’s recommendations for the 3.5’s. With the extra demands the 3.5’s eq makes on amplifiers, I think the extra power would be more welcome with the 3.5’s than with most other speakers with similar sensitivity and impedance loads. *Interestingly enough the early models had a sensitivity rating of 88 dB and a minimum recommended power of 40 Watts per channel, and with later models Thiel spec’d the sensitivity to 89 dB but also increased the recommended minimum power to 50 Watts per channel. |
Hello everyone! It’s been a while since I last posted, but have enjoyed keeping up on the discussion and am so very impressed at the vibrant community of Thiel owners and fans we have here! I need some advice: I have been looking to add a second Audio Research D240 MKII solid-state amp to my system to go along with my ARC LS7 tube preamp and PH3 tube phono preamp. Having 2 D240 MKII’s in mono configuration would bring the rating to 480 watts @ 4 ohms per channel. Having said this, knowing that my CS 3.5’s have some history of blowing the mid-range drivers when driven hard, is this a case of having too much power? I don’t tend to listen too loudly, but wonder if having more power would lead to better control, dynamics and bottom end. Or am I getting this already with my single amp’s 240 watts? I guess what I’m asking is, are monoblocks worth it? Thanks for any feedback....I really value the experience and knowledge you all share here! Hope you are all doing well, Arvin |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
solobone22 Good to see you here again. Thank You for reporting back impressions and thoughts regarding mating Class D electronics on Thiel loudspeakers. I am uncertain of a cable brand to voice with Bel Canto? Perhaps a consultation with this company is in order? I will peruse over the other Audio forums to obtain possible contenders. Tara Labs, Kimber Kable, Acoustic Zen, Audioquest and Transparent, are certainly top-tier cabling without question. Keep auditioning and posting the findings here. Happy Listening! |
Reporting back on class D amps and Thiels (in my space). I bought a pair of the Bel Canto REF600M monos back in November to use with a pair of 1.6's. They worked well however were very recording dependent. I then got my hands on a pair of 2.7's and it was a little better. They control the speakers very well especially in the bass. I tried Tara Labs, Kimber, Acoustic Zen, and AudiQuest speaker cable. The interconnects were Transparent. I don't believe this is the best that the system can do. I'm going to mess with positioning and some basic treatments to the room. In another room I have the 3.6's and the Bel Canto amps didn't fare much better there either. The separation of instruments and depth is amazing however instruments seem to lose some of their individual color. I usually run a Krell TAS in that setup. Speaking to Krell they stated that the TAS isn't made to run below 4 ohm speakers so I'm going to look at getting a FPB or Evolution monos. Going to mess around with placement and treatments in that room as well. The Bel Canto amp does however mate very well with a pair of B&W CD1SEs. I'm using that as an office system and the synergy is fantastic. Cables are homemade Kimber PBJ and Mogami balanced. |
Rules - I believe that your undertaking will be of great value to Thiel fans. The 3.5 was a pivotal product in Thiel's emergence; but it has lots of room to grow. The cabinet is a significant piece of technology, so re-outfitting its DNA for a new life is exciting. Of the 5000+ pairs sold, I suspect a high percentage are salvageable. Those coils are of the SOTA-aerospace 6-9s variety as are the ultra-bypass nano caps. |
I'm getting ready to dive in and begin my project of modding my 3.5. I'm wondering if anyone else is interested in collaborating as it would be more fun. My initial exploration indicated that this speaker is begging for tri amping. It would allow eq the base without stressing the mid range driver. I have found a good substitute for the scanspeak mid range driver that I want to try out. It means I'll have to learn to use various simulation software but at least these are all free and in the public domain. My tweeter is still fine but as these are also no longer available, may look into a substitute. Actually my long-term interest is to mod the coax from the 3.7 (been spoiled by them) and make them work for the 3.5 . I already have support from Rob G. and Tom T. but they are too busy to devote much time to this project, so message me if you have time and energy to devote to this. Thanks |
