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!
Andy - I haven't seen the CS6 XO, but can comment generally. Jim employed all pass filters - Zobels and custom - to counter rising impedance with rising frequency as well as shaping networks to trim each driver toward its theoretical optimum response. Over the years, including the first-tier New Thiel period, reviewers, dealers and other knowledgeable folks would counsel Jim to scrap all that stuff. He was steadfast in his desire to create an ideal resistive load. The "amp problem" would be far worse if Thiel's low impedance x first order were to introduce the additional burdens of reactivity.
Our present 'R' approach (Beetle's 2.4s and my PP & 1.6 experiments) is to upgrade all those components. The degree of audibility of parallel / shunt / non-series feed components is far greater than generally believed. Improvement can be heard via a higher voltage cap of the same construction - even in circuits that "don't matter much".
I would appreciate seeing the XO picture and especially comments from you and our other DIYs. 'The veil' is quite delicate and expensive to address.
Cat - for the record, I agree that a subwoofer solves many problems. And for the record, Jim also agreed, but we weren't ready to address subwoofers at that time in our development and, especially then, subwoofers were routinely badly implemented. My reason to keep it in the R series is a tribute to history, the integrated solution at the time. Note that sans EQ, the sealed bass rollout of 12dB/octave will behave very well with bass management systems.
As a 3.5 owner I'm very excited to read that Tom will be giving the design some TLC. I already use dual subs with mine, sans my EQ box, and find this allows me to fine tune the speakers to my music room. I think this configuration also gives the relatively fragile midrange drivers an easier time. I'll be watching developments with great interest.
I wonder if Tom or someone else could comment on this. I found an image of a supposedly CS6 xover for the midrange. Based on the image, it seems the xover employs an all-pass filter for the midrange. In my experience, the all-pass dues to the amount of components, does take away some of the transparency. And seeing from the image, it does not seem like any bypass cap was used so it may help. I was just wondering if all-pass filter was widely used at Thiel for the purpose of time-phase aligning?
I've read a review of the CS6 from Stereophile and the author did comment of the slight reticence of the midrange that may be related to the all-pass nework. See the excerpt below:
So far I've been digging deep into my box of superlatives. Did the CS6 have an Achilles' heel? It did, in that the midrange didn't offer quite the same degree of ultimate clarity or cleanness that so distinguished the bass or treble octaves. There was a feeling of reticence in this region, described by one visitor as a "hooded" quality, that I couldn't eliminate no matter how much I fooled around with placement. Tilting back the speaker by placing Black Diamond Racing cones under just the front did help, however, as a distinct change in timbre could be heard on the sit-down/stand-up test. But for me, at least, this was a minor problem, offset by the many things the Thiel did right.
Wow, as an owner of two pairs of 3.5's and one pair of 2 2's, I am licking my chops to see what you come up with. I love both models, but agree they could use updating. I can just relax and listen for now .... not a bad mode to be in! :-)
Prof - the 02s have not yet arrived due to complications at their Virginia storage location. Should be here soon. A proper resurrection must include new drivers, since the originals are no longer made. I am exploring. I'll stay with fiber diaphragms since part of optimum second order functioning includes diaphragm breakup modes with inverted polarity hand-off.
02 owner here, as you know. I still have the 02s in my system now (the poor 2.7s are standing beside them with folded arms and a "what are you thinking?!!!!" expression on their drivers). Still loving them.
Did you receive those 02s yet? And if so what do you think of them?
Guys - I am approaching the 02 first for lots of reasons including access to alpha-testing a new port technology in addition to the MO being developed for the other products. Can this forum provide an idea of how many pairs are out there? How many pairs of 02s are there among you and those you know?
Good to see you today. Nice score on the mint pair of CS 2.2 loudspeakers. Thank You for proposed updates to this model as well as the C3 and 3.5 models. No doubt that there is a market for these updates/upgrades among proud owners. Keep up the outstanding work!
The 3.5 EQ will stay, since it is a vital part of that product. The sealed bass drops off about 100 Hz at 12dB / octave. That would blend very well with a subwoofer, but by itself is pretty bass-shy. The two position EQ extends to 40Hz and 20Hz, which is extraordinary - albeit amplitude must be reduced to avoid bottoming the woofer, which is why the EQ's bass was abandoned as digital sound-tracks came into vogue. In due time I will be addressing the sound quality of the EQ unit. It's a good circuit but could benefit from better signal path components. There is also interest in a fully balanced pair.
