Beetle - thanks for the link.Tmsrdg - I'll speak to the geriatric speaker problem. Yes, there are concerns, but not very centered on ageing of materials in Thiels. We paid lots of attention to longevity, our finishes have ultraviolet screening agents, driver surrounds are rubber for very long life, etc. If someone places the speakers in direct sun without the grilles, there may be some hardening/stiffening of the surrounds to raise resonance frequencies. I suggest keeping them out of direct sun and with their grilles on.
The main concern is fatigue of the tinsel leads in the drivers. We spec'd really good braided leads, but they eventually fail, especially if overheated. The CS5 drivers are presently serviceable via CoherentSource Service and/or their manufacturers. Work is being done to stabilize that service into the indefinite future. The other potential vulnerability is crossover capacitors. The CS5 is pretty bulletproof. Almost all of the caps are film, primarily film and foil, which have extremely long lives (indeterminate.) There are only 6 electrolytic caps, all in parallel shaping circuits, so their failure would be quite benign. Thiel used ultra high quality electrolytic caps with a rated service life of 40 years - but speakers generally are used far less than service ratings assume. As mentioned in the bulletin Beetle attached, storage is an electrolytic cap's worst enemy. Another hazard of old electronics is solder joints. The CS5 was when we chose Alpha's SAC305 solder which is used by NASA for space duty gear. I've never seen one fail, but retouching those hundreds of solder joints would increase peace of mind.
In short, I think that age is a problem in old speakers, but much less of a problem in old Thiels because we considered longevity in our mission.
|
|
Tomthiel and the Thiel Owners Thread
I bought my CS 2.3s in 2000 while owning a Linn source and electronics.
LP12 > Karin pre > LK280 > CS 2.3 using Linn standard interconnects and K20 speaker wire.
In 2017 I upgraded my system after my Karin and LK280 finally died. I bought a new TT, a slightly used Linn pre and an old Linn recapped amp. My system then was:
Klimax LP12 > KK/1 > Klout > CS 2.3 using Chord Sarum T interconnects and Chord Epic speaker wire.
This major $$ upgrade was a revelation as to what I was hearing coming out of the speakers. Between the TT and pre I was hearing so much detail that I never knew existed within the groves of my vinyl. The klout also allowed quite a bit more bass to come through. However, the system was too bright and fatiguing. The Linn pre was very detailed but way too sparkly. I sold the pre and bought a Pass headphone amp. I did this because it was cheaper that buying a "true" Pass pre and it had a very good preamp section in it. Now I was running:
Klimax LP 12 > HPA1 > Klout > CS 2.3
What a difference the preamp section in that little HPA1 made. The Thiel's started to come alive. I mostly noticed the vast improvement in the bass control. I was on a roll now. I sold the Klout and bought a Pass X 250.8.
WOW. That amp had such grip on those Thiel's. The speakers opened up so much that I was really able to appreciate my front end. I was now running:
LP 12 > HP1A > x 250.8 > CS 2.3
Th next obvious upgrade was to a true Pass pre. I decided on a Pass pre for the synergy. This upgrade brought me to my present system:
LP 12 > XP 22 > X 250.8 > CS2.3
With this new pre the soundstage completely opened up with wonderful imaging and such tight bass. When I put on an AAA acoustic record, I turn down the lights, close my eyes, and swear that I am attending a house concert.
It has taken me 20 years and all these upgrades to make my 2.3s the weakest link in my system. And that is really saying something for the quality of my "little CS 2.3". |
Yyz. Great video thanks for posting the link ! I never thought about all the handling and changes to make the cabinets!! Tom thiel do you think “an auto assembly line style “ would have been feasible and more productive building speakers ?? Or does space and costs out weigh the advantages?? David |
Do you guys think nakamichi pa-7 amp will be sufficient for 3.6/3.7/7.2? |
brskie
Nice system! Happy Listening! |
Also anyone know of any floor outriggers I can get for my thiel 3.5? |
Bonedog, I would be curious about your measurements before and after you installed your new midrange. Did you use rew? |
Fitter - that’s a very good question; and it deserves a bigger answer than we can provide here. Let’s start at the end. No, an assembly-line wouldn’t help. Let’s also start with some apology in the philosophical sense - on what do I base my summary assessment. Short answer is experience, longer answer includes lots of work through lots of details, and I suppose we might include that I presented these conclusions at International Woodworking Fairs, a manufacturing convention that alternated between locations in Germany and the USA.
