Thiel Owners
Unfortunately a rebuild of 3.5 drivers isn't always an option. Mine came with replacement mids (mentioned above) and the originals are nowhere to be found. So I would like to find a replacement that is close in spec to the original (which mine may be, hence the effort to confirm). Simply waiting for a newer model to surface at a good price seems short-sighted to me as long as a suitable replacement can be sourced. As they say, "it ain't love, but it ain't bad..." |
Beetle - the amount of toe-in is highly dependent on the room. How wide is your room? With enough side space and absorption or diffraction at the first side reflection point, Thiel speakers are designed for straight-ahead positioning. Dropping off the direct tweeter axis smooths out the measured and heard tweeter response. In Thiel's 20' wide showroom, straight ahead sounded best for any and all models. |
Ketchup makes a very good point. When I reviewed upgradible status for all the models, we nixed the 3.5 due to unavailability of drivers. As long as Rob can rebuild them, that is a safe and effective method of keeping your 3.5s on the air. A further point of history is that the 3.5 was near the end of Thiel's "normal" driver use. The 3.5 used modified, European, best of form drivers of the day. We had adopted Finite Element Analysis and were developing more sophisticated driver motors, cone geometries and surrounds for greater dynamic range and transient precision. By the following 3.6 generation, the drivers were completely engineered in-house and custom built to our specs by Vifa. Every driver is qualitatively more sophisticated in every way than those in the 3.5. So, as Ketchup warns, a lot of effort could be wasted trying to find replacement drivers that Thiel was not able to find. The 3.5 has a following. I vote to work with Rob for rebuilds. I will not be hot-rodding the 3.5, but can recommend upgrade parts for anyone to install themselves. |
@thosb. I will add some updated pictures of the vintage room... like most speakers that reside there, some tweaks and changes required to get best of them... so far the Thiel require more toe in than the Apogee Stage, Vandersteen 1ci or the Quad ESL. The Nakagoka 110 can be a bit tipped up so I swapped in a Grado Ref Platinum last eve... that fixed that... finally my heavily modified Audionics CC2 solid state amp does a better job on the low end.... all fun more photos later... |
@thosb thanks - I greatly enjoy this thread and the joyful spirit of music lovers helping each other get the most of of the various systems w Thiel speakers often as the centerpiece. the most excellent and forthcoming person u got the 2.3 from assured me they had the upgraded double magnet drivers and crossover changes - he knew all about it. that will be one thing I check IF I break them open.... having fun ... |
The original 3.5’s mids had paper surrounds.That is very interesting. I remember my 3.5 mids having a really thin, flimsy surround that definitely did not appear to be rubber. They seemed to have permanent krinkles in them. That does not seem like a very good material for a surround, but what do I know. |
I’m worried you guys might be chasing something that doesn’t exist (a replacement 3.5 mid). Thiel told me that those drivers were no longer available years ago, so I had to have mine rebuilt by them. You might be better off looking into rebuilding the original drivers and forgetting about finding a replacement. Even if you find something close, it won’t be right. Even better would be to move to a different model. The 3.5, in my experience, did not sound good in the mids and highs anyway. The 3.5 is very old, and I would like to think that the later Thiel models have surpassed the 3.5 (that’s just a guess as I have only heard the 3.5s.). |
tomic601 - one thing to check is the coax drivers, be sure your 2.3s have the upgraded drivers - sn#4567 was the first to have been converted to these at the factory per Rob. I bought my 2.3s used, lower serial number, but luckily the coax (and xover) had already been upgraded. The upgrade gets you the same coax driver and xover as 2.4s, if I understood Rob correctly. Here's Rob's full response to one of my questions re this upgrade - There were two versions of the CS2.3. New style, and old style. The new style began at serial numbers 4567. The new style consisted of having two magnets on each of the coaxial drivers. The old style had only one magnet. Both versions used ceramic magnets, and the CS2.4 incorporates Neo magnets. Much stronger magnet 10x. The CS2.4 coax cannot be used with the CS2.3 properly. The coax rebuild is $250 each, plus shipping, and can be rebuilt in either version. The new style coax had a two part change to the crossover network as well. You can remove your coax for inspection, and tell whether it is a double ceramic magnet or only one, like the old style. If you need to rebuild both coaxes, then the associated crossover parts are free. Let me know how I can help. |
