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!
Yes, I love digging down in to assumptions, axioms. It's become a reflexive habit for me when proposing any claim or argument that I first check myself for special pleading and consistency, seeing as far as I can in many directions whether the argument upsets any apple carts in my own philosophical structure. I may be wrong...but after many years I'm pretty confident in being consistent . :-) . Unfortunately I find attempts at arguments that are nuanced in the way philosophy often demands, often fall on deaf ears, and one faces a lot of straw-manning of one's position. When you even question someone's firm belief in a phenomenon, they seem to presume an opposite position of firmness to you. Hence any nuanced case for a skeptical - but not decided! - position is just ignored and doubt is characterized as dogmatism. Makes conversation about assumptions pretty tough. (But then, that's the nature of challenging assumptions in the first place).
Anyway,
Thanks very much for the info on altering the Thiel 02s. I'm not handy at all with such things and would have a professional furniture refinisher I've used before. If I go ahead, I'll keep the info and suggestions you've given as a helpful note.
prof - your philosophical base leaks through. Isn't it a joy to pursue things as far back to first principles as we can? Kierkegaard - Heidegger were my focus.
Reveneering with any clamping method would bow the panels inward and not work well. But you could use pressure sensitive adhesive backed veneer. A more likely solution would be to strip the finish (Lex is nitrocellulose lacquer, I believe Heinl is also) with citrus stripper and then scrape, sand and refinish to order. The veneer started out at 0.025" thick minus production sanding of about half that thickness. So be careful.
And keep up the good work. You might expound those emperical virtues you referenced.
I like my 02s so much I’ve been considering having them re-finished (their old finish is a bit blah, faded, and doesn’t match our room at all). I don’t know if it would be possible to actually have a veneer of another wood placed over them, or whether it’s just a case of changing the stain colour.
BTW, as a fellow philosophy nerd (more via self-education and interest over the decades - it wasn’t a major), it’s nice to see you had a background in philosophy. Epistemology, ontology...I’ve been in the debate trenches with those subjects many times. Tough nuts to crack!
It’s both my practical, and philosophical side that leads me to defend certain empirical virtues that often don’t seem too welcome in the world of audiophiles. (And I certainly count myself as an audiophile).
prof - I just visited a pair of Brazilian Rosewood O2s that I inherited from my dad's estate. When I get them here from Virginia, I'll draw the schematics and conjure an upgrade. The O2 was before we discovered 6-9s wire or film caps. Simple second order 2-way XO that fit in one hand. The cabinet might need some bracing, and the grille frame an inboard bevel wedge - it was a plain square frame . . . perhaps felt on the baffle. No end to the fun. The O2 was designed for the newly emerging audiophile dealer to sell against Polk and Advent. I think those retailed for $150 / pair in 1977, which would be $500 in today's dollars.
Memory is an odd thing . . . often spotty and sometimes inaccurate on details, but very true to the major themes, people and events. I am appreciating the opportunity to re-access these memories from a very difficult and productive period of my life. Thank you.
A most excellent discussion between andy2, prof and yourself. Thank You for more backstory and historical markers that made Thiel Audio a reckoning force. Happy Listening!
prof - there's always more. Our early years needed more rapid growth than we could produce. Our Canadian solution came with Russ Heinl, a Canadian distributor with good connections, knowledge and support. Canada had introduced tariffs for US goods, creating a cost opportunity for Canadian manufacture. Plus we were already supplementing our O-series cabinet supply from Soundwood in Toronto. I set up production in Canada for Canada with Soundwood cabinets and Heinl-produced crossovers with the same Solen-Canada caps and identical drivers that we were using. It all added up to a viable solution and the Canadian-made product sold in Canada is virtually identical to the Lexington-made product sold elsewhere. However, as our products became more sophisticated the outsource solution became unfeasible. We capped our year on year growth to 30% and brought all manufacturing in-house for the CS series.
If you come across model O1s or O2s, the back panel will say Thiel - manufactured by Conceptions Electronics.
I just checked my pair of 02s and it looks like Thiel outsourced to more than one manufacturer. Mine say on the back, manufactured by:
Heinl Electronics...in Canada.
They remain one of my all time favourite speakers. They were owned by my girlfriend (now wife) and re-introduced me to the virtues of clarity and neutrality, after a number of years of buying big honking speakers suitable for shaking the walls.