The problem of mass-assembly goes back to the industrial revolution and revolves around the nature of human enterprise and labor. Modern production methods try to simplify and comodify labor with a hope to replace it with a machine operation for lower cost. Such a strategy assumes many things including the wish to treat labor that way, and also the large quantities required or desired to pay back the investments.
Thiel Audio wasn’t made that way. We were a company who sought to provide good livelihoods for good people making good products for good customers. You can substitute the word right for good and land close to the Buddhist concept of right livelihood. Big discussion, little time.
But on to some practicals. Part of your question might include how little seemed to be accomplished in the video. I can assure you that video was made in an empty factory in slo-mo for the sake of clarity. I like the video; I had not seen it before. Rob Gillum made a sneak entry in the finishing room, and I hired him and one of the other guys in the 1980s; they’ve been part of the story for a long time. What a trip. Let’s visualize those production spaces with 20 to 35 busy, skilled people populating them, moving like they know and care about their work. Our productivity factors were world-class.
Now let’s touch on some history of small-unit manufacturing at Thiel. In the beginning Walter Kling and I created a medium batch manufacturing process, limited by physical shop space. The 01 and 02 were made in batches of 40 and the 03 in batches of 20 because the first shop wouldn’t hold any more than that. It looked like a small, crude but effective line in that each person tended to do the same operation to whatever speaker was coming past him. With four standard wood finishes plus a half-dozen optionals, those runs were always a blend of back-orders and speculation for who might want to buy what. You might see a problem brewing here. If we had Walnut available, someone would want Rosewood, etc., and everything unsold had to be stored. When we moved to Nandino Boulevard in 1981, that batch number increased to 100 and then to 200 as space increased. Now add more products and more finishes and dealers who sold to the taste of the customer and there are, let’s underestimate, more than a dozen finishes x 5 or more products. Do the math. So the work of the early nineties became developing an effective and efficient production method with a batch size of one unit or pair. That story is deep, wide and long, and includes Vifa as well as worker skill sets and longevity, and labor and customer payment schemes. It’s a good story for the book. Remember the book?
|
Tom thanks for the response! I’m glad they filmed it I wish there was more. No doubt alot of care and expertise went in to building them. David
|
Tom,
I strongly recommend you writing that book, you are Thiel, your stories told here make us dream of a still living Thiel, it's like I was there among the workers, I can smell wooden flavour, see Jim developing new ideas, people in the lab taking measurements. In this moment I feel I'm no sitting in front a pair loudspekers, they are undoubtedly part of music history. Please Tom, consider writing such book.
|
Parasound a21 what do y’all think for Thiel 3.7/7.2 also considering Bryston 7bst. Selling my whole entire second system cause this thiel system is too good |
|
Nice to see that CS 3.7 manufacturing video again. Been a while since I'd watched it.
BTW, I finally got around to trying my borrowed Bryston 4B3 amp on my Thiel 2.7s. Have only gone through a few tracks back and forth with my CJ amps. Short version: I prefer the tubes :-)
|
I had a Bryston 3B-ST and a 4B-ST and they were a little hard on top. I would not like it paired with my current 3.7. I also had a 7B-SST and even that was a little strong on top and I would not pair it with the 3.7. I did pair the 7B-SST with the SCS4 and it was a little too bright on top. I believe the SCS4 and the 3.7 has similar COAX drivers (maybe not the same). I get fatigued easily so others may not have a problem with the ST or SST.
If you wait a few more months the Purifi modules with 1000 watts into 2 Ohm should be released by Bruno et al. The goal of these Class D amps is to remove a 0 from the price of amps. It should be a great match with the 3.7. The NAD M33, which was Stereophile's 2020 product of the year, has the first iteration of the Purifi module.
