Happy Friday! All
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!
13,807 responses Add your response
Happy Weekend Jfant! I have to share something that I've wanted to share for a while now. Every time I listen to my Vandersteen Quatro's, I'm reminded of the CS 2's from the early 80's. I find it so interesting that Richard Vandersteen and Jim Thiel both produced a bass EQ (first of Jim's designs) as well as phase and time correct speakers. They each had a different sounding high end, but both are the most coherent speakers going (the original Thiel's). If Jim was still alive as Richard is, he too would have come up with his version of the 'pistonic' moving drivers just like RV. To me, these are the two greatest speaker designers as it's impossibly to say that a time and phase coherent speaker isn't the most correct way to reproduce the sounds that we call music. That's basic physics. Even AJ Conte (of Basis Audio, RIP) loved these two brands for how they achieve their great sound. Just wanted to share some random thoughts. thanks folks. |
ctsooner Good to see here again. Thank You for sharing your thoughts. Reading through this thread, I talked about how close the Vandy 3A Signature trailed a Thiel CS 2.4 loudspeaker. The CS 2.4 wins because of its inherent rich timbre. Moreover, I found the CS 2.4SE a measure richer which is unbelievable in presentation. What gear is in your system now? Happy Listening! |
CT - a few general thoughts here. I am aware that Richard uses the term ’pistonic drivers’ and what he means my it, and agree that it is highly desirable; but there are many designers who don’t want it. There has been considerable convergence of thought around accuracy of reproduction since the 1970s when Richard and Jim were making breakthroughs. I say breakthroughs because at that time it was not widely accepted that ’truth in reproduction’ was a desirable thing. In fact, most designs were developed to deliver their particular euphonic flavor. Within that context, the Thiel / Vandersteen "everything matters, and accuracy is the goal" perspective was unique then, but quite widely accepted now. Note that Dunlavy and a few smaller designers also honored full coherence. The marketplaces of ideas and commerce have not generally supported the extra difficulties of coherence. In the context of ’getting everything right’, drivers must move pistonically. And as time goes on, more and more do so. I don’t know whether RV has any actual corner on that claim, beyond coiling the term and using it in his promotion. But he does share his design values with John Dunlavy and Jim Thiel, requiring flexural rigidity. I’ll take a little memory trip here. Thiel’s coherence awakening came after the 01 and 02 (1976) which had normal third and second-order crossovers (all polarity-correct.) The 03 development began in that normal way, but veered to first order in an organic procession (which I’ve mentioned here before.) That development of a phase coherent system required the development of more pistonic drivers. Note that many (normal) designs use the flexural cone delay of the circumference lagging the apex as a way to mitigate the reverse-polarity negative going onset transient of the upper driver from the typical second-order, inverted polarity crossover. In other words, a floppy driver causes less of a particular problem than would a stiff driver in that common second-order/ inverted polarity design. But that advantage evaporates with a coherent first order crossover, while keeping the significant time, phase and harmonic distortions of that floppy driver. So, back to 1978, the final 03 is coherent, but the drivers are ordinary. Next product in development is the 04, a 6.5" coherent two-way. Jim developed a double-cone woofer for that product, which was patentable (and eventually was Thiel patented.) The front cone is a curved flair and the back cone is straight, both driven by the same voice coil and to the same surround attachment. The double cone triangulates the weak circumference, creates double propagation paths (introducing self-damping), uses the air captured between the cones as an averaging medium - all producing a very stiff pistonic system of light weight and low cost. Alas, before the finalized 04 was introduced, one of the cones was discontinued, and no workable mates could be found until we grew enough to commission our own cones. Please pardon my spotty memory, but as I recall, the first product to incorporate that double cone geometry was the woofer of the CS2.2 introduced in 1990. It took that preceding decade to develop the sources, solutions, patent and manufacturing infrastructure to make the concept a reality. That geometry is used in the CS3.6 midrange and probably other Thiel drivers. I left Thiel in the mid 1990s and don’t have first-hand information of the further trajectory of that double-cone solution. RV’s solution using carbon fiber over a balsa core is very effective, along with very expensive. As far as Jim developing his pistonic drivers, I propose that he made steady progress toward that goal throughout his career. In the early 90s, we conducted in-house cone development that significantly improved specific rigidity via material and profile and taper geometry. I further propose that Jim's statement pistonic driver, was the CS3.7 / 2.7 midrange with its radial corrugation diaphragm, which represents a conceptual and technical breakthrough. The 3" diameter voice coil bisects the radiating area such that there is equal mass distribution on either side of the motive force. In other words, the driving force is balanced rather than propagating from a voice coil at the apex to a passive rim at the surround. In cross-section, the (half) diagram is a T with the wavy diaphragm on the top and the vertical stem being the voice-coil former - driving the diaphragm from its centerline. The corrugations keep the diaphragm from bending for a near perfect piston. I would love to see comparative Klippel pix of the Thiel driver vs the Vandersteen driver. I bet they are both world-class and that the Thiel driver costs a fraction of the Steen. I hope that Jim’s driver might live on. I consider it his crowning achievement. |