Regarding higher driver-count coherent sources . . . it is indeed a very complex problem. The way Thiel approached phase coherence was for each driver to execute its design-ultimate slope such that when summed with the other interacting drivers, the net resultant curves mathematically summed correctly. This approach is first-principle-purist-physics driven rather than the euphonic design approach of messing with it till you like it. A surprisingly obscure tenet of the purist approach is that the net first-order slope for an individual driver slope is actually quite complex rather than simply 6dB / octave.
Let's jump right to a germane example: The woofer crossing to the midrange. Each driver roll-out assumes a 6dB slope - but that slope must be the net resultant slope, so in fact, the driver's actual behavior in that cabinet, electromagnetic environment etc. must be corrected by shaping networks such that it behaves properly, and the two drivers add properly. I have not yet addressed the meat of andy's question of more than 3-way or multiple bass drivers. I'm getting there, but before we go there, we should digest further complexities beyond this simple woofer-midrange interaction.
In a valid minimum phase array (as Thiel attempted), the woofer is not only interacting with the midrange, but the tweeter is in fact still contributing down (through the midrange's lower roll-out and) to the woofer's upper roll-out. So there is in effect a tweeter x woofer crossover at a lower signal level, since they both must be attenuated at this secondary cross-point. At that crosspoint each relevant driver must assume a 12dB /octave slope in order to add correctly in the whole system. Here we have opened Pandora's box. Every small change to any driver slope must be complementarily compensated in not one, but multiple other coexisting driver slopes. Such considerations include passive radiators and cabinet bracing and other factors which influence the roll-out behavior of any and all drivers, electrical or mechanical.
So, now let's expand to andy's questions regarding more than 3 drivers. I have already mentioned that the passive radiator counts, so the CS2 and 3 series are 4-ways in crossover considerations, although the passive radiators and mechanical coax (2.4, etc.) don't actually accumulate the expense of electrical crossover components - but the crossover must nonetheless consider their contributions.
Let's jump to the bass alignment of the CS5. The bass picks up from the lower midrange at 400. There are 3 bass drivers representing 2 alignments which all cross over to the lower 5" midrange, the upper 2" midrange and the 1" tweeter. Only the sub-bass driver pair with a 40Hz crosspoint is exempt from only the upper midrange and tweeter. The rest of the drivers interact and each interaction introduces an additional 6dB pole to its required roll-out. The required mental gymnastics is considerable. Generally, even with world-class brands and development labs, the approach is to ignore any interaction greater than -10dB or possibly as much as -20dB. We proved to ourselves that -40dB could be "sensed" as anomalous = Not Right. So we endeavored to keep it all straight in the design phase; then in production engineering, we had to determine how much mattered how much and how much we could afford to spend on any of dozens of decision points. That process generally took months to work through and hinged on value judgements of what our customers would be likely to spend on approaching "perfection". In hind sight, we missed the mark there. A product such as the CS5 could have been executed at various levels into $6 figures. In fact I conceived it as being a $15K product whereas Jim and Kathy drew a firm bold like at $10K, and we fit the final product into that frame. NB that Thiel's Cost of Goods Sold was far higher than anyone else in the business. We we wanted to be nirvana for everyman. But that price aversion kept us out of the developing ultimate-performance marketplace.
Let's focus on multiple low-frequency drivers. The CS5 is unique and effective. Let's examine the 3 bass drivers. Assume a pair of sub-woofers operating from 10 to 40Hz and a single upper woofer operating from 40 to 400 Hz. Since our baffle is sloped (to best fit) for the purpose of time alignment, we assign a group time signature to the upper (mid-high frequency) 3-driver array (lab work). The proper placement of the upper woofer turned out to be right in the "wrong" place near the floor where the lower woofers needed to be. The Aha! moment came on an overnight flight to England when Jim and I
were wrestling with how to achieve proper physical time alignment of the
bass with the upper drivers. We put the upper woofer THERE BETWEEN the subwoofers with its own tunnel-tube to a sub-enclosure in the back of the cabinet so that the two sub-woofers could see the larger remaining enclosure. The subwoofers flanked the upper woofer (above and below), creating a larger integrated waveform supported by the floor. At the 40Hz crosspoint, those waveforms are large enough that their physical center could be coincident with the mid woofer for simplification of time alignment of the whole-woofer-array with the multiple upper array drivers above it. The square wave / impulse response verified the success of the idea. It works.
