You are certainly on the right track for top-tier integrated amps -thieliste
staying tuned as you sort and demo those contenders for your system.
Happy Listening!
staying tuned as you sort and demo those contenders for your system.
Happy Listening!
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!
13,501 responses Add your response
tomthiel, My problem with my 3.7s isn't sonic; it's aesthetic and ergonomic. Aesthetic in that they are visually just a bit overwhelming in the room (though I love their design). And ergonomic in that they must be placed in a way that impedes traffic flow in and out of the room. Sonically, in my room they are as perfect as I've heard in any loudspeaker anywhere, in terms of not showing any obvious room interaction issues. My room was an expensive re-design employing an acoustician in the design - bass treatment etc is built in to the room, and I can alter some of it's reflective characteristics easily for higher frequencies. The 3.7s sound completely linear and controlled. But....they just don't work in terms of size...such is life. The 2.7s I picked up are a very nice consolation prize, though. :-) |
@beetlemaniaYes ATC driver integration is perfect in phase. Active has huge advantages over passive - no lossy crossover and also far less intermodulation distortion as each transducer is driven by a separate amplifier. Top studios (where your music is produced) have almost all been active for the past 25 years. So far this hasn’t tricked down to the high fidelity market much. Dealers substantially benefit from the need for complex, costly and powerful amplifiers necessitated by loading a power amplifier with several transducers and a lossy crossover (usually a highly variable impedance curve). That said. Thiel is extremely good despite the limitations of a passive crossover. |
Prof, . . . you can keep your 3.7s and join the upgrade brigade for even more musical satisfaction.@prof Tom Thiel is learning much about the late model Thiel crossovers as well as how to improve parts quality for all the models he is now working on. You might hold onto those CS3.7s another year or so and try his upgrade when it becomes available. |
Prof, obviously you need a bigger room. Build to golden proportions at about 12'3 high x 20' x 32' with "vents" near the corners (windows or doors work) and you'll have a room like Thiel's listening / optimization room and you can keep your 3.7s and join the upgrade brigade for even more musical satisfaction. What's a second mortgage compared to such bliss? |
Tom, I used the Belden 5000 series Cable, 10-guage, from Blue Jeans cables: https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/speaker/index.htm Though I've been a high-end audio nut much of my life, I'm not big on spending money for high end boutique cables, which makes me a bit unusual I guess in forums like these. (Even though through my friends and contacts I have access to, and have listened to, some of the the most expensive cables in the world from Nordost and many others). I like Blue Jeans cable because they are a no b.s. company, you can find measurement specs for the cable, etc. I located my source equipment down the hall from my listening room so I had to run speaker cables under the floor to my speakers - about a 25 foot run or so. The Blue-Jeans cables have excellent specs for long runs and I went with 10-guage, which is probably over-kill. But what the heck. As I said: I've heard some speakers I own with with these cables, and with the highest end Nordost, and...well...even for a super picky listener like me I'm happy where I spent my money :-) As I've written about earlier in the thread I have to sell my 3.7s because they are just big enough to impede traffic flow in and out of my listening room. Despite auditioning the newest-thing speakers out there, the 3.7s have been sooooo hard to replace because they just seem to effortlessly "do it all." |
"I highly recommend very short runs of speaker cable. " FWIW: I've been using 25 foot long Belden speaker cable (10awg). Nothing fancy or special, but the 3.7s still sound better than just about anything I've heard anywhere near their price. (Including my friend's system that uses tens of thousands of dollars worth of Nordost etc). |