Other manufacturers are pumping out quality Purifi amps for $3K and under price. I am waiting on the next more powerful Purifi amp for my 3.7's. They are supposed to sound like my great Benchmark AHB2 amp. |
Purifi modules? What current amps have this? |
NAD M33 - I may have a listen to this tomorrow at the local shop. https://nadelectronics.com/product/m33-bluos-streaming-dac-amplifier/NAD has 2 more Purifi products a 7 channel and a pure 2 channel. They are working in close collaboration with Purifi. I spoke with the owner of March Audio in Australia and they are given high marks on ASR web site for quality products. I was thinking of getting this but went with the Benchmark AHB2 before I bought my CS3.7. https://www.marchaudio.net.au/p451There are other Purifi based amp builders, The ASR web site has good discussion on these other manufacturers. I was discussing amps for the CS3.7 with a guy from Brazil who has the CS3.7 and has tried a few amps with them. He is also waiting on Bruno to release the next iteration of the more powerful Purifi modules. For me, after the AHB2, any future amp has to be silent. I started a thread on A’gon earlier in the year titled, "Removing a zero from the price amps". A lot of info posted on that thread about Purifi. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/removing-a-zero-from-the-price-of-amps?highlight=removing%2Ba... |
Anything on the a21? The article there they used it on the thiel 3.7 |
I used to own the A23 with Thiel SCS4 (also Bryston 7B-SST) and it was a very warm sounding amp. I think I prefer the more neutral sounding amps with the CS3.7. https://www.parasound.com/a23.php |
|
There’s a thiel audio group up on Facebook. |
|
|
I see all sorts of cs 3.6 for sale online. Should I tag one or should I keep the funds for a pair of 3.7? I just like the looks of the 3.7 better. |
3.5' mids replaced with Madisound's '13M replacement' scan-speak 10f with adapter ring.
My experience to date (and a little advice):
Loosening the tweeters needs to be done with just the right screwdriver and much care. I had a ratcheting screwdiver with a perfect bit. The screws area deep and tight. Leave the top screw in and remove bottom two then loosen to be able to remove the mids.
The mids themselves come out easily. White wire is positive. There is a red paper washer under the terminal on the speaker which I did not notice at first. Black one on neg. side (duh)
The waveform rings will come off with with a strong sharp folding knife to pry it apart from the driver. It is perhaps hot glue that holds them together. It is not epoxy as I had feared.
The waveform rings have a ridge that fit the original M13 but do not work on the replacement. You will have to hacksaw it off if you want to use it on the 10f or put the new ones in without them.
Measurements and impressions: I took some less then laboratory spec measurements and recordings with a condenser mic into Logic Pro.
email me noams@rum comcast.net if you want pics of spectrum.
At 10" lined up on the mid centers*:
From 200 to 4khz the graphs looked fairly similar. Above 4khz. The 13m's drop off on an even slope The 10f's fall off less evenly, drop off a bit at around 7K then bump up around 11k
* (yes I'm picking up some tweeter too)
Measurements done just after driver install - no burn-in
Listening:
I did not do any burn in but have about 10 hours on them now. Mostly a variety of well recorded Jazz and alt-country.
They are very transparent and detailed but to my ear (at this point) the upper mids through lower hi's sound more pronounced and tad exaggerated. I hear it on vocals through snares and hi-hats. Come to think of it even upper bass is affected. I did not carefully compare sensitivity and was not super careful running pink noice at the exact same level each go round. I am suspecting they are bit more sensitive and are boosting everything in their range (which is a lot with these crossovers) in their own very detailed way. **
I am hoping further break-in will reduce this. Imaging is as good as ever. On some material they sound great, and overall the sound is still very impressive - but to my ear the originals seemed more balanced. They sounded 'just right' on almost everything I threw at them. Some of this impression may just be what I'm used to.
One of my original 13m's is still good and the other has a bad surround but is otherwise good. I found a rubber surround that seems to fit perfectly and will at some point replace the foam on one or both of them.
For now I will keep these in and play the 'SH' out of them for a while. I'll report further impressions after they've had more hours on them.
Thanks to those here who helped with this endeavor.
** I do a bit of my own DIY on tube guitar amps and guitar controls but haven't tweaked crossovers at all. If further break-in doesn't land me where I want to go I'm wondering if a simple voltage divider or dropping resistor right at the driver terminal could in effect reduce their relative sensitivity to the other drivers without mucking up the overall sound or screwing anything else up.
|
A guy in Rochester NY is selling a CS3.7 for $4K but it is local pickup.
Status update on my CS3.7 refurb.
1) I was able to contact Rob Gillum today and we discussed the resistance measurements on my crossover. One speaker, the good one, had 0 resistance on the tweeter, What the heck happened there. I was thinking I would need to disconnect the crossover and send to Rob. Not something I wanted to do.
However, after opening up the crossover module I see the white positive tweeter wire disconnected from the crossover. Maybe it got disconnected when I moved the speaker to the garage for painting. I did use kid gloves with the transport but maybe not careful enough. This speaker was the one that was measuring stronger on the high frequencies on the SPL measurement. So the wire must have got disconnected after the measurements. The re-soldering of that tweeter wire was tricky but got done. I measured the resistance again and everything was good on both speakers.
