Thiel Owners
just received this from Rob as well: "hi Kent, Hope
everything on your end is going well. I did some research, and here is what I
found. In January 2007 the CS3.7 was introduced (original version). On Jan 12
2008 revision 1 was introduced at approximately serial number #517,18. On
October 4 2008, revision 2 was initiated at approximately serial number
#881,82. Revision 2 is the current layout"
Thanks, |
Tom and All, I hope you all had a great weekend! This was the response I got from Rob regarding the aluminum caps on the 3.7s. "All CS3.7’s incorporated an aluminum cap. The earlier versions were anodized black, and there were some cases of the anodizing turning gold in color. The later CS3.7’s incorporated a Black Powder Coat on the caps, which would not change colors. I don’t know the serial number in which this change was made, but it was around the #800 serial number. No sonic issues with either version." |
Rosami - there are hypothetical failures which could damage a driver. Other DIYs here might know specifics. A feed resistor on the tweeter, or even midrange, could short rather than going open (highly unlikely). Such failures would usually be visible, as in burned parts from current overload. Look at your crossovers and if they look OK they probably are OK. Driver failure is generally caused one of two ways:A: lead wire fatigue from long, bold useB: voice coil burn-melt from over-load, almost always associated with clipping amp. Anyone else have thoughts? |
Thanks Tom. i anxiously look forward to hearing more from you regarding the 3.6 crossover upgrade - and results of the Thiel bankruptcy proceedings and wish you a good outcome. An additional question for you or one of the very knowledgeable techies in our group: if I get my drivers (tweeters/mids) rebuilt and then learn that there’s an issue with the crossovers (bad cap or whatever) that needs to be addressed, is it possible that a crossover problem could damage the newly rebuilt drivers? Thanks. This group is the best! |
Rosami and Jon and all - Yes, there are various new crossovers and yes, what is being learned on the 2.4, 2.2, 1.6 and PowerPoint all applies directly to the 3.6. And I have a pair of 3.6s on hand. My present work includes developing my measurement and listening systems to apply the required rigor to the upgrades. Regarding your questions of purchase, I can make no comment until the Thiel Audio bankruptcy settles. |
tomthiel I second rosami. I am patiently looking forward to the XO upgrades for the 3.6s. |
tomthiel it seems that the 2.4 crossover upgrades are pretty well finalized now and that a lot was learned regarding upgraded components and the effects on how the speakers sound. Since I own 3.6s, I’m interested in learning how much of the info gained from the 2.4 upgrades will be able to be applied to a 3,6 upgrade. Will it be necessary to start from scratch in designing the 3.6 crossover upgrades, and is it realistic to hope to be able to actually buy a completed crossover package from Rob G. In the near future? Thanks! |
Keep in mind when you compare the bass response of different speakers, it is hard to eliminate the room response of the different speakers. Several times I was ready to replace drivers of my 3.5 only to find out with near field measurement that the drivers were perfect but bass nodes and boundary effects caused the distortions. When I replaced the 3.5 with the 3.7, the room effects also changed significantly. |
@tmsrdg, It was a long time ago, but when I lived in NYC one my favorite dealers carried amongst others both Spectral and Thiel. They often rotated both in and out. I think this was up to the 2 2’s and 5’s time period, but pre co-ax. My recollection was that the combination demonstrated both of their attributes, but the Spectral while capable of handling the low impedance of say the CS 5’s, was happier with the above 4 Ohm and above Thiel’s. The Spectrals were admirably lighting fast, very detailed, smooth, with no electronic smear what so ever. Ultimately I found them a bit thin, threadbare and bleached. I can imagine them having their admirers though. The Spectral’s were said to be rather particular about matching pre’s and speaker cables, with their own pre and MIT cables being very strongly recommended! Hope this helps. |
I've got both the 3.7 and 2.2s and I've definitely noticed that the 2.2s have more prominent bass. I'm not surprised to hear that they have a little more than is completely flat. It's good quality and very enjoyable. They were my first Thiels and I consider them to be pretty much perfect living room speakers. They are so enjoyable, don't do anything wrong really. I bought them used for a second system and they turned me into a Thiel guy. They are an obscene bargain used. For just sitting and listening to music at moderate volume and solely for enjoyment I don't think it gets that much better. |