With respect to unsound post regarding to baffle size, not to say which one is the most "correct", but there seems to be different design philosophies. Sonus Faber makes a few very wide baffle speakers. Thiel is somewhat in between with the curved baffle. Vandersteen basically eliminates the baffle altogether for most of its designs. In my opinion, the wide baffle has its advantage but it also has its disadvantage. The wide baffle shifts the diffraction freq. lower, but then the problem is the low freq. image would suffer - that is the low freq. image would become "phasey" and shifting around and not stable. I don't think you can eliminate diffraction completely. It's a matter of how to control diffraction for a given speaker design. Just to show how the front baffle can affect the soundstage image, I found that (and most others) a small standmount monitor seems to be the best in term of "disappearing" since they have very small "sound foot print" with respect to the baffle size. Most large speakers cannot do this as well as small standmount since its baffle geometry is much larger and inevitably will get in the way of the sound front. Anyway, baffle size, shape, and geometry will bring up different opinions and I guess different designers will have their own preferences. |
If I may be so bold as to add to TomThiel's commentary on baffle size. Years ago I asked Jim Thiel why he didn't use a more tapered pyramid shaped cabinet to avoid baffle deflection. At that time he explained that only market considerations kept him from using more preferable to him even wider baffles. He added that the wider baffle area would provide more consistent sound for the end user, as a narrower baffle would then put more emphasis on the listening room, which would in turn make the sound output that much more unpredictable. |
Unsound - right on! In fact, the model 2's reason for being was conceived as just that - create a huge bang for buck product utilizing technologies and parts whose development costs were amortized at the higher-end. In the beginning . . . Jim was a very linear, no-nonsense engineer. He projected a 2-way, a 3- way, eventually 4-way, etc. The 3-way was the model 3 (a-ha!), so how to imagine another 3-way? We found merit in the smaller-driver, less bass, less balls idea and committed to allowing, even encouraging trickle-down. The CS2.2 utilized the tweeter developed for our statement CS5. And so forth. Things got murkier as we developed more products for multiple markets. But indeed the model 2 is in its soul Thiel's cost-performance champion. |
Prof - the 02s were made from standard-grade stuff, miniature, standard electrolytic caps,5w carbon comp resistors and normal coil wire. The system will often work with bad parts. At nearly 40 years old, the caps are almost certainly shot, unless they were replaced over the years. Other parts could be OK unless you boogied too hard. The non-technician's look-see is to remove the woofer, shove the insulation aside and see if anything (caps) looks like the 4th of July. Yes, I am upgrading at 3 levels: 1) better basic parts (no electrolytics), stabilized coils (varnish and bake), new hook-up wire and jacks, reworked grille to reduce diffraction. 2) add upgraded drivers ( possibly Thiel CS0.5), Mills resistors, better caps including CSA tweeter feed, 3D grille like CS1.3) add sweet passive parts, double jacks, foil coils and sexy golden ellipse cabinet edges front and back. Concepts to be developed in 02 for use in all models. 02s are a very manageable sandbox. I have to find some more pairs - please keep me in mind. |
Andy - regarding diffraction - please pardon me not knowing its controversy, I've been out of the loop too long. It is not controversial nor trivial, it is a fundamental element of design; it is measurable and directly hearable if the system is transparent. For yourself, or with a friend, listen to yourself speaking or singing. Then put your flat hands beside your mouth and repeat. The difference you hear is diffraction. However, there are cases where diffraction is masked in playback. Since diffraction is a phase-time anomaly, those systems with compromised phase-time performance might mask its presence or conflate diffraction with the other phase-time puzzles requiring mental reconfiguration. Regarding baffleless drivers vs rounded baffles. We experimented with both early-on. Both have their merits. However, the baffleless concept treats the individual drivers as separate units with their own diameter to wavelength behaviors. The rounded (Thiel) baffle treats the unified radiating soundfield as a whole. On balance, I believe (as I would . . . duh) that the unified, rounded single baffle does more things right; its major flaw being increased cost. Looking to natural acoustics, the mouth or musical instrument forms its soundfield across its entire frequency band, not as separate sources for bass, midrange or treble. On to the greater concept of controversy: most controversies have little to nothing to do with the subject under scrutiny. They have more to do with the biases or knowledge (including deficits) of those arguing. So much would become so much clearer by using the correct pronouns. When someone says "you can't hear it", I believe they are actually saying "I can't hear it". Fair enough, except that they are projecting their lack of hearing on "you", which includes you and me and everyone else who is hearing it. In my experience, that projector has rarely if ever actually tried to hear the difference being denied, or at least not objectively analyzed and explored the territory. Imagine if you or I were so bold as to tell a conductor or band leader or competent recording engineer that "you can't hear it". If he didn't slap you, he would either dismiss you or ignore you. We earn our keep by hearing it and understanding it and making it better. End of rant. |