I added the 2 new COAXs that I got from Rob. They are the black ones from 2014. I packed up the old COAXs to send to Rob for analysis. If they are good they will be my backup drivers.
2) I finished the paint job. It was a 9/10 until I became more ambitious and decided to touchup a smudge on the aluminum shell of one speaker. I added some of the great 3M painting plastic to cover the wood in a small section. Painted it and came back the next day to remove plastic. Unfortunately, the tape on the plastic stuck too tightly on the new paint on the wood and took some paint off. Awww!. I fixed that with some sanding and touchup but now that side is a 7/10. I can fix it perfectly with some sanding and a full coat on that side but you can only see the touchup if you look closely from an angle. Maybe I will fix that but for now I have the speaker placed so that I never see it.
3) I added the new outriggers I got from Rob,. I like the way that looks and functionally useful so that my son does not topple the speaker. I managed to do all of this work without my son seeing what the drivers look like. Which is a good thing.
As I listen to some John Lennon, the sound now seems correct. I was told that the new COAX needs about 200 hours to settle. However, given the massively messed up nature of the speaker when I brought it home, it sounds the best I have ever heard right now. The COAX is not as smooth as it will get but it sounds so much more coherent across all the frequencies. A bit like the Yamaha NS5000.
All of this cost me about $2000 extra. With paint, 2 new COAX, outriggers, solder kit (and self training), multimeter, and the Recoil kit to fix the COAX thread. What a nightmare but a great learning experience on speaker builds.
I will measure the speakers next week and hope the results are perfect. If so, I can continue with my DRC implementation. |
@tomthiel, In reply to your 11/25/2020 post:
Thiel Owners | Audiogon Discussion Forum
Let me say that your measurements are better than mine, as I have none. Though I think Stereophile's component measurements have real value, I am hesitant to use Stereophile's speaker measurements, especially with speakers like Thiel's. I have heard the 3.5's next to the 3.6's very often at my preferred dealer at the time, Innovative Audio in Brooklyn, with various gear such as Adcom , B&K, conrad-johnson, Exposure, Levinson, Krell, PS Audio, Rowland, Spectral, etc., And as they had a policy of only (except for the small budget lines) having one set of speakers in a room at a time, they were regularly moving speakers in and out of their various sized rooms. So there was that too. It's hard for me to imagine a speaker with a port and less bass output as being "more accurate" by "adhering to a more flat frequency and phase response curve" than a sealed box with extended bass response.
Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com
Thiel CS3.6 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com
It might appear as though the 3.6's were .5 dB more linear above sub bass frequency but, when including sub bass frequency they were 1dB less linear, and only to 27Hz as opposed to the 3.5's 20 Hz. I can only wonder what the 3.5's frequency response above 27 Hz might have measured as. It seems incongruous that, all else being equal, a port would be more phase linear than a sealed box. I was aware of the significance of numerology in eastern culture. But, it seems as though Thiel's nomenclature only had value within Thiel. The difference between the CS3's and the CS 3.5's to the consumer seemed less than than that between the CS 3.5's and CS 3.6's. The CS 2's were 3 ways. The CS 5's had 6 drivers. The CS 6's had 3 drivers. The CS 7's had 4 drivers. Thiel could have used any number of alternative names to avoid using the #4, such as 3+1, or 2+2, etc.. The baffle was covered by a grill. With apologies to Bill; : "A speaker by any other name would sound just as sweet". Perhaps "rushing to market" was overstated, But meeting market demands still seemed to be the objective. The refinement of the 3.6's was welcome, but expected. The loss of bass response and the let down in time and phase coherence (a Thiel hallmark!) was not, then the extra demands on amplification and concurrent costs was also not. The jaded might suspect it was an attempt to give dealers an excuse to sell their more of their new home theatre sub woofers. Oh well, time moves on, and so must we.:-) |