I think the old Walsh and new DDD mostly bending wave drivers (there seems to some combined pistonic motion too) might prove that pistonic motion is not a requirement for time and phase accuracy. The Quad ESL ‘63 is another work around that would appear to dispel the notion of a pistonic motion requirement for time and phase accuracy, Of the above mentioned examples, It should be noted that none use 1st order cross-overs either. Though to be fair I think only the limited production Walsh A could be considered full range, and that model seemed to be plagued with reliability concerns. HHR Exotics claims their updated version of the Walsh drivers have addressed many of the concerns of the original Walsh drivers. |
The ESL-63 uses (if I recall correctly) a cascading time delay crossover over concentric rings of the diaphragm to create a whole diaphragm motion with all points equidistant from the listener's ear. What brilliance! "Walsh" - type drivers use bending in their method of creating the cylindrical column of moving air pressure waves. So bending is part of their basic system mechanics. Discrete drivers attempt a uniform air propagation wave-front via multiple driving sources, which must remain flat to engage the air mass properly. Unsound - do you know if the Walsh-type driver actually produces intact step response at the listener's position? |
There's some explanations of the Walsh driver characteristics at Ohm's website - https://ohmspeaker.com/technology/ |
Unsound maybe you found this. With much info contained. I would be interested in seeing how the driver is terminated on the edges so some polarity of the signal does not return into the path of the next uncoming signal. Same thoughts on any of the Walsh drivers the inside and outside of the cone must react with some signal inversion. Tom. https://www.bendingwaveusa.com/technology/ |
@tomthiel, As I understand it, though the Walsh driver is conical, the bending wave travels faster than the speed of sound, thus being able to produce step and square wave response indicating time preservation. The omnidirectional dispersion, while perhaps tricky for small room placement, is capable of charging the room rather uniformly. The original Walsh drivers were a difficult balance in that they required quite a bit of power yet could be damaged if overdriven. Modern versions claim to alleviate these issues, though extreme SLP’s still seem to be the forte’ of other designs, distribution seems somewhat limited, and they are not inexpensive. I have not heard any of these type of drivers in decades. I would welcome the opportunity! |
jazzman7: The KEF Uni-Q would seem to disqualify itself from this discussion due (at least) to their use of a second-order crossover. Indeed, the step response plots from Stereophile look nothing like a time/phase coherent loudspeaker: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-meta-loudspeaker-measurements |
Point source, yes, absolutely, at least in their LS50 with no other drivers. But that's only one non-essential attribute of full-coherence. Vandersteens' achieve it all without any concentric drivers. All Thiels except the SCS4 (?) have the wide-bandwidth woofer (and sometimes other drivers too) some distance from their coax mid/tweet. I just bought a pair of LS50 Metas to supplement my 2.4 due to a hypersensitive deranged neighbor (no lower bass output and lower volume capabilities), but need more time for a thorough A/B to get the true measure of them, as my 2.4s over the past decade have become my reference in my long-term acoustic space. I'll report here when I can arrive at firm conclusions, as xyzsantabarbara loves his previous-gen LS50s and his 3.7s, and the Metas are getting serious accolades, many that I can confirm are compelling and actual. |
Totally agree unsound. 'Time coherent' was never accurately defined with marketing or general knowledge or the physics that create true phase/time coherency like Thiels. 'Point source' is also too broadly marketed, but easier to accurately define. Ported speakers muddy the definition of both terms, don't they? |
One of my amps has been shutting off randomly. I've got a pair of Cambridge 840s I run bridged mono powering my 3.7s. They're both 10+ years old and are fairly budget oriented made in China products. I'm on the fence about trying to find someone to fix the problem. I'm assuming I'll be amp shopping in the next few months. So, what should I consider? Should I consider a pair of the Benchmark amps? That's 6k and knowing me I'm unlikely to spend much more than that, or even that much if I can avoid it. I want the best performance I can get for the money but also reliability. There's a pair of Bryston 7B3 for sale somewhat locally and I might stretch the budget a little for something that will be under warranty until I'm retirement age. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to think the Benchmark amp is something special and I could get a pair of those brand new. All else being equal I'd rather buy something that runs cool and doesn't waste a lot of electricity. I definitely prefer buying made in America, or at least something not made by the brutally impoverished. |