Now, back to crossovers. We have fixed the time alignment of the bass array as a single entity in space, but the two slopes are different due to their differing crosspoints. In fact the upper-mid and tweeter are out of the subwoofer equation, but all except the tweeter are in the upper woofer equation. We accomplished much of the roll out work via mass loading the sub woofers for a mechanical upper roll-out and lower fundamental resonance. It took months of iterations including driver and enclosure tweaks to fine tune each of the crossovers with their compound and corrected slopes to achieve both phase coherence, time alignment and smooth frequency response. This work was supported by pretty serious test equipment which Jim conceived, developed and built in-house.
History shows the CS5 design to be technically tour de force, but commercially short-lived. The Achilles Heal is that amplification was not available and/or identified that would drive the cruel load of about 1 ohm at 40 Hz and deliver clean power to the upper frequencies. I believe that product might have succeeded if a bi-amplification scenario were implemented. Indeed if I hot-rod a pair my first move would be to separate the bass from the rest. The mid-high frequency load is pretty sweet. The low frequency demands could be addressed with the right amp and any deficiencies would be sequestered in the bass where our ear is far more forgiving. A further tweak would be to remove the mass loading from the sub-woofers and equalize the bass amp for electronic rather than physical shaping, earning significantly higher bass impedance for, I believe, potentially world-class bass.
At this point in my life, this the stuff of pipe dreams. But if granted the time, such dreams may turn to real stuff. I am healthy at 70 and gradually making room in my life for addressing this business from long ago.
If you come across model O1s or O2s, the back panel will say Thiel - manufactured by Conceptions Electronics.
I just checked my Thiel 02s. Looks like Thiel outsourced to more than one company as mine (in Canada) say Manufactured by:
Heinl Electronics in Canada.
They are still one of my favourite all time speakers. They were my girlfriend's (now wife) and they re-introduced me to the virtues of clarity and neutrality after a number of years buying big, honking speakers that were good for shaking the walls.
Regarding amp testing: the manufacturer knows good and well how their amp works into a 2 ohm load. In the days of brick and mortar dealers, the dealer would know or could easily find out. John Atkinson's Stereophile and other technical lab tests are very
instructive. Look at the curves for performance deterioration at 4 ohms
vs 8 ohms. If that deterioration is great, the amp is generally not
specified to 2 ohms. Read between the lines, that amp would possibly fall apart
at 2 ohms.
Often you can read for meaning for phrases such as "stable into instantaneous (or peak) 2-ohm load. Which means it cannot sustain continuous 2 ohm output and therefore not suitable for Thiel. In today's world you might put out a call on amp forums for a full lab test of an amp of interest. Or if you can get to an old-fashioned bench repair shop, they could power test an amp under load and read the waveforms on their oscilloscope for you to see, even if not to print and distribute. Jim's first job was as such a technician, repairing everything from amps to radios to TVs and sophisticated specialty circuitry. (Our first business plan was to produce amps, not speakers, but didn't see a promising niche. That was before the days of amp proliferation. Jim had equipment and knowledge and we vetted amps in-house to choose those that performed properly, not just ones we liked, which is a trap because your speaker may turn out far from neutral and therefore less universal.
Regarding McCormack: Steve's values, knowledge and perspective are right-on and I would expect his equipment to perform well for all the right reasons. However, I have no direct experience beyond hearing at shows, which was always good.
Regarding the neurology of psychoacoustics and so forth. Yes, there is lots of serious information, but it is pretty obscure. My PhD studies included epistomology (how we know), ontology (the nature of being) and the neurology of creativity. I was also a practicing musician and acutely interested in musical communication. So I studied and absorbed this stuff. No I didn't finish the PhD; I jumped the academic ship to establish my own design studio where I made musical instruments, studio furniture and other artifacts. Conceptions Studio incubated and then became Thiel Audio. If you come across model O1s or O2s, the back panel will say Thiel - manufactured by Conceptions Electronics. Of course all these inquiries into how we hear, learn and know served as the foundation of Thiel Audio.
But there is nowhere I can send you except to suggest Google. Happy reading.
Thank You for sharing your perspective on McCormack power amps. With the specs listed, no doubt, that this is a sonic match for Thiel speakers. Added to the list.
Thank You for your points of view as it pertains to loudspeaker design, implementation. I look forward in reading more about you and your musical tastes. Happy Listening!
Wow, I continue to be blown away by the level of discourse on this thread. tomthiel, are there references you can share re the serious body of study - is there anything publicly available? And how do you test an amp for 2 ohm performance? My best guess is listen to them through Thiels, but I imagine there is a technical/engineering way to do this, or does maybe this requires high dollar equipment that I could just spend on an amp? catalysis - are those amps 150wpc mono-blocks? Again, thanks all for this discussion!
