As alluded to above via driver size, air-coupling is a factor in the experience of bass authority. The 3.7 10" woofer has 50% greater area to drive its wave-front, reducing compressive non-linearities of air. Bigger makes cleaner. The 3.7 cabinet is also more inert and its baffle is less compressive for attack transient integrity. Regarding prof's thought about bass voicing, the 3.7 was Jim's work, the 2.7 incorporated various outside engineering input. Jim tuned his bass alignment to Q.707. Many designers give a little slop for "bloom, bigness, warmth", etc. I heard the two speakers at Thiel at finalization and heard the 2.7 bass as tuned a little looser. Most designers try to second-guess popularity, expectations and so forth. Jim was fairly immune to those ways.
Also note that image is highly dependent on cabinet and driver edge effects. Prof mentioned the driver part. The 3.7 cabinet design (love it or not) is very highly functional regarding diffraction, even though the 2.7 might qualify for world-class, it is not as good.
A factor that contributes to "great bass" is that of articulation which, in a first-order design, includes the low end of the mid-range driver. Jim's 3.7 XO treatment is much more sophisticated and uses better parts than the 2.7 due to budget constraints and designer choices. The 2.7 midrange is fed through a 400uF electrolytic cap, albeit with a PP and styrene bypass in parallel. The 3.7 uses a bank of 75uF polypropylene caps with a styrene bypass. Multiple smaller PP caps provide faster reactions and less distortion than a large electrolytic.
Unsound, the 3.5 equalizer addresses only the bass with a simple, shaped boost centered at 22Hz or 40Hz depending on selection. Our reference set-up during development was bi-amped with identical amplifiers and 4 identical wire runs providing no EQ pollution into the midrange-tweeter circuit. (We were subsequently amazed by how many ways users could screw things up with varying amp and cable configurations working at cross purposes. So the bi-wiring option went away.) The EQ circuitry is elegant enough, but the budget required utilitarian execution (and use of generally inferior interconnects) adding some grain and haze to the signal. Jim considered the ported solution (O2, O4, CS2) to be inferior to sealed-box bass and only grudgingly accepted the market necessity of the passive radiator rather than the equalized bass in aspiring products. We aired the possibility of an EQ for the CS5 (the CS5 followed the equalized 3.5) and we talked about a follow-up super edition with an equalized bass. But Thiel was a one-man development lab experiencing high growth, and there was not time to explore such niceties.
One intriguing reincarnation for a CS5 Super would be to add balanced equalizers to the CS5 bass driving a separate bass input. That bass section has three woofers in two configurations loaded by two sub-enclosures. All bass frequencies up to 500 or so are covered by that subsystem.
|
|
Any recommendations of add-on sub to match 3.7 or 7.2? My current equipments included Linn DS, YBA 1 pre-amp and accuphase m-1000 mono with MIT MH-750 shotgun speaker cables. Mark Levinson ml-2 mono are on the way and I will try them even they only have 25 watt per channel. |
@thieliste , How to differentiate the generation of cross-over of cs3.7? I got a black pair recently. |
FWIW:
Bass depth and weight are experienced as very similar between the 2.7 and 3.7. Though there are tracks where you can definitively hear the 3.7 go a bit lower.
The main difference is the sense of scale and linearity. The 3.7 just creates larger sonic images and a bigger soundstage. What exactly to attribute that to is a bit of a puzzle to me as they share the same mid/tweeter and only differ slightly in woofer size. Is it JUST that extra 2 inches in woofer size? Or is it something about the bigger cabinet of the 3.7 as well? I don’t know exactly what causes this difference. Confusing the issue a bit further: with the brief tests I've done integrating a sub with the 2.7s, the soundstage does seem to grow somewhat, but I don't think the image sizes expand in to 3.7 territory - and yet with a subwoofer that's adding another 10" driver and producing more bass than the 3.7!
I’ve also wondered why the 3.7 sounds a bit more linear all the way to the bottom of it’s range. It could be a difference in voicing to some degree (maybe the 2.7 was voiced with a tiny bulge to compensate for it’s slightly smaller size - though I don’t think that was normally the Thiel way. Thiel was never shy about keeping linearity even if it meant their smaller speakers sounding a bit base-shy compared to some other brands).
I’ve wondered if the added control/linearity has anything to do with the different woofer constructions. The 3.7 has that sort of dimpled woofer and passive radiator and it’s general shape was claimed by Jim Thiel to get rid of some common reflections around woofers. So I wonder if that contributes. |
8 v 10” woofer. Prof and ronkent can probably describe the difference.
|
The Absolute Sound basically asked the question when having reviewed
both the 3.7 and the 2.7 , is 2hz worth almost twice the price ?