The 2.2 bass was our first passive radiator and as such it coupled to rooms better than anticipated and came out slightly under-damped and somewhat (1.5dB) higher in level below 200 Hz. It has the fullest bass of any Thiel product, which was warmly (ha ha) received by the public, but considered by Jim to be in error. Note the 1/3 octave Stereophile graph showing some excess bass. Notice also in the Stereophile review that the cabinet is possibly the quietest Thiel ever, including the new x.7s with curved panels. ( I have a fix for that 300 Hz and ringing, plus a hardening agent for the MDF baffle to increase rigidity. The 2.2 is the first (1990) cabinet designed from the ground up with in-house 5-axis CNC capability. I went wild with braces because they were so downright feasible! Note also the quality of the custom caps - those yellow styrene bypasses were from world-class German film / tin foil. The tweeter was our own from the ground up design for the CS5 - it is a powerhouse, even by today's standards. The woofer is the first iteration of the double cone with curved front and straight back. It is polypropylene with air core and works extremely well. That design became the basis for the present double aluminum with styrene fillet midranges. The most ordinary element is the midrange, but even that "paper" cone has polypropylene fiber reinforcement. As you might guess, I don't feel the need to make many excuses for the 2.2. As Beetle mentioned, they are my workhorse which I use to critique recordings in the making. Pops and others have expressed fondness for the pre-coax format. I agree that there is something simpler and cleaner in the wave launch. The coincident coax addresses a fundamental problem with first-order networks: vertical integration of the lobed radiation patterns. The coax solves it. But, IF you get your ear at the correct 35" up, the problem is solved at that listening position, obviating the need for the coax, which does introduce low-level anomalies of its own. The x.7 coax is better because the wavy surface spreads the tweeter-edge wave nicely. Todd, you are not nuts. There are some significant strengths of the 2.2, and resolution is less in the the bass and midrange. The new caps and treatments will upgrade the overall performance considerably. Beetle, the 3.7 XO pic you attached is for all 3 drivers. The mid and tweeter have separate motors (unlike the 2.4, etc.) with the midrange XO having the greatest part count (16 compared to 17 for woofer and tweeter combined). |
More upgrade for less cost than the more complex 2.4.The coax has separate XO for tweeter and midrange, right? Ie, not mechanical like the 2.4. is this pic for all 3 drivers? Or just the coax? https://hi-fi.com.pl/images/numeryhfim/2012-03/jpg/44-50_03_2012_07.jpg |
Regarding bass extension: I own the 3.7s and 2.2s. The 3.7s have been in my system ever since buying them last year and I'm preparing to sell the 2.2s. I was noticing some "crackle" in the tweeter of one of the 3.7 speakers and decided to change out the 3.7 for the 2.2 in an effort to narrow down the problem. Turns out I had a frayed speaker cable. Here's the thing. My perception was that the 2.2 actually offered more realistic bass extension. I had one of the Bach cantatas on for reference. Bach uses just one contrabass, but it needs to be heard. I felt the 2.2 did this better. But, the overall texture of the recording was much better with the 3.7. I could hear the lute in the ensemble readily for instance. That was not so clear with the same selection rendered on the 2.2. Totally nuts, or what? Todd |
Beetle - a 3.7 upgrade is quite straightforward since the drivers are so well behaved, there is not much circuitry in there. The tweeter caps could be upgraded to CSAs with perhaps an ultra bypass around the 1uF styrene/tin. Electrolytics to film for permanence. Resistors to Mills MRAs. Film feed coil on the woofer. More upgrade for less cost than the more complex 2.4. You'll see more from me after the Thiel Audio bankruptcy settles. Tom |