Thank you Tom. I appreciate your opinions very much. I can’t wait for your response with respect to time-coherent in a speaker using multiple bass drivers.
andy - thank you for your contributions. Indeed you are on it with "first order filter. It communicates the heart and emotion of the music better."
This communication is not some magic of technical accomplishment, and in fact it is one side of the coin of accuracy. This subtlety of communication is primarily a psycho-acoustic effect. That is not saying it is somehow fakery. On the contrary, we hear by synthesizing auditory experiences via very minimal sonic inputs which elicit associations, memories, conjectures and so forth. Then the auditory brain forwards those synthesized packets for storage and assembly into longer, more complex composites such as a musical or verbal phrase, etc. Our research at Thiel led us to commit to first-order slopes because they are the only solution to preserve the phase-time information that the ear-brain uses to believe the input is real. We really believe what we are hearing when the phase information is intact, rather than cognitively conjecturing what we hear when the phase information is scrambled, as it is with higher order filters. Much more can be said about this process, but put it on the shelf for now.
Side 2 of the coin is the technical execution. No doubt, hands down, higher order slopes are FAR more executable for exact frequency domain accuracy. In fact, first order slopes are generally considered non-executable because the drivers must have such a wide range of linear response. Higher order slopes attenuate the out-of-bandpass signal at double, triple or quadruple rates compared to first order. The ubiquitous 4th order slopes attenuate at 24dB / octave rather than our 6dB. So all the grief that the driver goes through at its frequency extremes just goes away with higher order filters, making much cleaner, more controllable frequency domain smoothness.
So, the double-whammy is that the frequency extreme grief of the first order slope is also more objectionable because the ear-brain is trying to process it as real music and not a music-like artifact as it does with higher order slopes. Both sides of the difficult coin gang up against first order slopes. Thiel decided the result of reality was worth the huge grief of execution.
As you eluded earlier, phase coherence without time coherence is not meaningful. The audio brain can only buy in if all the elements of the signal are correct. I believe, and Thiel's position is the distinct minority, that the phase-time aspect of the signal is more critical than the frequency domain aspect. In other words, it is not upsetting if a reproduced trumpet sounds slightly like a different trumpet (frequency-spectral differences), but it is upsetting if a trumpet's harmonics reach the ear at different times and in different phase relationships than real, non-reproduced music (time-phase differences).
An interesting phenomenon is that once a listener (or recording pro) has identified the importance of time-phase, there is no real going back. The artificiality of non-coherent wave-forms is unsettling, even if the frontal lobes convince us that that sound must be a trumpet. As I said before, this discussion encompasses a serious body of study; I hope this response covers the high spots.
Regarding more than 3 drivers in a phase-coherent system, I'll comment on that later. Think CS5, 6 and 7.
In my previous post, when I compared different filter order, I didn't mean to say that higher order is bad and first order is good. I think each filter order has its own strength and weakness. High order filter objective gives you more "clarity" but I also think high order subtracts the "musical" part of the music. Higher order tends to give you a more "pin point" image production vs. first order. Listening to the CS2.4, although it has a lot of see through clarity of the soundstage, I think I've have heard better image see through with other speakers, but the CS2.4 is just more musically satisfy. I guess my English is not good enough so I want to quote a Stereophile review of the CS3.7 review when he compared the sound of the CS3.7 vs. the Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 8:
"While the Wilsons did give Francois Couturier's piano in Brahem's "Vague/E la nave va" a slightly more vivid presence, I felt the Thiels did a better job of seeing into the heart of the music. What does that mean? It wasn't a matter of soundstaging or holographic imaging—both speakers were champs at that—but the Thiels had a quality I can describe only as grace. Grace is like a soap bubble: Try to dissect it and it's gone. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that the Thiels got out of their own way, which is what a high-end speaker is supposed to do."
That is how I felt about first order filter. It communicates the heart and emotion of the music better. To me, first order is like tube amplifier which may not be as clear or have the impact of solid state, but it is just more musically satisfying.
When I design my speaker, using the same cabinet and drivers, if I design the cross over network using higher order filter, it was more or less an academic exercise. But when I tried to design using first order, it took me a long time to get right but it's absolutely worth it. As a matter of fact, it is easy to make your speakers sound "right" using high order filter, and it's a lot easier to mess up the sound using first order filter.