I have settled on an order of go. In order to hone my chops, develop hardware and software solutions and walk before running, I have decided to address oldest products first. Their end-of-life is more immenent, and there is generally greater room for improvement than in newer, more advanced Thiel products. So, I am beginning with my prototype 02s. One version will use existing drivers and another will replace the drivers, which are obsolete. There will be cabinet and component upgrades. The 02 pre-dated any knowledge or availability of high purity wire or film capacitors. I will replace all XO components with appropriate best-of-form, keeping the 2nd order XO topology and port, but everything else being fair game. This project should come easier and faster than the more complex models. I hope some folks here will like this - I know I will like doing it. 1976 revisited.
Next will be the CS3/3.5. Since all the drivers need updating, it is likely that we can refit both CS3 (1983) and CS3.5 (1988) with identical drivers and very similar XOs. I'll skip the CS5 and take on the CS2.2 (1991) next. Those products should provide a good foundation for further models.
There has been suggestions to call these updated models -R for Reissue or Resurrection, or -AL for AfterLife, or who knows what.
Tom thiel, this is really great news for all this community forum, I will be happy to limp as long as it takes and yes crossover tweek after. Question: do you plan then to get rid of the 3.5 bass eq or will it be part of the equation?
Dino - you may know that I had axed the 3.5 from my original short list upgrade program because of driver availability problems. However, through this thread and other investigations, I sense that the 3.5, along with the 2.4 are the strongest candidates for an AfterLife. So, they are now on our (Rob and my) radar. Eventually we will have a complete solution for them. Crossover tweaking must wait for replacement drivers, since upgrading crossovers for unavailable drivers is a futile exercise. I suggest that you try to limp along for now and that we will have more good news later.
Thank you for the advise but at the moment I would keep as vintage as possible. I'll read anyway previous post on this issue.
Tomthiel
To recap, you and Rob are diggin' in to find a solution for both tweeter and midrange. Great! I am staying still patiently waiting for any news here!!! You are right, I played loud (very much loud) in clip mode for some seconds, my Accuphase maybe does not like going that low (ohms).... Has anybody ever had issue with the woofer, you know yesterday looking at the speakers I though it was a shame that a so well maintained pair of speakers was not working, there is letterally no scratch, no dent, nothing... but looking better with no grille... the midrange (both), It was like they just came from a "desert storm" campaign, they look like they are very, very used, but also looking at the ads on ebay or so they are the like, just do not fit with the other speakers and the beautiful wooden/black speaker. My woofer instead is really, I believe, like it was in the 90's, shining, the foam intact... just thinking out loud I love these speakers and I do not want to think to move on something different... I listen to a lot of speaker weekly, and the only decent one I would pick are Kharma, Martin Logan, B&W (not many...) Sonus Faber.... whose price is 100 times more the 3.5.....
Dino - I believe the Dynaudio D28AF / 3.5 tweeter is no longer produced. Rob would have an idea of what best to do. We are looking for a long-term solution for that tweeter.
Regarding unsound's correct power information - there is often confusion between steady-state (RMS) and music-power requirements. US's notes all refer to amplifier requirements for musical program, which is transient in nature and therefore does not generate much heat in the voice coil. The huge majority of failures are caused by underpowering and driving the speaker with a clipped signal, which overheats and burns out the driver. The other failure mode is eventual fatigue of the voice coil leads due to long excursions during many years of service. Someone on this forum mentioned a 7-year life-cycle, which seems reasonable if used vigorously. Safest mode is a large power amp and reasonable listening levels - turn off if you hear distortion. My bridged DR9s produce 1200 watts into 2 ohms - I don't worry about burning out drivers.
@dinopau, I haven't actually tried this, but you might be able to work around the Thiel 3.5's eq with a Roon Core, though I think you'll need one with an i7 processor chip in order to take advantage of the eq capabilities.
I'd strongly recommend taking tomthiels's recommendation to reverse the cable leads first, to rule out other considerations first.
@thielrules, The 3.5's midrange is much sturdier than you might be suggesting. Thiel recommended (depending on model year) between 40 or 50 and 250 Watts per channel for the 3.5's. That's for an 8 Ohm amplifier. Into the Thiel 3.5's 4 Ohm load with a quality amp that can double down, that would be 500 Watts per channel. Jim Thiel even suggested that 300 Watts per channel (8 Ohm rating) might be appropriate in some cases.
I've been using a 250 Watt per channel amp capable of doubling down without incident for years with my Thiel 3.5's. Look at the magnet assembly on those midranges, they could embarrass some woofers.
The paper surrounds can need maintenance from time to time but, despite one of the posters here complaining about mids, I think the consensus would suggest that the 3.5's mids are amongst the most natural sounding of all.