@thieliste, re: your 11/24/2020 post: Thiel Owners | Audiogon Discussion Forum IMHO, what improvements the Thiel CS 3.6’s had over the Thiel CS 3.5’s amounted to 2 steps forward / 3 steps back. Where as the flat co-axial drivers in the CS 3.7’s were a major(!) improvement forward. Still when all (!) is considered; I think Thiel’s CS 3.5’s were Thiel’s best product. When I say all, I’m including ROI or more plainly value. Lets compare: Thiel CS 3.5’s last sold for $2850 up until 1992 Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com Thiel CS 3.7’s first sold for $11,000 in 2006 Thiel CS3.7 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com Considering inflation between 1992 and 2006 would make the Thiel CS 3.5’s cost in 2006 = $ 4,067.03 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Now, if one wanted to retrieve all the musical information available on one’s recordings, unlike the Thiel CS 3.5’s the Thiel 3.7’s would need to be supplemented with subwoofers. Let’s use a pair of Thiel’s own bottom of the line Thiel SS1’s, original 2003 cost of $2800 each adjusted for inflation in 2006 = $3046.10 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Thiel SS1’s X 2 = $6092.20 That alone costs more than the 2006 inflationary cost of the Thiel CS 3.5’s When added to the original cost of the Thiel 3.7’s: Thiel CS 3.7’s: $11,000 + Thiel SS! X 2 : $6,092.20 ____________________________ Total: $ 17,092.20 Or more than $13,025.17 than the 2006 inflationary cost of the Thiel CS 3.5’s And that doesn’t include the cost of amplification: Jim Thiel mostly used the Threshold S 500 amplifier for the Thiel CS 3.5’s. Lets use the last version sold; the Threshold S550e which sold in 1989 for $6300 adjusted for 2006 inflation for a cost of $10,289.13 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Jim Thiel mostly used the Krell FPB - 600 amplifier for the Thiel CS 3.7’s. Lets use the Krell FPB - 600 C which sold in 2000 for $13,500 adjusted for 2006 inflation for a cost of $15,867.10 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Which would be an additional $5,555.97 in amplification cost, which when added to the extra costs of the CS 3.7’s with 2 Thiel SS1’s over the 2006 inflation adjusted Thiel CS 3.5’s = $18,603.14 Thiel CS 3.7’s = $11,000 Thiel CS SS1 X 2 =$ 6,092.20 Krell FPB-600C =$15,867.10 ________________________________ Total $32,959.30 Thiel CS 3.5’s =$ 4,067.03 - Threshold S550e =$10,289.13 ________________________________ $14,356.16 ___________ $18,603.14 Now the Thiel CS 3.7’s combination will outperform the Thiel CS 3.5 combination in most every way; ease of placement, freedom from lobing, ultimate loudness, (and with the subs especially in the bass region), and much, much more,... except time and phase coherence, and foot print where the Theil CS 3.5’s despite their 20 year age disadvantage still have the edge. Still, the CS 3.5’s wouldn’t be too embarrassed by the comparison. If one wanted to do something similar with the current state of used prices, I think the advantage would be probably proportionately even greater for the Thiel CS 3.5’s. Considering everything; I think the CS 3.5’s were Thiel’s best product. |
Interesting I’m curious what about the cs6 or cs7? I’ll probably keep the cs 3.5 and get the 3.7 for the other system. What were your impressions on the cs3.5 on adcom amps vs the others? |
@thoft, I assume your addressing me? IMHO, the CS 6’s were something of a poor value. Similar to the CS 3.6’s in range, though with much greater ease and dynamics, but at nearly twice the cost, again IMHO, a poor value. YMMV! The CS 7’s were one of Thiel’s best. But, and I might be in the minority here, I preferred the CS 5i’s. But the CS 5’s amplifier requirements are, let’s put this politely; demanding.