Hi guys. I'm not up to speed with which amps do and don't, but I do have lots of general Thiel experience. I have noted that current delivery capability is very important, especially in large rooms or loud volumes. If an amp doesn't double its 8 ohm current into 4 ohms, it will probably sound anemic, and its oomph into 2 ohms is relevant also. Ayre amps are good fits. Jim used big Krells. Of related importance is that cabling is more critical on Thiels than usual. One reason is that phase coherence is easily scrambled by cables. On most speakers that doesn't matter because they are already scrambling phase, but the degradation is significant on Thiels. Also, Thiels very low impedance load requires more current through the cable, exacerbating its anomalies. I highly recommend very short runs of speaker cable. Jim used Goertz flat cable in 3.7 development. |
thieliste, I doubt many 3.7 owners have driven the 3.7s with a succession of different amps. But FWIW, I've found the 3.7s pretty easy to drive. My 140W/side Conrad Johnson tube amps drive them great (great tone, grip, control) and even a 14W integrated tube amp sounded wonderful (if less taught in the bass) on the 3.7s. Like most speakers you'll probably realise the greatest dynamics the more good watts you throw at them. But that's the usual trade off between tubes and SS amps on most speakers of average efficiency/impedance. |
Hi jafant, it's been quite a while sorry for not responding lately. I was pretty busy with high end headphone rigs in the past months and therefore diden't use my CS 3.7s. Since i don't yet have the budget to complete my Thiel system i got into high end headphones last year and i'm really liking it. I need advice on choosing a very good int amp for my Thiels. If some of the 3.7 owners use an int amp to drive them please let me know what is your best choice. |
@prof My pleasure. I *am* doing this mostly for selfish reasons (I want to have killer speakers at a price I can afford). But am glad to help Tom Thiel and Rob Gillum develop an upgrade that will benefit many more. I'm pretty excited about it and think the "final" product will be a substantial improvement for our already excellent speakers. Tom continues to refine the parts list. One of the last pieces of the puzzle regards the paired 100 uF caps that are common in many models. Jim Thiel chose electrolytics for these because film caps in this value are quite bulky and *very* expensive. Also, to his ears these were less important sonically (they are in the shunt position so do not directly carry the signal). Others disagree, however, so we're going to compare a couple of film cap choices as replacements. One is a custom cap from Clarity so it will probably be at least another month before Tom can begin his evaluation. |
I have a 2003 Subaru that has a Macintosh Audio system in it, I believe that it was one year only offering , sounds great but I wonder if they ran into problems or maybe it was just a promotional deal for both of them . Subaru was not near as big as Toyota , so maybe the volume allowed for the Macintosh system ? To bad , maybe Thiel might have been able to survive as the original Thiel company . |
| Post removed |
Past the 100 hour mark on my Mills MRA-12 resistors and it was time to evaluate the sonic difference. I had to do this in mono, comparing the upgraded speaker to the OEM version. Not ideal but the only other choice was to upgrade both speakers and rely on sonic memory. I used Roon DSP to mix the signal into mono. This allowed me to use my “reference” recordings rather than rely on rarely listened-to mono originals (which I also tried). To minimize room effects, I put the speakers close together in the middle of my room, about one foot apart (ie, each speaker had the “same” room interaction). In this position, I simply shifted a couple of feet one way or the other on my couch so that I was directly on-axis. The on-axis energy shifted the balance from what I’m used to (my normal arrangement has the speakers just under 8’ apart with no toe-in) but both speakers were equally handicapped. Anyhow, I’ve now done two comparative sessions. My impression from both sessions is that the Mills has a fuller, richer sound although my perception of this varied from song to song. I heard little, if any, difference on solo trumpet but a pronounced difference on the well-recorded 2L Mozart violin concerto. Guitars and voices were more "full-bodied" on folk-rock, blues, and bluegrass. More “tonally-rich” might be another way to describe it. On a Chesky test recording, percussions were more emotionally engaging, toe-tapping. The Mills also seems to have a bit more texture or, at least, it was easier to hear into the microdynamics. I think this is related to my initial impression of a "lower noise floor". All-in-all a worthwhile upgrade - audible benefits and at a reasonable price. I think Tom Thiel’s upgrade path is off to a good start. |