Bluetone - Please pursue this 3.5 midrange matter. Make a chart of the # and parameters original driver and the various replacements. As ketchup says the original cone was paper. Kevlar is "better", but its resonances would be different plus it gives up 1dB of sensitivity to the 8640. For perspective, we must find something very close to the original because the whole speaker system (enclosure, xo, other drivers, etc.) works together and changing any parameter of the midrange driver requires re-engineering the xo. That is a possibility as long as most of the parameters match and the ones that don't match are friendly. This investigation would make lots of people happy. It is not on my current list because of its scope and competing priorities. Keep up the good work. - Tom |
I think I may have found something here. Maybe someone could take a look and see if this could be the original mid for the 3.5, Scanspeak 13M/8640 . Here is a link to the spec sheet, https://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/archive/13m-8640-00.pdf Or, this version, 13M/8636 with kevlar cone as opposed to paper in the 8640 linked above. http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/archive/13m-8636-00.pdf Unfortunately I’m at the beginning of my learning curve, so maybe someone could chime in with an informed perspective. Thanks |
quick follow up on my previous post regarding CS 3.5 midrange replacement drivers. Perusing the Madisound website, they have this https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-5-midrange/scan-speak-13m-midrange-replacement-speaker/ which is probably closer to the original Scanspeak midrange found on the 3.5s, and it has the custom mounting plate. The 12W/8524G speaker that I have in my 3.5s will fit, but its a 4 screw mount, as opposed to the 3 screw mount with the flange. From Madisound website regarding the 10F/8424G replacement...."
The specifications and response curve of the 10F/8424G is very close to the original and long discontinued Scan-Speak midranges. PBN Audio uses these as replacements for the 13M/8636 in their legacy speakers and speak glowingly of the results." There seems to be a significant difference in the curves for these speakers. I guess the thing that makes the 12W/8524G speaker attractive is a price of @$60 vs $220 for the 10F/8424G. Unfortunately what I don't have is the curve for the original midrange Scanspeak driver. |
Now I am looking to buy speakers used that new would be $20k- $30k and hope to pick them up for $10-$15k. I have given up the idea of buying new speakers for $10,000 or less.It's interesting that speakers cost so much nowaday. $20K-$30 is about what an average car would cost today! My theory is that much of high end speakers still requires manual labor such as veneering, gluing, sanding and so on ... And human labor cost has inflated so much more than the government would have liked you to believe. It will be interesting to know which speakers you end up buying and how they are compared to the CS2.4. |
@james63Without knowing what new sound you're looking for, I suggest upgrading the crossovers. The CS2.4 cabinet is very good and the drivers are outstanding. There are some *really* nice gains to be had with improved passive parts. This is a huge thread but it might be worth your time to look at posts from Tom Thiel starting January 2018. That said, if you're looking for more bass you need to add subwoofers or get something entirely different. For myself, the 2.4 bass is good enough for me (~30 Hz) and the modded XO otherwise puts the SQ on par with $$$ designs. |
how much do you think the Thiel CS2.4 would be retailed for in today money (if they are built today?)Using a simple inflation calculator, the standard CS2.4 would retail for ~$5500 today. But that ignores much steeper inflation for copper and magnets, so call it $6000-8000. Adding the passive parts I put in could push retail north of $10K. |
Anyd2 I would guess around $8,000. I am speaker shopping now and nothing in the $8,000-$13,000 range has stood out as better. Just different (some worse). I have owned the 2.4 for about 10 years and I feel that you need to be shopping in the $15,000 range to better the 2.4s at today’s pricing. Now I am looking to buy speakers used that new would be $20k- $30k and hope to pick them up for $10-$15k. I have given up the idea of buying new speakers for $10,000 or less. |