The one major disadvantage of first order, time coherent speaker is that it really restricts your options as far as driver configuration. That is why almost all time coherent speakers are essentially three way. All Thiel speakers and Vandersteen are essentially three way. Vandersteen has a couple of 4-way but the fourth driver essentially acts as a subwoofer crossing over at very low frequency so it's not a problem. If you want to use multiple bass drivers then it's probably not possible since it would be very difficult to integrate the sound coming from different drivers with first order filter. Also if you want to build large speaker with multiple midrange drivers, multiple bass drivers, I would think you have to use higher order filter.
tomthiel - great suggestions about other caps to replace waiting for your full new 3.6 XO project, I'll give a try to this step of upgrade and will report here as soon as I'm able to build my clear and reliable idea about this modification. Concerning the list of amps suitable for the well known Thiel's "bastard" low load I can state that my McCormack DNA-2 is really a nice match, it's capable of 900 W RMS for channel into 2 ohms. Things I like most is the effortless velvet punch and the warm and clear mids/highs it can deliver, I'm very satisfied with it.
Good to see you and it appears that we have another hands-on, DIY, contributor. Looking forward in reading more about your capacitor replacement project. Perhaps you can join forces with Beetle, Rob and Tom. You guys are awesome! Happy Listening!
Thank You for the ModWright perspective. There have been several questions, requests on mating this brand with our beloved Thiel speakers. Good to read that the two brands are a sonic match.
Hope that you are well and enjoying the Fall season. Good to read that you are affirming Ayre as a capable amp for our Thiel speakers. An integrated amp, no less. Keep researching and posting the findings on your XO project. Happy Listening!
Thank You for the caps tech talk. Keep it coming Sir! Thinking about Marty Balin today (R.I.P.) and his vocals on the song "Miracles" from Red Octopus album. This is a demo track in any format as he delivers one hell of a crescendo performance, sure to test any speaker's midrange capability.
Good to see you here and glad that you are still enjoying your CS 2.4 loudspeakers. The CS6 does look sweet indeed. Hopefully, they will find the next home soon. Happy Listening!
Welcome! Good to see you here- an excellent post all around. Very sweet owning (2) systems. Also good to read that your CS 2.4 speakers arrived safe and sound to your locale. Interesting that you are a speaker builder, those DIY skills are going to come in handy as beetlemania and tomthiel are working in concert on a cross-over project in conjunction with Mr. Rob Gillum due later this Fall. Stay Tuned.
One of the biggest challenges to making 1st order crossover-appropriate speakers is that the drivers need to have a considerably wider bandwidth than those typically used in higher order designs. Not any old driver will do. These are much more expensive to design, manufacture and test, and Jim worked tirelessly on improving them. Tom can comment here but from interviews I’ve read with Jim, and some of the classic Thiel product literature I still have, much effort went into those Thiel drivers, and some were originally outsourced. The CS6 was the first model that contained drivers all made in house by Thiel.
My first pair were CS7s and, stupidly, I sold them for a pair of Dynaudio Contour 2.0, thinking I was going to "downsize;" they too used 1st order crossovers but were not time/phase coherent. After less than a year, I so missed the Thiels that I traded the Dynaudios for a pair of CS6s, and later bought a pair of CS2.4s for a second system. I’m trying to find a home for the CS6s now that my space is smaller and the CS2.4s are my main speakers.
Andy: congrats on your new Thiels. Enjoy them and let me know if you have any questions about set up, placement, etc. When the imaging is locked in you will know it.
I don't feel competent to assess the exact contributions of phase/time coherence to what I hear with the Thiels. And speaker designers (and experts on acoustics from what I can tell) still seem to disagree.
I can only note that my Thiels (first CS6, then CS3.7 and 2.7) share a quality of precision in imaging, a solidity and density of imaging, and a very believable natural tone for voices and instruments.
Also, the 3.7s/2.7s are the most coherent dynamic speakers I've heard. The 3.7s in particular all the way through the bass region. But both designs distinguish themselves in coherence in the mids and highs. There is simply no sense of a "tweeter" in the sound from the mids. Zero. Sounds that traverse the tricky crossover points of the tweeter/mid driver sound perfectly whole and coherent.
What gets interesting to me, as a nut about instrumental/vocal timbre, are how different approaches can still seem to do well. I remember the very well regarded speaker designer, Paul Hales, saying that one reason he chose higher order crossovers instead of chasing time/phase coherence is that he felt the benefits of higher order made it easier to achieve timbral precision. And to my ears Hales speakers, the Transcendence line in particular, excelled in exactly that aspect. I remember going to a CES way back and after having been in most rooms over two days I heard what sounded startlingly like a live band coming from one room. It was the Hales room and I'll be darned if the timbre of the horns, saxes and other instruments coming through those speakers wasn't astonishingly rich, accurate and believable. When I ended up with Hales transcendence speakers, this was their prime virtue (though I found ultimately they suffered a bit from a lack of dynamics/palpability, which the Thiels really give me).
