I’m excited to report that I recently scored a very nice pair of 3.5s at a vintage resale shop for $275. I love them and while I know they have been well surpassed they now sit in my living room making great music!
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
13,687 responses Add your response
TomThiel, it's very clear that you are the most reputable source here concerning Thiel's history and secrets. I've to confess that I fell in love with Thiel's thinking and soul before I became a owner of this amazing speakers. I found in your company, in you all very first founders a blend of uncommon passion, top technical competence and quality in construction second to none, I perceived all this years ago reading severals interviews to Jim, listening to all those ultra positive assessments from worldwide owners and eventually through my personal listening experiences attending to several audio show. After some time I wanted learn more on the Coherent Source concept and its really meaning and I ended with the thinking that it appeared to me to be the most serious and credible attempt to come as close as possible to the truth, musically speaking. Now I'm a proud Thiel's speakers owner with no intention to get rid of them... maybe a pair more. Thank you Tom , you all really did a memorable job, a milestone in the audio history. |
I've been quiet on this forum but had started to follow this thread lately. I got to say that I am very happy to see people like tomethiel here sharing lots information about the brand history and products. My experience with CS3.5 ( back in 2001? ) turned me into a Thiel believer, and had since added pair of CS 3.6, and moved 3.5 into bedroom :) They are just fabulous :) So just greetings to all, i think we are a group of happy people here. |
harrylavo That is quite a collection of speakers- you are certainly a Thiel Man at heart. Several of the guys here own the CS 2.2 as well as the 3.5 model. If you have not done so, read this thread from post #1 to the present. There is a plethora of good, solid information in this thread. Happy Listening! |
prof - Ted Green runs a technology consulting company. His interest in Thiel is as a former performing musician / bandleader with an inherent interest in David rather than Goliath. He seems to know brands and nuances very well, but has never said he was an audiophile or Thiel owner. He does admire what we did. I am in direct contact with the bankruptcy court as well as some recommendations from this forum. It seems there is a streamlined process whereby an "affinity group" can form an expedited company to purchase assets such as the intellectual property of the bankrupted Thiel LLC. Hmmm |
Tom, Thanks for the link to that strata-gee article. Your previous post is now making some sense ;-) I'd followed all those strata-gee articles documenting the decline of Thiel as it happened. It was great that there was a writer interested in following the story. The strata-gee writer seemed to have quite an interest in the Thiel company. Any particular reason? Was he a high end audo fan? Those articles always make me want to give my Thiel speakers a hug :) |
jon - all the Thiel aluminum drivers are annodized which deposits a coating which is often marketed as "ceramic". Your 2.3 driver is an early example of Thiel aluminum diaphragms. When gotten right, those metal drivers have far better resolution than paper, but paper can be pretty good and is very forgiving. I think the 2.2 midrange was Thiel's last paper cone, which was actually augmented with polypropylene fibers for greater stiffness and consistency than plain paper. |
I have an MCS-1 and 2 2s. I believe the MCS-1 has the same mid/tweeter as the 2.3. I used to use the MCS-1 when I had room for a 5.1 home theater in my basement. My impression after having lived with both for a while is that I preferred the sound of the 2 2. I never did a careful comparison or anything so don't take this too seriously. I would guess this is due to the driver material. I believe the MCS1 uses some kind of ceramic coat on aluminum. I had a couple of pairs of infinity speakers in the past that used the same basic thing I think and I never thought they had low level resolution like paper does. I'm guessing that this problem was solved on the 2.4s or they wouldn't have so many fans. |
Guys - Ted Green / strata-gee.com has published his article on Thiel,LLC recent bankruptcy filing. https://www.strata-gee.com/ |
harry - I can address part of your query. The 2.2s were very well developed / mature and had a long run. Lots of fans. The 2.3s were the first application of the mechanical / crossover-less coax concept. I hear that there were improvements on the table pretty early, and not many 2.3s were sold, perhaps the shortest run ever. The 2.4 was a big uptick in performance and sales and has been an audiophile darling, possibly more so than any other Thiel product. That's some market mechanics. Some folks here can address the sonic differences. I have and love my 2.2s and am working on a hotrod kit for them. PS: I am calling the 2.2s by their proper name. The decimal was dropped under threat of lawsuit by Bose. But the product has been out of manufacture for way long, Mr. Bose is no longer with us, his legal staff was embarrassed . . . so let's pretend they don't care anymore. |