I'd hazard a guess that Thiel received more damaged drivers due to under powered amps than from over powered ones. The 3.5's eq with it's 12 dB boost at 20 Hz can put additional demands on the amplification, though the impedance bump at the that very frequency range mitigates the extra power demands some what.
Looking forward seeing you and Rob getting back to us with a positive outcome on midrange test. Any guesstimate on price? As for the tweeter, is this produced (Dynaudio D28AF, correct?)? if not what can be used without altering the crossover filter?
Lastly, if Rob still has my Bass eq (220V) and is gonna repairing one day, I am ALWAYS available to pay for the refurbishment.
Dinopau - hiss and noise from one channel means there is something wrong. Swapping leads can isolate the problem to its source component. If the verdict is noise from the right speaker, the problem is probably failed electrolytic capacitors. They don't last forever, and at ~ 30 years, their life-span is expiring. Direct replacements can be bought from Madisound, etc. for short money.
2.2ers - I received a pair of 2.2s serial #s 2697 & 2698 in mint condition, on loan from an old dealer from my tenure at Thiel . I recognize the veneer that I bought in upland Bolivia. It is a separate species of Pau Ferro which we renamed "Amberwood" to differentiate it from the more common lowland / purple Pau Ferro which we called "Morado". It's hard to believe that someone took such care - they are over 20 years old and pristine. Their use will be as my unmodified base reference as I make changes to my 2.2 workhorses. He will get his pair upgraded in appreciation of the loan.
3.5ers - The 3.5 EQ should be repairable. Someone here led me to a DIY schematic - very complete and thorough. I am forwarding that to Rob at CSS in case there might be some additional value there. Regarding the 3.5 midrange - Rob has samples of a new ScanSpeak driver coming for testing. The supplier says it should need no XO modification. Rob and I will confirm that or devise a xo update kit to make it work.
You own a very nice Accuphase system. I have always wanted to demo their gear. It certainly does not appear to be an electronics/speaker mismatch per se. Thank You for citing Mr. Gillum's attempt to repair the EQ and mentioning oblgny's assistance as well. I do not have any information on wether or not these devices are repairable? Between the collection of minds here, hope there is a viable solution at issue.
Jafant, I run my 3.5’s with a pre Accuphase c260, power amp Accuphase p360, cd Marantz UD7007, tuntable denon dp55k, tonearm SME 3009, all bought used except the cd. Cables kimber KS, and Audioquest both balanced. OBLGN also gave me his eq for FREE but the pre had some issue and was never gonna able using it as only one channel worked when the tape loop was on. I then bought another bass eq on eBay, same issue. Previously I shipped my original bass eq (count is 3...) to Mr Gillum that was unable to repair (mayby I didn’t say it was 220V?) and NEVER ship it back to me (Italy).
Thielrules Now I am really without music in my house and happy to listen scan speak is providing replacement, which I hope will be for both tweeter and midrange. Will the crossover need some modifications as well? thanks
The thing with the first order XO is that all drivers are exposed to a wide frequency band and the 3.5 mid-range is not able to handle a high power, rated at about 50 W. Been talking this afternoon to Rob about the various alternatives for this driver now that they can no longer be rebuild not replaced. Scan speak is promoting a driver as a replacement and Rob is now working on testing to see how they compare. May know more in 2 weeks. Have a few other alternatives that may do the job but they may require some adaptations to the opening as they have a slightly larger diameter. Stay tuned as measurements and listening tests are conducted.
As always, good to see you here. Whenever a query regarding the 3.5 model is posted, you are the first Panelist that enters my mind. As above, read over the post by dinopau and offer an opinion on his situation. I, for one, look forward to your audiot return my Audiophile friend.
Hope you are well and thawing out from Winter on this Spring day.
Previously, I’ve stated that Thiel struck me as Maggies with more bass. I stick with that.
I’ve had two pairs of the MMG -.one with the bass module which did ZIP to augment anything good about them - a pair of 3.6qr, a pair of 1.7 and a pair of 1.7i. With the exception of the MMG the one thing that kept me from keeping any of the others was their physicality. I have a fairly accommodating space for large speakers and whatnot, but I felt as though they were imposing on me. One very early morning as I was headed downstairs I looked ahead quickly and for a moment thought there was someone standing in my living room. Alas, as my sleep fog lifted and I came back to reality I saw it was just the right Maggie.
I absolutely enjoyed the Maggies and I remain a fan. For one, they’re a helluva lot lighter than Thiels are, and secondly they simply present music in a very engrossing, involving way. I spent a lot of time reacquainting myself with favorite records with them.
Though Thiel presents the bass better, I never felt the Maggies lacked it - even though by comparison they do. Both brands presented bass in what I think is a very organic, natural, uncolored manner. Thiel just offers more, along with a smaller physical - especially vertically - footprint.