What could have been - tomthiel ? Thank You for sharing your Toyota/Lexus story. Frankly, I am glad that you guys recognized the risks and other unknown variables in that particular equation. Perhaps, the venture would have taken away the many wonderful aspects that did become of Thiel Audio? Yes, dealings with foreign countries, friendly or not, is a different animal compared to American industry. Very few politicians are aware of these pitfalls and danger. Happy Listening! |
In the late 80s Toyota was building their Georgetown Camry plant and Thiel, IBM, Trane, Square D and Toyota were core members of the University of Kentucky's Advanced Engineering Initiative. What a trip. Also, the CS5 was a big deal in Japan. The chair of the AEI stirred the pot and we began exploring with Toyota a premium audio system for the not-yet-introduced Lexus. Their key people, including Mr. Toyoda, visited our plant, and we developed a proposal. Jim insisted that the best solution was integrated amp / speakers. Toyoda wanted Thiel speakers under the Mark Levinson Premium Audio System umbrella. The project could have put us in the big-leagues, but the costs and risks of development were beyond our capacity. In fact, we were developing new products at break-neck speed and were production self-limited at 30% year on year growth with qualified dealers waiting in the wings . We couldn't handle it, even if Toyota were interested in our integrated solution proposal. After Thiel Audio, I was involved as a consultant in a couple of Japanese co-development ventures, and am confident that we made the right decision. Big Japanese corporations are a different animal than small American technology companies. |
Most folks agree that DSP is the future. The DEQX site is very impressive as are their reviews. The cost do "do it" actively and especially digitally is a small fraction of analog costs. And precision can be had. I note that ATC gives no phase spec, nor do I see relevant claims from Lyngdorf, but I haven't looked very hard. DEQX may really be doing it. If I were starting a company today, I certainly wouldn't be going all analog/passive! When I find time I'll share the Lexus / Thiel story. |
I’ve never heard ATC. Maybe they’re onto something? But I’m skeptical. As Tom Thiel wrote, the steep filter lets you operate a driver in the range of pistonic behavior. This is *highly* desirable (and also requires diaphragm material up to the task). But this throws off phase coherence. There is no free lunch. If there were, all designers would hone in on the same design. Thiel Audio placed phase and time coherence as a top priority. The downside is that the slow rolloff may not sufficiently suppress the inevitable break up modes. As I’ve written in this thread, I think Jim Thiel made some of the best drivers around. The diaphragms are light and rigid and the break up modes are out of the "main" region covered by each driver. Even at that, some may consider the break up modes insufficiently suppressed by a 6dB filter. Richard Vandersteen seems to have taken this even farther with his carbon/balsa drivers but you need some serious coin to move up to those. The carbon midrange is available only in the 5 Carbon ($30+K) and 7 models ($60+K). IMO, most of the newer Thiels get it right in terms of balancing phase alignment and pistonic behavior (I’ve heard CS2.4, 3.7 and 7.2 but not earlier models). My ears tell me so, and Soundstage’s measurements of the CS2.4 confirm "very low" distortion despite the 1st order filters. Nothing is perfect but I think Thiel gets you most of the way there and at an affordable price. That said, if ATC or others have figured out how to maintain phase alignment while also optimizing pistonic behavior I’m happy to learn! I'm not an audio engineer, either. More of a dork with a soldering gun :) |
I'm not a circuit designer so I don't know the details either but I've read a number of places over the years that one of the advantages of active designs is that they can actively correct phase so they can remain phase correct with higher than first order crossovers. The active ATCs, for example, describe the filter as "4th Order critically damped with phase compensation." which I think means they are relatively phase correct. After a few Google searches it looks to me like this is a controversial topic. If I were independently wealthy I might spend some real effort trying to understand this but... atcloudspeakers.co.uk/hi-fi/loudspeakers/entry-series/scm40a/ |