If you already have CS2.4 the XO upgrade is a no-brainer, IMO. Sure, it’s not the last word in low bass extension and definition but not much music happens below 30 cycles. You’re missing only some organ notes and the left most key or two on a piano. As for the 99% of the musical spectrum, oh my goodness! If you’re really pining for everything, adding a pair of subs seems sensible. I would probably get the new Vandersteen adjustable versions if I had the funds. Or patiently wait for used Thiel subs and XO to come up on the used market. If you’re not yet an owner and wondering what Thiel to buy, there is zero doubt in my mind that the 3.7/2.7 coax is the best Thiel driver ever, and I would put it among the best from any manufacturer. Super low resonance design so you’re hearing music, not distortion. The 2.4 coax is excellent in this regard but the low slope crossover is a real challenge, and the wavy x.7 coax really solves this problem. If Tom Thiel comes up with an upgrade for the 3.7 . . . |
Andy - I second your motion. As car guys say, the least expensive option is the one you have. So if you have 2.4s, then upgrading resistors and caps is a huge bang for the buck. I concur with the 2 sub solution. The CS2 - 8" woofer just can't move tons of air. Two smaller subs definitely trumps one larger one. I use Thiel SmartSubs . . . just because. But they are noisy and not presently repairable, so I can't recommend them. If you can cross a pair of subs properly, everything gets big. |
Sometimes you take it for granted what you have. After hearing a few garden varieties speakers even at pretty high price, you realize how good the CS2.4. The only thing I wish for is a bit more bass and I suspect some would agree. I guess the solution is: 1. If you like 2.4 but something better, then try to get another 7 ... that is either 2.7 or 3.7. 2. If you still want to keep the 2.4, upgrade the xover with audiophile quality caps. 3. Augment the CS2.4 with two high quality sub's - one for the left and oe for the right channel. |
Bighempin - if you contact Rob re the cap / nacelle on the 3.7, you might also ask the following: Does he know the serial number breaks for the 3 versions of the 3.7? I have developed XO schematics for the original, revision 1 and revision 2, but do not know where they occurred. If you find out, please share it with us all. Thanks. Tom |
I actually found a guy who has some 2.7s and 3.7s available. I am interested in both, I’m just waiting on pricing and pictures. The 3.7s have a serial number in the 600’s. I have read, in this thread perhaps, that the early original production run of the 3.7s had a metal dome that was tweaked in later runs for a composite(i think) dome. I am assuming a serial number in the 600s would be a second or later production run, can anyone confirm this? And does anyone know if there are any pros and or cons, or problems, with either version of the dome? Thanks! |
@tmsrdg and @ronkent Just for full transparency, I am somewhat limited in experience and gear listened to but ronkent is correct that I definitely enjoyed the sound of the BHK amp paired with ronkents 3.7s. I thought it was amazing. Definitely worth the trip to Boulder to check them out if you can make the trip. I found some very interesting mint Thiel speakers today that are available for sale. I am waiting for pictures and in the process of setting up a demo, negotiating for them, and working out some logistical issues. Fingers crossed I might be a Thiel owner soon enough. |
RonKent - Re: "hi Tom, thanks for the clarification on phase, absolute phase, and all those other phase things."To clarify, you did not err in your vocabulary. The term "phase" is applied widely to both matter of phase and matters of polarity. I was trying to clarify that there are various related happenings, which would be better served by using two different terms: Polarity to refer to the direction of the signal and Phase to refer to the inner relationships of various elements of the signal. The term Absolute Phase is often substituted for Polarity, which would be the more precise term. |
@pwhinson. greetings. i actually never had a sub when i had the 2.4's so i did not know how they would work. the sub worked great with my .7 speakers. your new speakers look fantastic. i sure look forward to hearing how they do once broken in. Basically from my experience, a new speaker needs a lot of breaking in. my 3.7's sounded terrible first out of the box and took at least a week to sound decent. So I would not worry if they are not fantastic for the first week or so. |
james63 I know exactly how you mean- I could never get into the Revel nor Aerial "sound". I do feel that B&W and Sonus Faber are very fine indeed and did consider each floorstander until I met Thiel Audio. It is going to take a special speaker to best Thiel. Good to see you again. Hope you are well , keep us posted as you audition other brand(s). Happy Listening! |