My current favourite speaker for accurate-sounding timbral quality are the Joseph speakers. I played a great many recordings on those speakers that I've played for years on my Thiel speakers. I love, love, love the sound of the Thiels, but when I played for instance certain piano recordings on the Josephs, there was a hair-raising shock, the sensation of hearing a piano's timbral quality *exactly* as I'm used to when I play one, reproduced right in front of me.
So these encounters with auditioning and owning various speakers that at the very least seem to give the Thiels a run for the money in the timbral-accuracy department, make me hesitate to conclude the only way to get such things "right" is time and phase coherence, as intuitive as the case for time/phase coherence may be.
(Please don't throw tomatoes at me my Thiel brethren, I'm still one of you!)
My first impression when I unpack them is that they seem a bit bigger than I remember. The craftmanship is impecable. Something like this today would probably cost $20K. And they are heavy!!! My only disappointment visually is that the bass driver is advertised as 8in but I think the drivers are more like large 7in. I have a pair of ScanSpeak 8in driver they they look quite bigger than the CS2.4 "8in." Anyway, I build my own speakers so I usually don't buy commercial speakers, but I have to have these and I am glad I did. These are probably one of the very few that can do a perfect step response. John Atkinson said that may be less than 10 speakers in the world that can do this. Owning the CS2.4 is like owning a piece of history. I think they will be a future classic.
I remember the first time I listened to them at an audio shop a long time ago just after the speakers were introduced to the market, and the first thing I said to the owner was that "They don't sound bright at all". Every single review I've read always said something to the effect that they are a bit bright and so on which is odd. In my set up, they sound natural and the treble is very sweet and not harsh or bright at all. But I think they are very transparent, so I suppose if your electronics are bright, it's possible that they will sound bright.
I have two setups in my house. One is Arcam CD23, Conrad Johnson 17LS, and Simaudio Moon W3. In this system, they sound very natural and neutral but very good. My other setup is Ayre QB9 DSD, Pass Lab XP10, and Simaudio W7 amp and in this system they actually sound a bit warm (I though I was listening to a pair of Sonus Faber :-)) So I guess I couldn't make them sound bright :-).
Anyway, I am not going to repeat all the accolades they received from professional magazines. But instead I am going talk about first order filter which is used in the CS2.4. Actually they are not only first order, they are also time coherent. You can use first order in your design, but it does not automatically mean time coherent. I have built speakers using various filter order such as 4th order (24db roll off), 2nd order (12db roll off), and first order (6db roll off), and without any doubt any my mind, first order has the most natural and musical sound. As you go to higher order, the sound does sound a bit "clearer" but less and less natural. But I think higher order tend to spot light the instruments but I don't think it's natural. The Thiel sounds unmistakenly as a first order. I design my speakers using first order so I know how first order sounds like.
Interestingly, something that I didn't expect, the CS2.4 has a very similar soundstage as mine I guess because mine speaker also use first order filter. I would like to describe what an first order sounds like. Everything is very coherent, no instrument or aspect of the soundstage is being favored. The sound is spacious, airy, open, liquid, continuos like real life. The treble is very integrated into the entire sound. In some speakers that use higher order filters, the treble sometimes feels like a separate element, like a shin that overlays the sound. If you think about it, treble is part of every sound such as your speech sibilance, the drum hit, and not just from high hat. With first order filter, the treble is just like that as in real life that it is within the sound, over overlaying the sound. I listen to the CS2.4 I feel very at ease, it's like I just sit back and enjoy the sound. I don't recall feeling like that listening to any other commercial speakers. The treble, the bass, the soundstage, everything is just right.
The other thing I like to talk about is time coherent. As, I mentioned above, being first order does not automatically mean time coherent. The CS2.4 goes a step further and also is time coherent. The claim is that time coherent makes the sound more natural and has better soundstage. My speakers are first order but not time coherent, and compare mine vs. the CS2.4, I guess the advantage of time coherent is subtle because it's hard for me to tell. Mine and the CS2.4 use completely different drivers so there are just too many variables. But as I said above, even though the CS2.4 and mine use different drives and designed by different persons, there is something about the sound that is very similar that is very characteristic of first order filter.