Out of curiosity with some of the discussions on speaker pricing, how much do you think the Thiel CS2.4 would be retailed for in today money (if they are built today?) Also I know that most speaker manufacturers use CNC machines to cut the panel into shape? But in term of gluing them today, is it still human manual labors? |
Jon - as I've mentioned before, I have made a study of auditory neurology and experimented with who hears what how. I would say that you 'get it' and in a manner that was formative to Thiel taking on the challenge of coherence way back when. We experienced and observed not only your "relaxing", but also emotional, memory and other musical connections in the coherent presentation which were not present in the phase-time-scrambled (normal) presentation. So, as a subject, your experience would have supported our study, even before we knew what we were studying. One reason "it" is hard to explain is because "it" is not analytical. In fact the analytical brain prides itself at the descrambling task and a different kind of pleasure built around that cognitive success of restructuring a cohesive sound from its parts. I am drifting toward epistemology - how we know what we know - which is via very a broad count of different mechanisms. I say that the phase-time thing connects us to the music in a more direct, primal, whole manner. And you are experiencing that as relaxing. I call it 'coming home'. |
I don't know if I get the time/phase coherence thing or not. I don't think I could describe it but maybe it's why I find Thiels so relaxing. When I changed from B&W to Thiel there were some obvious differences that I could describe but also a sense of being able to sit back and relax without being tempted to lean forward or put other effort into listening that I hadn't experienced before. Maybe that was me getting it without realizing what was going on. |
tomthiel - as always, thoughtful perspectives. On my first listen to a Thiel, I certainly "got it" or was "it got me"? As luck played its part, I had heard the Vandy 2 series a few times previously. To my ears, any differences between these (2) brands were not subtle. I found my loudspeaker brand on that Spring day. Not only was the weather beautiful there in Baltimore MD so was the aural experience. Testimony, is the highest compliment. Happy Listening! |
Jim and Richard were both extremely frugal engineers and approached the work very similarly in broad strokes. The largest budgetary difference was the cabinet, which gave Van significant sonic-budget advantages. People compare and contrast sonic particulars; I find it more fruitful to contrast either or both of these product lines against all the other serious contenders such as Wilson, B&W, or the planars and hybrids that completely side-step coherence. Their task is perhaps a couple orders of magnitude simpler and solvable than the time and phase game. They out-sell and over-price Thiel-Van by large multiples, and get plenty of respect from reviewers and the marketplace. It serves us well to remember that our perspective is peculiar; what some call a cult, what most say is unimportant and un-hearable. Those who 'get it' (appreciate the time and phase aspects of music) generally don't go back. I am pleased that you guys are out there enjoying what took blood sweat and tears to create. |
model 2 have just now with recent price increase caught up with inflation..... but my sense is both Jim T and Richard frugal engineers where cost and target price points are paid attention to. The Quattro is a stunning value and with carbon tweeter outperforms the 5 a in every way except maybe the bottom 40 HZ I know, I owned 5a for years...even the new Treo Ct has better mid and up performance than the vaunted 5a i would LOVE to see Thiel get back in the time and phase fight..... |
@andy2 and @tomthiel. Its good to hear that Vandersteens are now voiced more similarly to Thiels. People also used to say Vandersteens had a shelved midrange which helped simulate lots of "depth" and some folks believe that has NOT changed. What is still an issue for me is how the pricing of the product has really climbed to rather crazy levels, with the 5a at the time it was discontinued, at $30K....it sure didn't start out at $30K. And the Quattro is $15K. |
Yes, recording one's own or otherwise knowing intimately the nature of your source material is necessary to not get lost in the woods. When setting up my studio this time around, I began with my analog bias built on a vintage Ampex deck. But all things considered, I landed on archival digital. My mics are Earthworks QTC40s (3Hz to 40kHz ruler flat x <50 microseconds settling time) in a coincident stereo array to Metric Halo ULN-8 conversion and stored via ethernet on a Mac solid state drive. MH SpectraFoo is my primary analysis tool with real-time listening (live and/or playback) and visual tools. The simultaneous multi-input environment helps integrate the analysis with the auditory experience, and playback in the recording room minimizes excess variables. |