I had an Adcom on long term loan (a couple of months), and heard them on a lot of gear. While I admired them for allowing those on a budget to use speakers that might otherwise be out of reach due to amplification budget requirements. They were up to the job that was previously only available from more expensive (and sometimes much more expensive) amps. Ultimately the Adcom was amongst my least favorite amps. I found them to be dry, grainy, flat. and lacking dimensionality. I noticed that as long as it was in my system, the less time I spent listening to it. |
What adcom did you have and what was the pre amp? I currently use the 5800 with 18 mosfets per channel and a huge toroidal. Runs incredibly hot and with the luxman at least it sounds excellent with great dimensionality. I feel like adcom pre’s are the adcom amps downfall despite the adcom pre amps literally made to be paired with them. Also what would your input be on me getting a used musical fidelity tri vista 300 for thiels? Saw someone on YouTube using it with their cs7’s |
I used an Adcom SLC 505, a B&K CS115 and a c-j PF 2L with the Adcom 555 II. At least one of the Adcom pres was highly rated, and considered something of a giant killer. I never heard a Musical Fidelity product that I would consider buying. Isn't the MF Tri Vista an integrated? Are you planning on running one integrated into another integrated? Most high end pre's use separate power supplies, and the same holds true for ultra deluxe power amps. Having all that circuitry so close to each other allows for the transference of RF, EMI and ground issues. Does the Tri Vista use those canned tube nuvista devices. I remember reading many years ago that MF claimed that they had big surplus of them, but that was a long time ago. I don't know of anyone else that might stock those rather unique devices. I'd check, you might be SOOL should you need replacements. Would you need to send the unit back to England for repairs? I have to admit I have a bit of prejudice against MF. Shortly after Stereophile was sold to a major holder, for a few months the magazine looked nothing short of a monthly catalogue for Musical Fidelity, pages and pages of MF ads with intermittent reviews of many MF products. Suspicious to say the least! |
Try vista will be in its own system possibly on thiel cs 3.7 when the time comes |
@thoft I was using a pair of Bryston 7BST's with the 2.7's. Once I got a Krell FBI I put the Brystons up for sale. The Brystons were excellent in that system. The Krell however is a much better match. Can't speak to the 3.7's. I do have 3.6's in another room though. |
If you had a pair of 3.5 before how are the 3.6 compared to it, solo? |
@thoft I haven't had a pair of 3.5's to compare. A pair came up for sale locally a few years ago however the condition was poor. If I buy another pair it will be the CS5i's. |
Unsound - good presentation! I would like to start by saying that I love the 3.5 and barely know the 3.6. My comments address the arc of development of ideas into products at Thiel. Regarding measurements, JA’s rig at Stereophile has value for non-coherent products, but like Rich V and John Dunlavy, Jim called out JA on how his ’nearfield’ rig did a disservice to our products. Jim did his calling out in private.
My comments about product maturity and accuracy are more from a perspective of problems addressed and solved behind the curtain. Each product was a closer approximation to Jim’s stated goal of the four faces of accuracy. We invested heavily in building a new measurement lab and equipment with each of our moves and expansions. By the early 90s Jim had his final lab setup which generated measurements that track with the Canadian National Lab and other heavyweights. They told the story. Those measurements coupled with a pretty deep dive into Finite Element Analysis revealed layers and forms of distortions that were each formulated and solved, as well as practical, within the framework of the next product being developed. My lightweight measurements here show the 3.6 to be technically better than the 3.5 in all ways except the bass. But that leaves much important ground unturned.
The CS3/3.5 was developed with less robust lab resources and before FEA. I think of it as Jim’s masterpiece because it showcased his resourcefulness and resilience. I’ve mentioned measuring speakers in the tree and the rooftop and buried in the sandbox with his self-designed and home-built sweeper and bleeper and hundreds of hours of critical listening. And on and on. The 3/3.5 stood on the shoulders of our previous more homespun efforts. And it shone brightly and made us proud. I have not previously addressed the heart-wrenching difficulty of abandoning the sealed bass and how that came to be.
Our first marketed product was the 01 in 3 generations, with a sealed, equalized bass hitting 30 Hz in a bookshelf format at 92dB sensitivity. That bass system was his pride and joy, resulting from more than a year of experimentation with sealed, vented, transmission line, plus some flights of fancy. We expected that bass system to continue forever. But the market pushed back pretty hard, considering the equalizer as a Bose copy or like waving a red flag in front of an audiophile (Larry Archibald in Stereophile), Harry Pearson spending half of our virgin 03 review in the Absolute Sound picking apart the negative sonic impact of the EQ. Etc.Short story is that the 02 with its ported bass, which we considered less than best, was conceived in that push-back. I’m with you regarding the vented bass of later Thiel speakers not fitting the philosophical construct of coherence. But notice that the reviews and marketplace at large rarely if ever denigrate the 4th order time lag of Thiel vented bass. They mostly praise its ’punch & solidity’. So you and I and a few others can appreciate the ’rightness’ of the sealed/ eq’s bass, but that doesn’t build a company.