Anyway, if you are looking for a pair of speakers, I highly recommend CS2.4 unfortunately they won't be easy to find. I feel like if Thiel would make these as is today, a lot of people will buy them. I know Tom Thiel participates in this thread so may be we can convince him. I think Thiel products are somewhat different from the past. First order and time coherent are no longer part of their designs. Besides Vandersteen, I don't know of anyone making first order time coherent speakers. I can tell you from experience that it's not easy so maybe that's why no many people do it.
silvanik - fantastic indeed and we are most interested in your results. Sonic Craft has New Old Stock Mills MRAs. FYI: all the copper in your 3.6s is 4-9s or better. Your solder is silver x tin, so it needs high temperature. The yellow bypasses are best of form styrene x tin foil.
A further thought for your consideration: While replacing the Electrolytic 3x100uF mid shunts plus the 1x100uF woofer shunt, you might play some swap. Your Audyns are probably better than the 2x 100uF PolyPropylene mid feeds. You might spend 2 of your Audyns there and move the original PPs to the woofer shunt and one of the mid shunts, placing your Audyns for maximum benefit in the mid feed.
A further upgrade target is the 8.2uF PP in the tweeter feed. In addition to the 66uF shunt you are replacing, that 8.2 is the weak link in the tweeter circuit. Similarly the 9.1uF PP in the midrange shunt is a candidate. I mention these caps because their small values make them low-hanging fruit.
My 3.6 project is on the back burner, but I have been scheming for awhile. Please share your progress and what you learn.
Hi Tom, Stereophile has measured both Ayre models i have owned. Soundstage might have also measured the AX-5 but maybe it was the amp rather than integrated. Charles Hansen was not a fan of power ratings for amps. Here are some of his thoughts. Also, here
Edit - looks like my links don’t work. The short of it is he said you can’t predict how an amp will sound from its measurements.
I just ordered some Audyn Q4 capacitors to replace all the electrolytic one originally installed on my CS 3.6, in detail, four 100 uF/100v and one 66 uF/100V
That is fantastic, please let us know the sonic results. I suggest you also upgrade the resistors to Mills MRA-12s at the same time.
beetle - point taken, many amps are not rated to 2 ohms, so we don't know their capability. It would be very instructive if you could learn the 2 ohm behavior of your Ayre amp so that we can learn from your experience. I have heard only praise of Ayre, but have never heard one myself. My theory predicts that it should do well into 2 ohms for it to meet your sonic requirements so well. Please report if you can supply such performance information to us.
I went to an integrated amp because I came to the conclusion all that coming and going WAS about the gear rather than the music. Not 100%, but on more than just a few occasions I found myself suspecting SOMETHING in the chain wasn’t to my liking. Dumb.
While I dug the processes of firing up the separates, the procedures involved, the NASA-like regimented routine, waiting for warm up, running down the check list began to make me feel like Major Tom, if not altogether a major d**k.
My last integrated was a Modwright Instruments KWI-200, no slouch by any measure. (With CS 3.6) When I called to see if I could replace the flimsy plastic remote, I was put on the phone with Mr. Modwright himself. What??? Yes, the owner himself got on my call to discuss a preamp possibility - and I related that I had obtained the unit second hand. He didn’t mind. Modwright will top my return list.
And Thiel.
While this submission may have wandered off the reservation a bit so far as subject matter, my single most reason for being here in the first place begins with Thiel. Kids, these speakers make ANYTHING sound better no matter what gear you own. At first. Then it becomes a pursuit to find better amps, better preamps, cables, sweaters, socks, and underwear. In a word, Thiel rocks. On the used market they are incontestable bargains. As I’ve said before, Thiel is an investment not an expenditure. They’re worth every penny owning, maintaining, and enjoying.
There red is no better resource for “ Thielia “ than this thread - it is fast becoming the most contributed-to thread on the site.
Hello everybody!....glad to read all yours opinions and experiences matching Thiel speakers, sources, pre and amps. I just ordered some Audyn Q4 capacitors to replace all the electrolytic one originally installed on my CS 3.6, in detail, four 100 uF/100v and one 66 uF/100V each speaker. I have read some very good impressions about this brand so my choice for Q4 MKP foil capacitor, they are 400 Vdc and tolerance within +/-5%. I know that they will be much bigger than the originals but I already planned to install them outside of the XO board using some short pure silver wire to do the connections. After twenty years of duty for these caps I expect to listen some improvements and no longer the need to worry about that electrolytic. I'll report here the result once the job is done.