So Tom's point about the difference is academic but
The auditory value of extended bass might not be heard ,
but the feeling can be quite rewarding .
|
Beetlemania, true but the auditory value of extended bass garners greater perceived value. Of course, if one's room can't accommodate those waves things can go south.
|
Tomthiel, does the 3.5's eq do anything besides bass boost? |
|
I can offer a general answer. For perspective, the difference between 33 and 35 Hz is barely academic, virtually identical. Thinking in half-octaves (15 Hz at 30 Hz) is more germane to performance class than is a few cycles. Low E1 on a bass is 40 Hz.
Differences are accounted for by technical particulars. Bass alignment is very specific to cabinet volume, rigidity, driver position, diaphragm mass, maximum excursion, suspension characteristics and motor factors. An alignment is optimized considering these many factors among others.
|
Question , why are the 2.4 spec'd at 33 hz manuf ( 36hz stereophile )
and the 2.7s are 35hz manuf, when they both have the same woofer and approximately the same size cabinet ?
Crossovers ? why would the newer speakers have less ?
I'm not complaining about the 2.7s lower end
( especially after moving from 2 way speakers )
and 'am looking forward to the upgrade possibilities
but I thought I'd ask Why the difference .
Rob
Happy almost Friday
|
@prof i would really be interested in some recommendations for electronic music. do not have much but my favorite album is underwater sunlight by Tangerine Dream. thanks in advance
|
I haven't yet looked at the 3.5, but will look into it. The equalizer could indeed be ignored in an upgrade.
Sounds good, Tom. Seems to be some demand for that model! And maybe someone will step up to address the equalizer? |
As can be seen in this thread, and another speaker thread I have going, I have a roving eye for speakers. I just like trying various types.
But even if I purchase another speaker I can't see myself ever getting rid of my 2.7s. Too good, and the bargain I paid was ridiculous for the performance.
I love electronic music and the 2.7s are a dream for that category. Their particularly dense, punchy, solid imaging and gorgeous tonality make electronic music feel like another dimension has been summoned in and around the speakers. I never get tired of it. |
Beetle, I haven't yet looked at the 3.5, but will look into it. The equalizer could indeed be ignored in an upgrade. The 3.5 has 6-nines coils and hookup wire and custom 1uF styrene bypasses. We could renew the 'lytics with best of class 'lytics, especially in shunts. But any 'lytics in Signal Path would benefit from our newly developing custom CSA-160 volt propylene cap. Mills resistors. Possible SP feed coil upgrade. Layout can be addressed by building a new midrange board to allow space on the main board for woofer and tweeter upgrade bulk. I'm settling to a system. I "did" the 3.6 today with our first-round assumptions which need confirmation with first-pair trials of 2.4 and PPs.
|
Guys i e-mailed Rob Gillum about the CS 3.7 crossovers and he told me it is still possible to order from him the latest crossovers if you want to upgrade first generation of CS 3.7s.
|
upgrade the equalizer, which would be required for system synergy
I might not even be able to *spell* "equalizer" . . . Is there potential harm to the balance by simply upgrading the caps and resistors on the XOs, keeping the layout as is? Keeping the same layout might preclude replacing the electrolytics with film caps but I imagine 30 year old 'lytics should be replaced if only with another 'lytic. I guess I'm wondering if there is a "partial" upgrade route for 3.5 owners that would replace aging caps and increase SQ at least a bit but without risking the balance with the bass equalizer. |
Just for clarity, I think the CS3.5 is in many ways Jim's pure vision, especially the bass equalizer. I believe it to be a strong contender for an update / upgrade and I would be interested in addressing the crossover. However, I lack the chops and time to upgrade the equalizer, which would be required for system synergy, since in terms of sonic transparency, the EQ is already a performance limit. So many good ideas, so little time.
|
Welcome! thielrulesThank You for the intro regarding your Audio journey. We all have a story to share. I think that you will find several owners of the 3.5 model here. This speaker still has quite a following. I am looking forward in reading more posts from you.Happy Listening!