tomthiel, I’m in complete agreement with your criterion, demonstration of proper square wave and step response would be required. I could imagine a tri-amped Thiel with a 3.7’s mid/tweeter and 2 3.7’s 10" woofers above and below as in the MCS except in an hourglass shaped floor standing cabinet with separately adjusted/amplified The DEQX and Lyngdorf products look interesting. |
With very broadband response with steep slopes, a driver could operate in its sweet-flat-pistonic zone. I would need convincing that higher order slopes could be "corrected" to actually produce minimum phase additions through the crossover. I've seen failed attempts, but never a success to my standards. It must pass a square wave right through the crossover, to be phase coherent. If not, then not. A complicating factor is that unbelievably small anomalies of resonance, less-than-accurate transient behavior and so forth, are readily apparent in a minimum phase system, whereas they aren't even noticeable with higher order crossovers. There's the two-edge sword that Thiel lived with during its entire run. I believe that acuity of perception is caused by the ear-brain interpreting the sound-source as "real" rather than an electronic reconstitution. Remember, I am not an engineer. I would appreciate being educated as to how the hybrid might alleviate the need for 6dB roll-offs. |
^jimthiel, you hit exactly upon what I thought would be the main concern: driver/total loudspeaker correction. I would have guessed that with the co-axial drivers it might not have been too much of a concern with their mechanical cross-overs. The obvious advantage for those models with bass eq's is appealing of course. Perhaps a fusion of active and passive, or just going digital (which could probably reduce developmental labor hours) might be an option. Of course such an option could provide adjustable bass eq for one's actual room rather than perhaps an otherwise unused anechoic standard. |
It seems to me that the eventual future is all digital crossovers and active speakers. The idea of active crossovers doing the basic separation and then passive components being added to perfect the signal is interesting. You could have time/phase correct active crossovers that have higher than first-order slopes and then fix driver anomalies passively. If that's ever been done I've not heard of it. I've got some big active ATC 110 ASLs in another system and they use simple active crossovers. The designer's philosophy (I've read) is that if you make the drivers well enough, you don't need to have complex crossovers. I imagine if you combined the two types you could drastically reduce passive component count and complexity, have the benefit of higher order slopes, and maybe not lose anything. |
Unsound, you raise a strong, well grounded germ of an idea. But in my experience and knowledge, active crossovers are a fairly blunt instrument. Their downfall is that they generally assume a very simplistic model of the driver and therefore give a very generalized net filter effect without the necessary interactive nuances between the signal and reactive driver loads. Those interactive anomalies can be addressed passively. My study of the progression of Thiel designs shows drivers that are better and better behaved as time goes on, requiring simpler crossovers. But they're still not perfect. As I mentioned way back, Jim's first purest ideal speaker (never brought to market) included separate amps with active crossovers driving each driver with its Zoebel / Boucherot and other corrections attached to it. That hybrid of active / passive offers everything via control of the factors as well as control over or elimination of all the input variables that cause so much trouble (cable reflections, etc.) With the line level signal presented to the inputs, everything else happens "in the box". We decided, as a young, green, minimally capitalized company, that we couldn't afford to educate our customers, as well as the high risk of failure presenting such a wild-card to the market in 1976. Dealers hated the idea of an amp / speaker system that "just worked". Their very existence depended on addressing all those problems . . . History validates our decision. Today, someone might pull off that feat. I offered this idea (indirectly) to the new Thiel ownership, who thought it quaint and idiosyncratic and didn't want to talk about it. If a savvy group could buy Thiel's intellectual property (assuming it becomes available), and if the engineering talent could be assembled, I think this solution could make some real waves, especially in how it harkens back to the roots of the company. What if pro-audio / record-makers had such monitors? What if we didn't have to make excuses for poorly produced albums? What if the vast differences introduced by amplifier output particulars modified by cable variables . . . weren't in the picture at all? Just dreaming. Thank you for a walk down memory lane. |