@ronkent I’m less optimistic about properly and seamlessly integrated a couple of subs with the 2.4’s than you are but the proof is in the pudding and if you’re happy that’s all that matters for you obviously. I took delivery today on a pair of Paradigm Persona 9H’s today to fool around with for a week or two. So far we’ve dialed the in pretty good, and dsp’d the bottom end (powered subs built in). I’ll post my impressions shortly. Out of the gate they’re a little tilted up a bit on the top end as people generally rag on them about, but a little dsp up there with only a few filters does the trick to bring that down a bit. They do seem to be doing alot right. My room is pretty well damped though and I’m surprised they’re a bit bright on the top end. Of course there’s not a huge amount of music up there but this is some. Driving the top end with my Pass 150.8 which is hardly even knows they’re there since most of the heavy lifting is being done by the 1400 watts of digital power. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4t9h6pfk4mf7v8m/IMG_2593.JPG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/d00i6maudbymwv8/IMG_1952.JPG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/qed8aizmaynlz69/IMG_4006.JPG?dl=0 |
As others have posted I too am casually looking to upgrade my 10 year old 2.4CS speakers. I took a pretty long break from audio. I just picked up other hobbies but I am starting to get the bug again (used headphones for a year or two in there too). Anyway after a hand full of demos of speakers costing at lot more I came home to feel they were simply a side step from my Thiels in some ways and that I would be paying a lot of money for slightly more resolution in the upper mids/highs. I did find the new speakers with new tweeter designs to be a good bit better in the highs though. More air and less matter of fact kind of detail I get from the Thiels. I should mention I run two JL audio e112 subs actively crossed over at 50hz and it takes the Thiels to a whole new level. They are cheap and plenty good enough for the 2.4 or 3.7s. Well worth a try for any thiel owner with a large room. The other day I listened to a pair of b&w 802D3 for just a song or two and the bass was not as good as the slam or quality I get from my 2.4s with subs. The highs and mids were very detailed, almost hyper detailed but my ears gave up fast and I tagged out. I will not be buying B&Ws, just too bright and a little unnatural sounding. A long time ago I got the older b&w 802D2 in the same room same system as a pair of thiel 3.7s and I remember the 802D2s bass being stronger so adding subs has greatly changed my Thiels and should not be over looked if you don’t mind the extra wires and clutter. I also tried the sonus faber olympica iii on classes amps this week for a few songs for something different and while nice they did not inspire me. They look amazing though but for $13,000 they are pretty meh. Might still be worth a real audition as my dealer is super close and I like to work with them if possible but first impression is that they are over priced. My dealer has the paradigm personas on the floor. Not sure the models but one set was $35k-ish and the other was $10k so I might give them a try. I don’t like the plastic look of them though. Maybe with my subs I could get away with the $10k model. I am playing with the idea of buy a pair of wilsons used. I always liked the Sophia 3 and Sasha and used they are now in my price range. I also might try to run down a pair of focal sopra 2s to try. I have kind of gotten out of audio and I am much more sensible on what I want to spend. I am probably looking at around $10k, new or used and will be keeping the subs in the system. My other local dealer carries revels and has the salon 2 and F228be on the floor so I will try those too. Last time I heard the salon 2 I was impressed but non engaged emotionally. Not sure why. At this point my demos have just made me appreciate how good the 2.4s are for the money or maybe my priorities have changed enough that little improvements don’t impress me these days. |
hi Tom, thanks for the clarification on phase, absolute phase, and all those other phase things. i had mixed up polarity with phase but your comments make me realize how many things can go wrong in the process. Also thanks for the info on DC. I will have to get the Dancing album. your comment about WH was interesting as i found many of their albums clean but not real sounding. My fave artist on WH was Michael Hedges who was such a great talent and gone way to soon |