|
I have been lurking for a few years now, but willing to be more visible now. I live in Lexington, KY just around the corner from Rob G. Started my audiophile interest with Kef 104 Reference speakers, purchased in 1974 from my first summer job. Believed that I had great speakers, until I met my girl friend, who had the Thiel 02 bookshelf speakers, that had less bass but better and clearer upper range sound. Since being together, we have had the cs 3.5 for about 15 years, and recently I purchased another set, since I have become so attached to them. Easy to drive, I have Bryston 3B-ST for a large listening space, 30 by 30 with sloped ceiling up to 18 ft. My source is now primarily streaming through Bluesound Node 2, listening to Tidal. So convenient and nothing beats the selection. Skipped a pre-amp and directly connected to the power amp. My second set of Thiel speakers are located at a smaller space, primarily listening at night. Amp is Transcendent Sound, single ended OTR, only 4 Watt, but perfectly adequate. As I value my hearing, never listen louder than 80 db, often 60-70 db. Lost my ability to hear higher tones, above 12K Hz, but still can easily discern lower tones, down to 20 Hz. My musical interest ranges and includes blues, folk, bluegrass, classic, jazz and some rock. The Thiel cs 3.5 are well suited for my taste. Had to have both equalizers repaired and that made a big difference to have the equalizers back in the chain. Got to know Rob better, and had many temptations to upgrade, seeing all his museum pieces. Figured I would wait to find out what his update plans involved, but now understand from Tom's response, that may not be the case? Anyway, this can serve as my intro. Great threat.
|
Jafant keep me posted after you audition the cubed amps ive heard good things about them. I would love to know what you think of them vs the st series. I’ve always wanted to listen to ayre,pass and krell as well to see how they match up with Thiel.
|
My pleasure - fitter468
Bryston is an excellent sonic match for Thiel speakers. I want to demo the new "cubed" series of power amps for comparison to the older ST and SST models. I have read about M.I.T. cabling acting as a sonic match as well.
Proceed and older Mark Levinson gear seems to be a fan favorite w/ Thiel speakers too. I do believe that repairs/service is still provided for these Vintage products. Thanks! for sharing your Audio journey.Happy Listening!
|
Thanks Jafant I’m using a bryston 4nrb with a proceed avp with mit cables before the avp I had a rotel pre amp then I went to a forte f44 with each progression the sound got better the dream someday is to go to a pair of cs5is with an avp2. I usually listen to rock. Thanks to everyone on here for all the good info. |
tomthielThank You for the update on drivers and cross-over(s). Have fun and stay safe out there.Happy Listening!
|
The x.7 drivers are indeed breakthrough design. That said, the 2.4 drivers are very mature and made and tested in Lexington with significant, advanced technologies. The 2.7 cabinet is stiffer, but the 2.4 will come close in vibrational performance, especially after tweaking. Regarding passive component quality, the upgrades will leap-frog the stock x.7 series into pretty rarified territory. We can expect some veils to be lifted by applying technologies that were out of reach for the stock product line.
FYI: I have contacted the world leader in audio cryogenic immersion. I am previously familiar with what can go right and wrong in that process, and how to stay out of trouble. I will be comparing stock and cryo-treated crossovers to evaluate efficacy.
|
well us A'gon guys will be most interested in how your speakers evolve and i appreciate what you are doing. i had 2.4's before getting the 2.7's and the 2.7's were better for sure. but with the mods to your speakers, i bet you have closed the gap. i suspect that you have increased the resale value as anyone following this thread will certainly appreciate the updates. it has taken a long time for my new 3.7's to break in as they had some new drivers installed by Rob, and so now they are finally surpassing the 2.7's.
May Thiel live long and prosper.
|
you should buy my 2.7's :)
LOL! Actually, there was a pair of white CS2.7s on A'gon just after I bought my SEs and for <$500 more. That had me second guessing. The 2.7 coax is almost certainly better than that on my SEs. But I'm committed to these SEs now as I've modded the XOs. That probably damaged the resale value even while notably improving the SQ. I need to see this project thru' to the end. And when I get there, they will almost certainly sound better than stock 2.7s (tbh, never auditioned the 2.7). |
hi Beetle, maybe you should buy my 2.7's :)
|
I really think these will be the speakers they bury me with
Yes! I was already happy with my CS2.4SEs and the resistor upgrade has been *very* satisfying (I think the new resistors are still breaking in, they keep sounding better and better). Other than the physical limitations of an 8" woofer and passive radiator, I think Tom Thiel's crossover upgrade will make my 2.4s sonically competitive with all but the very be$t design$. And I imagine these could be my last speakers. |
from an email from Rob G:
The stabilizer pins are an internal part of the
CS3.7, and should show some improvements with them in place. Especially in the
bass region. The important thing is that the speakers are making contact with
the sub-floor, for improvements in the bass. The outriggers do improve the
footprint, and keep them from being turned over easily, but they also provide
improved bass response.