jon_5912 Much has changed in 10+ years regarding electronics. If you have a local dealer/retailer, start there. If anything it is worth looking over current offerings that will serve as a point of reference. As always, trust your own ears while auditioning the gear! Have fun on the Audio journey. Happy Listening! |
For the CS3.7 I have tried the following the past month. 1) CODA CSiB v1 with 150 | 300 at 8 | 4 Ohm. First 18 watt Class A 2) Benchmark AHB2 x 2 3) Currently the Krell K-300i 150 | 300 at 8 | 4 Ohm. First 90 watt Class A The CODA and Krell are integrateds. They all sound great. The Krell especially nice with AudioMirror Tubadour III SE tube DAC. I have not heard the CODA with the tube DAC yet. I may this weekend unless I sell the CODA by then. The Krell is super smooth sounding with a lot of bass power, more than the other 2. The Benchmark AHB2 is super clean sounding and I like it a lot and likely how I will listen the most, occasionally switching to the Krell. These 3 units are not extremely expensive and make the CS3.7 sing. |
Some like McIntosh with Thiel. McIntosh succeeds in accomplishing their design goals, they are well made, and bench test well, they hold their value as well or better than most of the competition, they will likely have parts and well qualified techs available for some time to come, their consistent, tasteful, even iconic styling will probably go into the future making visual aesthetically pleasing compatible future McIntosh purchases probable. With that said, I can't for the life of me understand why they still use autoformers in their ss amps. Perhaps it made sense with their background in the early 60's when transistors were anything but reliable. But easily for the past 40 years that has not at all been a concern. That they add the autoformers and all the extra taps necessitated by them, as well as the poorly functioning meters only adds technical compromise and expense. The MC462's 2 Ohm Class AB output is the equivalent to that of a 113 Watt amp without autoformers that can properly double down to 2 Ohms. The MC 462 seems rather expensive for use with the Thiel CS 2.4's The only other example of a ss amp I'm aware of that used an autoformer was a limited edition run of a First Watt amp made for unique application, and in that case the autoformer was used on the input rather than the output as McIntosh does. For the McIntosh autoformers to work ideally they need to be used on an exceptionally linear impedance load. Which is not typical. Look at the Thiel CS 2.4's impedance graph here: Thiel CS2.4 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com Notice that the impedance rises to 15 Ohms at 60 Hz, typically a demanding area. Meanwhile the MC462 is recommended to be used with the tap that corresponds to the speakers lowest impedance. Which in the case of the Thiel CS 2.4 is close to 2 Ohms, and stays there most of the time. McIntosh Laboratory MC462 power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com While I appreciate the MC462's spec'd sensitivities for both single ended and balanced inputs, which would accommodate direct connection to many self volume controlled DAC's, the measurements don't live up to the specs, and vary with the tap used. Furthermore, the input impedance is not the most cooperative for that economical advantage. FWIW, subjectively I never appreciated the Mac house sound. To my ears they lack dynamics and dimensionality. YMMV |
James - a thought from Thiel history for you. I take interest in how brands associate with other brands. Partly in play is dealer synergy - dealers tend to carry brands that go well together. Sometimes designers align with other designers for shared approach or desired outcomes . . . Thiel’s brand associations grew somewhat over the years, but centered on some brands that get regular mention in this thread: Krell, Mark Levinson, Bryston, early Classé and Threshold. For the record, McIntosh never came on Thiel’s radar. Nothing negative, but nothing ever presented itself. For myself, my first aha moment when I learned that reproduced music could be every bit as involving as live music involved McIntosh. As a singer-songwriter-student I was immersed in music, and playback was mostly a tool for production and for learning. Then one day I went to lunch at a faculty community house at the edge of campus. After lunch we all sat down to absorb a newly released jazz album, followed by an appreciation and discussion of musical and sonic merit. It was 1967, I was a freshman. These guys opened my ears and my mind. The only piece of gear I vividly remember was the pair of chrome amps with their glowing tubes. When asked, Brother Stan said they were McIntosh - I don’t remember the model, or the turntable or speakers. I do remember the musical magic and the adjectives 'lush and delicate'. |
@tomthiel I can't remember where I got this information, but I seem to recall that Thiel speakers were designed with the grills in mind. That is, they are voiced with the grill on and thus ideally should be used that way.Is that correct? I've never actually taken the grills off my 2.7s to try them that way - one reason being I don't like seeing speaker drivers (I find it distracting when I know exactly where the sound is coming from). |