Anyway, since this is Thiel thread, I guess I am allowed to be a bit sentimental :-). I found this little excerpt regard to specially to the CS2.7 in which the reviewer says: https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/speaker/floor-standing/thiel-cs2-7-floorstanding-speaker/ In purchasing a Thiel speaker, my sense is that you’re getting the very best effort from everyone involved, from the concept, design and engineering to fabrication, it feels like you’re buying the love and passion that any craftsman puts into a piece. When I look at the CS2.7, I could imagine staring at it in 20 years and thinking I made a wise investment. It could very well be as timeless as any speaker and it will be talked about fondly as long as we listen to music from a box pushing air.I happen to own an old E46 M3 car which I have the same feeling. There are just to many "parts bin" products out there in either speakers or any other products. Thiel and a few that really stand out. By the way, has anyone able to hear the difference between the 2.4 vs. 27? It would be interesting to find out. |
tomthiel Great stuff on the 02s, thank you! I've still been listening to the 02s for something like 3 weeks now. I just can't tear myself away from how great they sound, in particular playing from my vinyl rig. I have no idea about the condition of stuff hiding within my particular set up of 02s. They were bought new in either '81 or '82. Not being a technical dude, I'd be terrified to open them and screw something up. But any info you can pass along that would help me in case anything fails on these would be great. Are you planning a "better parts" upgrade for the 02s? |
@andy2 I can probably find recordings as you describe but not able to compare to anything else in the near future. Any 3.7 owner want to bring your speakers to my room? Interesting hypothesis regarding image density. That sounds plausible. Are your observations consistent in that respect? Yet another example that pretty every design comes with trade-offs. The small midrange diaphragm on the 2.4, as Tom highlighted, is very nimble and lightweight, able to convey a delicacy. It’s been a year or two since I’ve heard a reference level speaker but I'm confident my modded 2.4s are top-shelf in terms of transparency and resolution. But the small drivers also can’t push as much air and that has its own sonic consequences. |
Also as we are on the subject, there is another design philosophy in which people believe that the baffle should be eliminated completely. This philosophy is adopted by Vandersteen. Part of the reason is that Vandersteen believes that the baffles modify the phase of the sound from the drivers and since he is a time/phase coherent guy, I suppose it is important to him. |
So, Andy, even though the 2.4, like the earlier designs, does control diffraction very well, its lower tweeter creates a time discrepancy between side and top diffraction. That effect would be extremely subtle, such that I would be surprised if I could ever hear it. But, your ears are younger than mine.Hi Tom, The subject of diffraction is very controversial and there are people who believe that you "can't hear" diffraction and people would go on and on about it without agreeing on anything. Personally, although I don't know if you can "hear it", but I think diffraction manifests itself in how well the speaker images. Of course there are other variables such as cabinet stiffness, cabinet shape, but I think diffraction plays a big role. I was wondering that the CS2.7 and CS3,7 being Thiel's latest designs, and the fact that the coax drivers were placed at the top of the baffle compared to older design, what was the main reason for that? Was it mainly to improve diffraction or was there other factors? Thanks. |
Just for jest, one way to eliminate (or mostly) diffraction is to use horns such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz7biTHWv4c I wish I had one of those :-) |