I’m not surprised that you appreciate and enjoy the CS5 and its sealed bass. That was JIm’s attempt to execute correct bass down to 20Hz without the maligned equalizer. And it works extremely well with the big IF surrounding amplification requirements. These days I take some flights of fancy regarding other roads not taken. I believe that those roads, closer to Jim’s and all of our hearts of our specific, eccentric interpretation of how to best reproduce music, could have led to a more satisfying and ultimately meaningful life’s work as a designer and a company. Consider that the later drivers are far more efficient than the CS5’s and how that would have permitted higher impedance configurations to allow far more kindness to amplification. Jim’s dedication to developing the CS5 was monumental. His and all of our disappointment in its tepid market reception was close to devastating.
Now we have two seminal ideas of equalized and unequalized sealed bass which both met more resistance than acceptance. I absolutely wanted to improve those platforms. Jim was discouraged. Kathy as marketing director surveyed the landscape and decided (she was the decider) that ’it didn’t make much difference’ to the dealers as long as it sounded good. We could spend a chapter parsing that out; but bottom line is that Jim abandoned his signature bass approaches and focused on executing vented bass the best he could.
I’m glad that you are addressing these issues. They were huge issues for me personally. My gig as a founding partner was to incubate the company to sustainability while keeping our vision clear. I deemed the bass alignment thing to be a core issue. Kathy did not. Jim and Kathy, by that time, marched in lock step.
There is another significant issue around company building. I’ve mentioned before that we bootstrapped our growth, which is an understatement. By CS5 time (1988) we took on a seasoned business manager who worked the numbers hard and well. His assessment indicated that we were underselling our products by a LOT and couldn’t continue. A fledgling company can do the near impossible at a small scale for a limited time. We were ten years in and technically not profitable. Another chapter there. Suffice it to say that getting great bass can represent over half the cost of an entire product (bigger cabinet, serious drivers and crossovers, etc.). So your price comparisons should consider that the CS3 and CS5 iterations were selling at unsustainably low prices. The watershed product that distilled these conflicts was the CS3.6 with its vented bass, executed very well, but nonetheless a compromise.
You may appreciate that I never bothered to listen to a CS3.6 after its production development rigors. Isn’t life something? Some issues and developments only come into focus through a very long lens. That’s been more than 25 years ago. Thanks again, John.
|
I took some measurements with the miniDSP mic and REW software to see if the new COAXs I installed (plus other wiring fixes) have resolved the SPL issues. I now see a beautiful LEF and RIGHT measurement chart with everything overlapping, just like my KEF LS50’s. Halleluiah!
So my take away from all of this for any one looking to get a CS3.7. Even a massively screwed up one like mine. The speaker can be made perfect using Rob Gillum as a resource. All this work was done at home by me who is a novice on electronics. |
@thoft. FWIW I used an Adcom 555II on the 3.5's for years. I installed a high quality passive stepped attenuator in it and ran my DAC directly into the amp. I now use an old Superphon preamp into a Classe C300.
I'd say the Adcom set up gave me about 70% of what I'm hearing now.
Unfortunately I never did run the Superphon with the Adcom, but if experience with the Classe is any indication, the Superfon makes for a big improvement over going directly in. I had bought into the 'less is more' philosophy on line level inputs and now believe that was a mistake.
All my non audiophile buddies where always very impressed with the old set up and I enjoyed it, but knew the Thiel's where cable of reaching another level.
A word of warning -I've owned a bunch of 555II's and destroyed the woofers on a pair of Infinity Kappa's when one amp went bad. After that I had that I had the amp driving the 3.5's check and serviced - but was always a bit nervous.
With current used prices on 3.5's being as cheap as they are, the irony is that to really hear what they can do, you need to spend a lot more on what you feed them than you did on the speakers themselves to really hear their potential. |
Bone dog, in regards to the new midrange finding maybe that’s why I find myself listening to string instrument and jazz songs. Midrange is so clear transparent and accentuated unlike the imf I had so I’m hearing things I hadn’t beforehand. |
Also bonedog someone on the adcom group over on Facebook made an little unit to go in between the speakers and the amp that is a protection block. Something I will be investing into despite that the adcom 5800 has no signs of anything bad in it now or anytime soon. It does not mess with the signal in any way shape or form. The guy is a genius. |
|
thoft. The new mid drivers are vey revealing and compelling, I’m just not sure the balance is quite right - at least on my system with the hours I have on them now. One good thing - I’m less worried about blowing them when I turn it up. |
Makes me want to get into crossover engineering. I know thiel is working on the one series but I got this lil nagging in me to learn crossover engineering |
What little I know about Adcom. In the day, Adcom may have out-sold everything else put together - solid entry into high value high performance. I knew Nelson Pass at the time and he designed a few of their mark I products. The updates and mark II versions were not designed by him. In his (paraphrased) words: "I would design a simple, clean, straight-forward unit, it would have its market life and then they (Adcom) would hand it off to someone else to pile on the parts." He said he had nothing to do with the GFA555mkII. It was designed by a well regarded French designer with considerably more complex circuitry and feedback schemes.