When I return to being a full time “audiot” I’m quite sure I’ll be bouncing between these two again - especially since Coherent Source is in business.
The tweeter and the midrange of the left speaker of my 3.5 just do not work. I was listening at high volume in the attempt to override the hiss and noise from the right channel when all of a sudden only the woofer was working. Any tought? Anyone with the same issue? Thank you
The long-term mutually productive relationship between Thiel and Magnepan may be of interest here. We shared a large majority of our dealers. Dave Gordon came from Magnepan to be Thiel's national sales manager for a decade or more, when he returned there. Both products were well driven by the same source chains. But their presentation was fundamentally different. A Thiel speaker acts as a point source, reproducing what the microphone heard (if we ignore all chain anomalies.) A Magnepan acts as a large dipole, creating its signature sound field in the playback room (augmenting what the microphone heard.) The two approaches aren't really competitive, they are thoroughly different. It is not uncommon for listeners to have two systems, one built around each type of speaker.
One of Thiel's first reviews was from Scott Estes writing for "The Sensible Sound", who was and remained a committed Magnepan user. He appreciated in print the Thiel presentation, but he wasn't tempted to trade in his Maggies. Hello Scott, if you're out there.
Thanks! I am excited about the Magnepans. I'm not giving up my Thiels though! These are in a different league than the Magnepans of the past in terms of coherence and bass delivery. I heard deep real bass and an apparently seamless frequency range so they've improved that ribbon tweeter, or the crossover. Or both. I should have them in a few days and will report back. I had some small Magnepans about 30 years ago and outside of small ensemble / chamber music they weren't very worthwhile. These are in another class all together.
pwhinson Nice! score on the 20.7 loudspeakers. Between these new speakers and your CS 2.4 speakers, you will have the best of both worlds. Happy Listening!
@Pwhinson, a first order cross-over might be the only cross-over capable of time and phase coherence. The single driver Quad ESL 63’s and the quasi-multi driver Ohm Walsh, etc., did it without an electrical cross-over. Even with a first order cross-over a multi driver loudspeaker will need physically staggered drivers, and as you pointed out wide bandwidth drivers, that will in all probablility need compensating components added to the first order cross-overs to behave as as a time and phase coherent loudspeaker system.
@unsound. Richard Vandersteen and Jim Thiel believed the ONLY thing that can make multi driver speakers time and phase coherent IS a first order crossover. Nothing more nothing less. That assumes the drivers are capable of taking advantage of the first order crossover and its more difficult slopes.
(1) YES there are two drivers in ADDITION to the ribbon tweeter in a 20.7...so, NO there is NOT one "panel/driver" in a 20.7. Maybe the confusion arises because you have two drivers in a single panel in the 20.7 and just about all the Magnepans...and in the higher tiers they blend a long narrow ribbon tweeter into the panels. Its a three-way speaker inclusive of the ribbon tweeter.
(2) YES these speakers do produce a perfect square wave because the crossover IN THE SPEAKER is first order and time and phase coherent. Unlike the earlier 3 series speakers there is no external crossover, rather its now built into the body of the .7 series speakers.
(3) YES my reference to a "crossover" was to the EXTERNAL VANDERSTEEN crossover for the transition from the 20.7s to the Vandersteen subs.
(3) YES the external Vandersteen crossover is ALSO first order.
(4) YES I did prefer the sound of the 20.7’s by themselves to that of the sound produced by the 20.7s, the vandersteen crossover, and the vandersteen subs as I stated above. The Maggies were crossed over at 100 hz to the Vandy subs (pretty high if you ask me). Still, I expected more from the combination thinking that this would be a very clean way to integrate subs into the Maggies but what I found was that on the 20.7 (and I guess on the 30.7 with the extra bass panel per side), the bass is far superior than what Maggies used to be able to achieve in the past. It was clean and coherent and DEEP. The Vandy subs just smeared not only the deep bass but the upper bass as well. I really expected more. But the 20.7 is truly a great speaker I would say especially for classical music. Truly extraordinary I think.
I also have since bought a pair of 20.7s (!). I liked em that much.
Also out of curiosity, why would you need a cross over for the Magnepan? Isn't it just a single panel?
The crossover was probably for the subs. A lot of people don't like subs with Maggies because they feel that the sub is sluggish compared to the mylar panel.
There are many different models of maggies, though. The 3.6R, for instance, has three drivers per speaker and an external crossover that separates the lows, which go to the bass panels, from everything else. There is also an internal crossover for the midrange panel and ribbon tweeter.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