Can’t say I’ve noticed this trait, Andy2. Some songs with the mix in one channel seem to emanate well outside the bounds of the speakers. The CS2.4 does this at least as well as the CS1.6 and Vandy 2Ce Sig II.bettlemania, I suppose it could be recording dependence. Also, although I am not a recording engineer, there are two types of hard left/right mix. One type there is still a phase relationship to the other channel so you hear the image well to the left or right of the speakers (for example at the beginning Welcome to the Machine from Pink Floyd which the CS2.4 does very well). The other type is just a pure left or right without any phase relationship to the other channel so you hear the sound basically directly from that channel speaker. I think I was referring to the latter one. If you could find some old recordings especially from the 60’s where the sound mix is basically left or right. In this regard, I was wondering if you could compare how the image "flows in the air" compared to other speaker design. As for the TAD Ref One, it has quite bigger bass drivers and midrange driver so I would expect it has more image density vs. the CS2.4. As I mentioned in my previous post, the 2.4 has a small mid so it does not sound as weighty in the lower midrange sound vs. speaker with larger mid driver such as the TAD Ref One. |
Prof and you other 02 fans - I just now got my old 02s on line - received from my brother from their life-long use in our parents' system. Drivers are good, coils are good - within their genre. These speakers were made in 1978 before we discovered high-purity wire and baked fusing. These are normal ETP "magnet wire", still the industry standard. We wound these on "Ol' George" - hand-fed with a timer. We then tweaked each coil via weight on a triple beam balance and DC resistance. I checked these today with my inductance meter and they're within 2% of target. They are considerably better wound than Beetle's Chinese 2.4 coils. Back to the XO. The resistors are 5 watt carbon composition - all burned to a crisp. The caps are all 50 volt electrolytic - about half of them are blown out, the other half are + 30% out of spec. I replaced all with original grade parts and fired them up. I haven't heard 02s for at least 30 years. I am impressed! The sonic signature / tonal balance is pure Thiel and they don't screw up the music. They lose a little in direct comparison to the PowerPoint1.2s and the CS1.6s, both 6.5" 2-ways, but really, they aren't shamed. If we had chosen to take this 2nd order route with our developing company, life would have been immensely easier. However, we may have failed because the territory is so much easier - everybody entering the game played there and it is unknown whether we could have differentiated ourselves. Anyhow, thank you Prof. Your enthusiasm for the model inspired me to consider it. After hearing it, I am addressing it and will learn a lot in this relatively simple sandbox. The 02R will live. I hope you guys can snag some on the cheap. Rob and I think we made fewer than 1000 between 1976 and 1984 and they would be concentrated on the East Coast and in Germany - go figure. |
Prof - Cabinet stiffness including the baffle helps it disappear. I am experimenting with "stiffening" the MDF cabinets, especially the driver mounting recesses with Minwax Wood Hardener. Also that 3.7 cap is far quieter than the 2.7 top. I am extrapolating from how surprisingly active the small top of the 1.6 is. Column ends accumulate pressure and the 3.7 is both very strong and shaped to handle the job. |
Also, FWIW, as I have mentioned before: The 2.7s don't float images away from the L/R speaker locations as well as the 3.7s. There is more of a "U" shape to the 2.7s soundstage in that respect. Not exaggerated as that, but instruments panned towards either speaker tend to "stick" to the speaker a bit more vs the 3.7s that seemed to completely vanish as a sound source. I think the last time I brought this up, Tom suggested it may be due to the heavier-duty front baffle on the 3.7s. |
Tom, Great info about the older Thiels and the importance of the grills.Audiophiles often seem to take it as a matter of fact that "all speakers sound better with the grills off" so you almost always see audiophiles using their speaker without grills. I've noted how grills have often enough made a speaker sound more coherent. Especially of course when they are designed to work with the grills on. As to the design of the 3.7, I find them quite nice looking but also figured they would be off-putting to "normal folk." Thus I was greatly surprised - when I was trying to find a replacement for the 3.7s just out of interest I'd show people pictures of more "normal" looking speakers and ask which they would prefer to see in our room, and most said they preferred the look of the 3.7s! That went for my wife and her friends, even when I got the 2.7s which to me are about as subtle, contemporary and beautiful a design as speakers get, and my wife STILL said she preferred the looks of the 3.7s. As I said, I found this all quite surprising. Even though I myself find the 3.7s to look quite wonderful in my room, and in many other rooms I've seen them in, especially if the room has a more modern look. |