Fast forward: I contacted Jim Williams regarding upgrading my 555mkII. Jim rebuilds and upgrades professional studio gear out west, considered about the best it gets. He upgraded my Studio Technologies mic preamp that I got from Tom Jung. Jim picks only gear with solid upgrade potential into the big leagues. The improvement in the mic pre was stunning in every audiophile respect as well as textbook measurements. This is all to say that Jim told me he doesn't work on 555mkIIs - he doesn't really like them. BUT if I sent him an original 555, I would like what he sent back.
Two points: 1: don't assume a later amp in the line is the same. 2: If you stumble on a good deal on an original 555, snag it, for yourself or me. I would have it delivered to Jim Williams and eagerly await its arrival in my hotrod garage.
|
I’ve heard the 555’s I liked em but the 5800 i love right now. Great unit I think. |
@tomthiel
Another great read, thanks!
Though you can count me as one who has always loved the bass response of the Thiels with the passive radiators!
|
I tried throwing the Bryston 4B3 amp in to the system again today, doing some back and forth between it powering the Thiels and my CJ tube amp. I keep thinking "I’ll put it in and just live with it for a while."
But when I put on familiar tracks - e.g. Talk Talk’s Happiness Is Easy - I can’t help be taken aback by the difference.
"Where is that roundness, fullness, 3 dimensionality of the images?"
By 3 dimensionality I don’t mean that with the Bryston the Thiels don’t image/soundstage. They certainly do, with precisely placed voices and instruments. But the voices and instruments themselves sound flattened dimensionally and tonally. More like the way "3D" images look on those old viewmasters - a series of flatt images placed in 3D relief. That’s an exaggeration, but essentially the nature of the difference I perceive.
I put back in the CJ, and everything sounds bigger, more filled out, the drum kick and snare sound rich, with a present texture, the drum-set now seems more 3 dimensional like I’m peering in to the studio, voice sounds organic, acoustic guitars have that similar golden sparkle I hear from my own guitar, etc.
And with the Bryston, string/keyboard parts that usually float organically and 3D sound thinner, flatter, more icy in tone and texture.
Interestingly, this is exactly the character I perceived when my friend switched from his tube set up to the Bryston, at his house. Ever since then I’ve found a slightly off-putting coldness/hardness/icy quality to the sound - things sound clear but nothing sounds organic and real. (Though I never tell him this! I know not to excite audiophilia nervosa!)
Anyway, none of that is to say the Bryston is objectively worse than the CJ tube amps. The Bryston also brings some excellent qualities. Just not the ones I tend to value first.
|
I've been enjoying the comments and historical perspectives from @unsound and @tomthiel regarding the 3.5s and Thiel's efforts at creating solid and marketable bass. Although I generally like sealed boxes for producing tight bass, I have to agree with @prof that I've really enjoyed the bass performance of Thiel's passive radiators, such as those in my 2.2s.
This discussion got me thinking about my purchase of the 2.2s way back in early 1992, at which time I debated between the 2.2 and the 3.5. Although the 3.5s sounded good, there was something more natural and "together" about the 2.2s - at least to my ears. There was something about the EQ on the 3.5 that I didn't really like. Maybe the ones I heard weren't set up correctly or maybe I had just been brainwashed enough by the critiques of the 3.5 equalizer in TAS and Stereophile, but the 2.2s were a better value in my eyes (and ears). The 2.2s were sleeker, cheaper, and sweeter IMO, and I haven't regretted the choice a bit. And lately I've been finding that upgrades to my amps, preamp, DAC and cables have opened up the sound from the 2.2s further than I could ever have imagined possible. Unless my 2.2s finally succumb to the ravages of old age and can't be repaired, I have no plans to be speaker-hunting in the future. |
@prof, in the past I've thought that rolled off highs improved imaging. I thought that the very high sounds threw off my ability to hear spatially. I'm entirely in the listen to what you enjoy camp so I'm not at all critical of tube lovers. I just wonder if I'm the only one that has gotten this impression. |