for those of you w access to live unamplified music consider your own experiments in the chain.... for analog get a Revox A-77 and a couple of decent microphones....hint check out the excellent recordings made by the late ( RIP ) Charley Hansen of Ayre....for his list of relatively inexpensive gear....all told this analog experiment will set you back about $2k....with good headphones, this will rival just about anything..... for simple digital a Zoom H6 can be amazing...wayyyy under $1 k otherwise get an Ayre A to D, and of course microphones.... then start comparing to what you heard.... a fun journey....your results may vary.... |
flat frequency response is just part of the work time domian, energy storage and release are also important.... yes i am a Vandersteen fan for sure... but as I dial them into my room the 2.3 are quite good i will remove the bottom larger access plate.....if required, removing the passive radiator to access xover is not imo a good design tradeoff....especially mounted from backside of baffle as it appears to be...... as for no standards....true....so to learn where in the chain..things go wrong.....built a pretty good mobile recording rack.....let me tell you it is microphones..... fun |
Hi Tom, It was very well said. I understand the nature of the problem completely. I guess all I can say is that in a world where we have equipment makers such as DAC, preamp, amp, and last but not least speakers, and of course recording studios, each have their own ways of doing things. All I can say is how to try to fit in given all the variables. As for how to voice a speaker, it's interesting that we have brands such as Sonus Faber, Spendor, Vandersteen who in the past tend to have a sound that is some what warm and musical, but have since become a lot more neutral in their sound lately. In my personal design, when I design speakers with very flat frequency response, in order to pull that off, my external components have to be of fairly high quality (such as xover cap, front end electronics, cables ...) otherwise the sound will be somewhat on the harsh sound. I have heard stories in which people have demoed Thiel speakers at the show room which sounded fabulous, but then they were very disappointed when they took the speakers home using their less than optimal equipment. The brands which I have mentioned above whose sound has gone a lot more neutral lately may be because the quality of the ancillary equipment is now so much better than before, that they feel comfortable to be much neutral now without sacrificing sound quality. |
as i mentioned above i have a set of the Sound Anchors for earlier Thiel 2 series. i had to use them because the speakers did allow me to level them or adjust the spikes up and down. with the 2.4's they were not needed. however i never had an outrigger set for the 2.4's but found great success in sound improvement by using the big brass feet from MapleShade. I use those feet under all my electronics but the speaker feet allow for them to be physically attached to the speakers. remember that with those feet, the bigger they are, the better the sound. |
Andy - that point of "hotter than they should be" is of great interest. It amazes me that there are no real standards regarding target speaker response - "what should be". The scientific work being done at JBL, the Canadian Research Lab, etc. centers on user preference. Think about that. Record producers second-guess end user equipment and preferences and . . . it's sometimes called "the wild west". Jim's position was philosophical as much as anything else: that the speaker just like other components should replicate its input signal. At the time that position was quite novel, even controversial, but over elapsed time it has become fairly standard practice with the largest deviations being bass level. I am not a Vandersteen expert, but it seems that over the years his products migrated from very full bass and steadily falling treble toward flat frequency response, along with KEF, the Canadians and many other design houses. I suggest that a Thiel compared with a modern Van would measure quite similarly, which was not true in distant years past. The puzzle is not solvable until everybody makes recordings balanced for flat system playback, like Audioquest, Chesky, Reference Recordings and similar knowledgeable producers do. Until that time, it is far safer to balance a speaker rich and forgiving so it doesn't exacerbate recording problems. Jim actually disdained making such a compromise, citing its irrationality, and Thiel took it on the chin in many ways. |