Unsound - everything matters, and there may be some effects from the forward parts. The cross struts are 1/4" diameter round bar, and not in the path of any drivers. The forward side verticals are 1/2x1/2" MDF, but so far off axis that they present a diamond profile more so than a flat surface. In developing those grilles, we couldn't measure or hear any deleterious effects (although they are hypothetically present.) The fabric itself does add resistance as frequency increases. We voiced for flat with that fabric in the sound path. That grille cloth was the most transparent we could find. Present cloth is even more transparent. Beginning with the CS2, those frames went away, except for the CS5. Our first CNC mill in 1985 allowed us to machine the more sophisticated solutions beginning with the CS2.2. Later, such as in the 2.4, the 1/16" die-cut steel frame virtually eliminates the frame's geometric advantages. |
@tomthiel, While I can see how the grill cloth frame on the 3.5's fits on to the top and side edges so that they avoid flat reflective edge surfaces, I have often wondered about the supporting frame extensions which seem to be in near and direct reflective path of the drivers. Any thoughts? BTW, Those graceful curved baffles sure are pretty. |
Andy - the baffle is critically important for how the waveforms propagate into the room. Going back in history, common wisdom dictated the drivers be offset by differing amounts from all baffle edges so as to spread the diffractive effects out, over time. Thiel was an early originator of minimizing diffraction, first by absorption in the 03a and then by rounded baffle edges in the CS3 and beyond. We centered the drivers, like the mouth is centered in the head and a microphone diaphragm is centered in its structure. There are many conflicting demands of driver placement geometry including unknown listener distance, reviewers ignoring the grille when it is a functional ingredient of diffraction control and so forth. Our seminal statement of the CS3, had the tweeter very high and equidistant L-R-T. The top baffle curve was completed by the top cross strut of the grille frame as were the sides to a lesser extent. Lots of time went into optimizing that system. But in use, the grille was often removed, including for reviewer testing, and the resultant diffraction was noted as a flaw in the design, never as a failure of the user - which left us all flabbergasted and Jim really angry. As aside to that point. I remember the years-long comments by Larry Archibald, Stereophile publisher, regarding the "early" and "late" CS2s, and the latter's taming of upper range glare and roughness. He never admitted in print that he stubbornly listened to the CS2s for the first year without their sculpted grilles, which controlled edge diffraction as well as incorporated a shallow tweeter waveguide for limiting dispersion of the tweeter's low end to blend properly with the midrange. That blending is far more critical with the large-overlap first order slopes. Bottom line: there were no early or late CS2s, only eventual user cooperation with the design intent . . . and lots of confusion and mis-information in the marketplace. Back to the point: tweeter placement evenly spaced to all edges including the top acts more like an ideal point source. Note that the CS3.7's industrial design is extremely polarizing and generally considered offensive. Only those adherents to form following function "get it" and either make their peace with it or actually love it. The driver height scheme is optimized for the broadest vertical listening window for seated listeners, dependent on crosspoint frequencies and driver dispersion characteristics. So, Andy, even though the 2.4, like the earlier designs, does control diffraction very well, its lower tweeter creates a time discrepancy between side and top diffraction. That effect would be extremely subtle, such that I would be surprised if I could ever hear it. But, your ears are younger than mine. |
Can’t say I’ve noticed this trait, Andy2. Some songs with the mix in one channel seem to emanate well outside the bounds of the speakers. The CS2.4 does this at least as well as the CS1.6 and Vandy 2Ce Sig II. Just earlier this evening I did a double take as the image was a couple of feet left of the left channel even with my eyes open. I think this is this is more dependent on the recording than other factors, at least with designs that attempt to reduce baffle effects. I continue to be very impressed with SQ after my XO rebuild. If I’m in the hot seat, I can’t read with background music on - too distracting! The only sonic parameter that doesn’t quite match the very best I’ve heard is image density. Perhaps *that* is influenced by the baffle? But the TAD Ref One is among the best I’ve heard in that regard (and other regards!) and I don’t think anyone would accuse that model of having an innocuous baffle. |