I would like to say to all Thiel owners on this thread these are the most intelligent conversations I've seen on Audiogon . For all of you that subscribe to The Absolute Sound the magazine that gave me the dream to own a pair Thiel speakers. In the May/June issue page 18 TAS Legacy Thiel CS5 Loudspeaker, they tell the world about Rob Gillum and Coherent Source Service and on the opposite page an ad for Cardas Audio the cabling that I use , also in this issue page 16 Future TAS my future turntable ( when I win the lottery ) by Merrill-Williams R.E.A.L. 101.3 , that would replace my Merrill Heirloom . When I retire this summer I will be looking for the upgrade kit for the CS2.7 , I will also be contacting Steve McCormack to see if he has any suggestions for upgrading the DNA-250 amp and maybe I will upgrade the DAC and a lot of capacitors on my Carver SD/A 490 CD player . Life is good and getting better Rob |
Thank You - beetlemania for the additional insight and price-point references. I can agree that the CS 2.4 is very good in stock form. The CS 2.4SE is excellent in stock form as well. Moving up the chain to the 2.7/3.7, one will have to spend in the $20K neighborhood to better those models. You guys have sourced a few of the top competitors from other speaker companies that we can relate. It is good to learn that any Thiel can still compete no matter its age or vintage. Staying tuned. Happy Listening! |
Note that I am aware that some might want to go farther afield with cost no object components and others may balk at the significant cost of my choices. My vision is to find affordable solutions that reach the next performance / cost plateau. I will add that I think Tom Thiel’s choices are *very* sensible. The upgrades will almost certainly (can’t say for certain ‘til we listen!) yield a significant SQ improvement but without going beyond the budget of most serious listeners. Left to my own devices, my choices would have been similar to Tom’s in some ways. I was honing in on a solution that would have added a substantial (30%) Clarity CMR bypass to CSA coax feeds. This would have been more expensive and not necessarily overall better than what Tom outlined. In his research, Tom has learned that certain bypass practices can have detrimental effects! Elsewhere, I was going to add small polypropylene bypasses to the extant caps. Tom’s solution is far better, replacing the electrolytics in the shunts with the custom 160V PPs. We are fortunate that Tom is able to work with Clarity to have this cap made to spec. An off-the-shelf solution would be very expensive and with ginormous caps that would be very difficult to fit. These upgrades will not be inexpensive ($TBD). All XO parts are replaced - most caps are custom - except for Thiel’s custom 1 uF bypasses and the coils. As I wrote earlier, if I were to replace my CS2.4SE with something new I would start at something like a Vandy Quatro or Vivid B1; $15K speakers! After these upgrades, I suspect such a search would have to reach to something like the Vandy 5 Carbon, a $30K speaker. In other words, the CS2.4 is a seriously good speaker in stock form and optimizing its crossover should elevate its performance to the next tier (or beyond). Do I want to live with a speaker whose neutrality, transparency, and resolution exceed or rival anything up to $30K? And for the “only” cost of the upgrade? Hmmm, decisions, decisions ;^) As Tom wrote, some owners may want to go even further. Earlier I linked to Jim Smith’s outboard XO for his Avantgardes featuring a rack of Dueland caps and resistors. Would that approach outperform what Tom Thiel has outlined? I hope so – that’s at least $20K in parts! But we’d have to listen to know for sure. To my thinking (and budget) that is not sensible for a CS2.4. Maybe you CS3.7 and 7.2 owners will choose to push the limits? But remember that Tom Thiel’s “base” upgrade is a notable upgrade even for those models. later production 3.7s have Chinese made crossovers which seem to have some polyester caps where polypropylenes are specified. And those are built on printed circuit boards My SEs also are on PCBs and with some MKT caps where Jim Thiel’s schematic specified PP. My pair was built in 2012 (the year Kathy Gornik sold Thiel Audio) and are among the last SEs built. @jafant I suspect your pair are similarly equipped. For us, Tom Thiel’s upgrade will probably be an even bigger jump in SQ than for owners of earlier SEs. |