I own a pair of 2 2's as well as four 3.5's. I am wondering, from those who have had 2.2's, 2.3's, and 2.4's what the sonic differences were as you go up the line. But even more importantly, what the problem is with the 2.3's that keeps their used value closer to the 2.2's than to 2.4's. Is it reliability, and if so, what? Thank you in advance for your help. |
I bought a pair of CR 3.6 speakers so long ago I can't even remember when I got them. I run them through JRDG model 6 SS monoblocks and a Krell KRC-3 pre-amp. Its a pretty sweet sounding combination. the s/n for the speakers are 1786 and I can only assume 1785 or 1787 for the other( I cant read it anymore) I am by no means an ""audiophile" so I wont pretend |
prof - I have not heard the Alexandra. I moved to New Hampshire and by the late 90s I was focused on things other than audio. pw - The room is so often the major culprit in the mix. Thiels are point source emulation and therefore wide dispersion, so room reflections matter more. Also the coherent wavefront tends to stimulate room modes more readily than the slurred wavefronts of higher order speakers. I am a fan of physical room treatment as much as possible. Tell us about REW. |
Tom, Also...after the Hale Transcendence 8's Paul built a new interesting looking flagship speaker, the Alexandra (or Alexandria), which can be seen down the page in this old CES 99 report: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/wces99/speakers.htm The few people who heard it absolutely raved about it. But since it never went in to production due to Hales folding soon afterward, it became something of a unicorn. Did you ever hear it? |
jon - the fiber is to increase impact and stress resistance and add some damping. It does not reduce shrinkage. Concrete is Portland Cement based, which shrinks. Gypsum cements expand. USG Hydrostone is a combination of the two and can be admixed with acrylic, etc. plasticizers to increase damping at the expense of lowering resonance frequency. Paul added some plasticizer. I chose to run straight but added two different fibers which serves to suppress resonance & increase stiffness. I like grown solutions, and used hemp and rice awn fibers, but most folks would choose polypropylene or glass, etc. USG has zero, expansive and contractive products. I suggest you look there. I investigated air entrainment in the baffle core for lower mass & higher resonance frequency. These were follow-on developments after the CS5 cast marble baffle, which worked well, but cost and weighed a lot. |
@tomthiel, my understanding is that the reduction in shrinkage is mainly due to the fiber. Is that correct? I've been wanting to build a madisound kit and make the baffle out of concrete. I have the concrete, a bag of glass fiber and some plasticizer. I went so far as to create the cutouts for the drivers. I've got little kids so what would take a normal person a weekend will take me a year if I'm lucky. I've been buying most of the tools I'll need slowly. Main problem is when I have the time I don't have the energy and vice versa. |
ish - I know those Hales speakers very well. I consulted for Hales during their development and compared 1st vs 4th order XOs. Paul is very bright and competent and pragmatic. The development time / cost / benefit and all adds up to 4th being "good enough because people can't hear the difference". Note from these impulse responses that the speaker is neither time nor phase correct. Paul didn't think it necessary. https://www.stereophile.com/content/hales-design-group-transcendence-five-loudspeaker-measurements The sealed bass is awesome and Paul thought it embarrassed Thiel's reflex bass. OK. The sloped baffle was for the purpose of what your salesman executed in the store. The German who had resurrected Hales Design Group from the ashes of Hales Audio wanted SALES. By the way, the baffle was not concrete, but Hydrostone a fiber reinforced combination of portland and gypsum cements which I had developed for the CS6, but Jim substituted concrete after I left. Jim thought of "concrete" as the optimum enclosure material and Walter Kling who replaced me had an architectural/ builder background. Concrete lasted a very short time because it shrinks for 7 years and cracked at stress points. I doubt that Hales baffles ever cracked. Nevermind. Hales frequency response is exceedingly flat and its component and build quality is very good. But it is a horse of a different color. |