Only 62? Ha! You still have 25 to 30 years ahead of you to enjoy your music through a good rig.
Just be selective, as retirement funds may not equal what you have been able to spend previously for changing out components.
Just remember that the cost vs desired performance for audio equipment isn't a smoothly-increasing line on an x-y plot. It has a sharp elbow at about the 95-97% point, and further minute increases in perceived enjoyment can cost megabucks.
Learn to listen to the music for enjoyment, and not for nit-picking the upper midrange sounds between 901 and 902 hz.
l recommend evaluating any amp (for Thiel speakers) by its ability to sustain a 2 ohm load.
I’ve had great success driving my Thiels with Ayre. I used an AX-7e to drive CS 1.6s and am now using an AX-5 Twenty to drive CS 2.4 SEs. The 7 is rated at “only” 60 W into 8 ohm and the 5 at 125, both doubling into 4 Ohms but neither has a 2 Ohm rating from Ayre. Both play plenty loadly for my tastes and room. I did get the 7 to clip when I pushed my Vandersteen 2s, which are considerably less efficient than the 1.6s. Still, that was at SPLs exceeding my personal comfort zone.
I guess I’m suggesting a strict 2 ohm rating for Thiels might exclude some otherwise great amplification that will work just fine. Perhaps this should be model-dependent. Looking at the CS5 measurements, i probably wouldn’t mate an AX-7 with those!
No doubt my next round of appropriating equipment will have a MUCH shorter list of possible brands - Pass and Thiel topping it depending upon locality, finances, etc. Though it pained me to let my stuff go I did so knowing it wasn’t the finale, simply a temporary setback.
It’s almost refreshing actually. A clean slate is a good thing in many ways. I’m 61 now, soon to turn 62, so the years I have ahead of me are far shorter than the years I have behind me. Not a whine, just a fact - and time too constricted to burn through equipment as I have for the last 5 years. In no particular order... Thiel (4), Magnepan (3), Audio Research (2), B. A. T. (2), Placette, Von Schweikert (2), Vandersteen, Modwright, Sony Hap, Oppo, Marantz Turntable, McIntosh (2), Musical Fidelity (2), Project Turntable, Primare, Primare Phono, First Watt, and more cables and connects than you can swing a dead cat at...
Thank You for the hot tip on Dana Cummingham. I will add this title to my must purchase list. By all means feel free to suggest more CD or LP (s) that are reference quality discs. Happy Listening!
So true about moving onward and upward in our hobby. I always viewed starting over as an opportunity to build the next excellent or reference system. Happy Listening!
Thank You Tom Thiel Dis-satisfaction with any component can be the result of incompatible synergy , your knowledge and insight of the Theil speakers has at least given owners or future owners some information on what to look for in a power amp .
dsper I got back into a home audio system about 10 years ago by purchasing my dream system from when I first read about it in the 1980's , the 30 year old pre-amp was noisy even after re-capping , so after I purchased a separate phono pre-amp and I started to think about a passive preamp with the thought that less is more . So I now have a 2 input 24 step volume control passive preamp and couldn't be happier with the sonic result , my all tube phono preamp and my CD player with built in buffer tubes are basically plugged into the power amp with just a couple of resistors on the volume control in-between .
You have experimented with a lot with tubes , fun but expensive and getting more so everyday , but as you said it's easier and less expensive than changing out components . I had just replaced the stock 12AU7 with a new Gold Lion the is balanced and cryro treated and am loving it . I tried an older 1960 RCA gray plate , and a few other tubes that I borrowed to listen to , a Telefunken and a Baldwin. I think that I will stick to new tubes with the hope that like vinyl more will be available as time goes on.
dancast - regarding the PS Audio M770s, the PS spec states that amp to be stable into 2 ohms for musical peaks. That fact would disrecommend its use for main stereo use. The lion's share of dis-satisfaction with Thiel products is the low impedance current draw from an inadequate amp. I recommend evaluating any amp (for Thiel speakers) by its ability to sustain a 2 ohm load.
Must agree with Tom. Over time, I've ordered classical CDs from Amazon that were no longer available currently, but had to be produced as a "one order" item.
Larry, I see that Amazon "manufacturers this product to order". I would not recommend that option. We manufactured the original CD at Sanyo USA (best of form) on the late night shift for best quality. I believe that original version is what is on Dana's site. I suggest you go there.
Tom, I went to Amazon and they have 'Dancing at the Gate' on CD. Which version is your remaster... they show two different covers and release dates. Thanks
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