One of my favourite sounds are the times I used my little Eico HF81 14/w side classic tube amp on my big Thiel 3.7s! It was utterly glorious - rich, open, detailed, sparkly transients - they sounded even bigger than they ever had before. Really the only negative...if it was a negative...was that the bass became a bit "bigger." (I'm presuming from less damping). I say "bigger" not "looser" because the bass didn't really become loose or flubby so much as just...bigger and richer...a bigger bass booty ;-) Ultimately my CJ Premier 12s and pre-amp make for a bit more even sound top to bottom and allow for easier control of the system (e.g. my pre-amp has remote control which I need as my amps are in a separate room from my speakers). But if that weren't the case, I would have used that little eico on the big Thiels more often. I still have to get around to trying it on the 2.7s! (But..well...that project is now delayed...) |
@prof, that is fun reading. I definitely agree that the 3.7s are not exceptionally hard to drive. They appreciate some power but I don't believe you need a megabuck amp to get a lot out of them. Maybe a huge solid state amp would make a little difference but I'd be surprised if it was big. My pedestrian amps sound great to me. The punch is great, bass has great texture, they seem extremely transparent top to bottom. The transients are so sharp that on some recordings they're jarring and exhausting. I've been thinking about digging out my Musical Fidelity tube buffer to soften things a little bit on recordings that shouldn't be heard too clearly. |
As I've recently posted on another similar thread, I have my doubts about a 65 Watt Single Ended Triode being able to properly handle the 3.7's 2.5 Ohm impedance and it's accompanying phase angle. They might be better suited to their own 101dB horns (horns are not my cup of tea). At $35,000 the pair, or about three times the price of a pair of the more expensive Thiel's, I suspect they will have limited appeal to Thiel owners. |
Hi guys, just got back from my Swiss trip and finally was able to audition the Aries Cerat pre-power Impera ll Ref + Concero 65 monos driving Thiel CS 3.7s.Guys you cannot imagine how far the 3.7s can go when driven by Aries Cerat separates, this is a totally different league compared to the usual Krell, Bryston, PS Audio, Pass and other McIntosh amps that have always been used with Thiel speakers.The speakers bring you directly at a live concert with a very refined sound, full body, super transparent but never anlytical, extremely fast and dynamic.The bass is very punchy uber stable and resolving.Soundstage is just phenomenal and very engaging.I can now say that Aries Cerat pre-power outperforms the aleardy awsome Ypsilon separates that i have home demoed in 2016.IMO Aries Cerat is today the absolute best tube amps at any price and most likely the most powerful tube amps capable of driving Thiels to their max.Each Concero 65 monos weigh 100 Kg.Cheers |
Anyone ever used to visit the old Thiel Web Blog? Hearteningly, it’s still actually accessible. It’s sort of fun...and melancholy...visiting some of those old posts. E.g.: http://thielaudio.blogspot.com/2006/09/ http://thielaudio.blogspot.com/2006/10/ And especially all the comments, from many industry pros and writers etc, on Jim's passing: http://thielaudio.blogspot.com/2009/09/please-share-your-memories-of-jim-thiel.html#comment-form |
Hi Tom, To the point of Seas, Vifa etc. could do "it". We tried for years without success working with the best. It’s not so easy as it might appear. That is very interesting. Seas and Vifa were some of the very best at the time indeed. I have no doubt at all that is not easy, but I just thought if someone like Seas or ScanSpeak (since Vifa was taken over by SS) were serious enough about it, maybe they could make some very good concentric drivers. The challenge is in the motor design as well as doppler affect of each driver modulating each other. Based on what I read online and what are available off the shelf parts, it seems like the speaker design industry more or less has given up on time-coherent design. With exception for some very few drivers, most drivers has to be designed with at least 12db roll off. For example, Accuton is a very reputable driver makers, but if you use their drivers, you almost have to go with 12db or 24 db roll off. As for Seas and ScanSpeak, with their portfolio of products, only a few drivers can be implemented with first order. Another things I found interesting is that almost all of Thiel designs use aluminum drivers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no off the shelf aluminum drivers on the market today can be implemented using first order filter because of their inherent break up at high frequency. So you pretty much have to use higher order filter to suppress the break up. So how Thiel did it with first order using their aluminum drivers must require some unique engineering. I think the "wavy mid range" driver of the CS2.7 is one way to minimize the break up. As for the CS2.4, I am just guessing but the mechanical of the rubber surround was meant to solve the break up problem, and whatever it is, it really works. Hm..., this whole big planet that there is nothing like Thiel? To borrow a phrase from the movie "Contact" which was based on Carl Sagan book, "this whole big universe and our planet is the only source of life? What a waste of space." |