|
@tomthiel wow that is so interesting. i understand your love of the 2.2's. I owned those from 1991-2007 (2.0 series before and 2.4 after) and they were the ones that really hooked me on the Thiel brand. I have yet to own any of the others for that long a period. all those years and i only lost one tweeter which Gary Dayton replaced for free and literally i had it the next day). it is amazing what you are doing and we Thiel guys thank you for it. my speaker is now the 3.7 and i know you are working on those as well though they are last on the list and understandably so. I really think these will be the speakers they bury me with and i am only 65 so they have to be good for at least 20 more years. BTW i totally understand your comment about sufficient life force. we hit a point where we really have to carefully allocate our time and energy. Thank you so much for doing what you are doing. |
Fitter and all, the way the upgrade project is shaping up is to target the most mature iterations of separate-driver classic systems first (with exceptions.) There are many thousands of pairs out there approaching eventual electrolytic capacitor problems. The targets are PowerPoint 1.2 (because I use them in my recording /documentation work and think they have serious professional potential) CS1.6 (no expressed interest), CS2 2 (because I use my pair in my work and it is very special) and CS3.6 for the same reasons. These models use Thiel-developed drivers with proprietary and patented technologies, mature enclosure designs and considerable performance upgrade headroom. The CS5(i) is not on the list. Its fundamental upgrade option is to replace the huge bucket-brigade delay lines with a re-engineered baffle to place the drivers in correct offsets for time-coincidence and elimination of dozens of capacitors and resistors in the signal path. I have ideas and skills, but insufficient life-force to take on that project. Similarly the CS3.5. The CS x.7s will come later. They do have upgrade potential, but are stable in their present lives for now. CS2.4 is in the first tier because of broad interest, significant potential and beetlemania's willingness to collaborate.
All models will have an inboard and outboard option. Inboard space constraints limit some capacitor and coil choices, but all electrolytics will be replaced by high-functioning propylene caps, and feed coils replaced with 4-9s foil coils. Outboard applies same strategies with some larger, higher-voltage feed caps and larger gauge coils and optimized layouts. The cap choices settled on ClarityCap and Multicap RTX bypasses, after exhaustive research and correlation with Thiel history and values. All parts are ordered for first-round samples for PP inboard, PP outboard, CS2 2 inboard, and CS2.4 outboard. We'll be making music this summer.
I will be using an unconventional evaluation approach, rather than MLSSA and related lab development and measurement tools, which I don't have, but would love to find a collaborator for. I use Metric Halo SpectraFoo, a pro-audio tool for tuning rooms, performances and recording, mixing and mastering music, along with some precision meters and scopes. Our benchmark method will be the system I use for my professional instrument and music making. We'll record live in my studio direct to hard disc at 24x192kHz for playback in the same recording space through the same signal chain, through speakers under test. We have live thru playback (music or technical content) with very few unknowns and considerable control and documentation of bass, peak and mix levels. The results going in and coming out are all sampled and analyzed via technical measurements and simultaneous listening. Someone could build a speaker company on this methodology . . .
You might notice that this scenario looks like more than an after-work undertaking. It is and I don't know how that will all settle. But I am enjoying this challenge and have high hopes for outcomes. Stay tuned.
|
beetlemaniaThank You for the added information.
Happy Listening!
|
Thank You for the tip - ronkent.Happy Listening!
|
Welcome! fitter468good to read that you found this thread and have been a Thiel owner since 1992/93. I look forward in learning more about you and your system. Musical genre(s) , tastes as well.
Happy Listening!
|
This thread keeps getting better and better! Tom thiel I enjoy reading all your posts! I have owned my 3.6s since 1992/93 that I purchased new I would be interested in an upgrade probably inboard but would consider outboard unless I find a pair of cs 5is Thanks David
|
hi Tom and Jafant, this thread gets better and better. thank you all so much. I would, from my experience with both brass feet from mapleshade, and the GAIA feet, try them in your system. i liked the brass feet a lot, and my girlfriend preferred them over the GAIA, but i like the openness and extra dimensionality that the sound had with the GAIA. I preferred both to the stock feet. For what it is worth, Harry Weisfield of VPI uses the GAIA under his KEF blades.
|
Thank You - tomthielyour description of coupling and resonance nails it down perfectly. I would like to think that Outriggers adds a bonus aspect on an already perfect loudspeaker design.
Happy Listening!
|
Indeed, the inboard and outboard options are different beasts. Space / layout constrains parts selection inboard. Making progress every day.
Regarding spikes . . . my knowledge is rather primitive, since all my work was long ago, before any commercial products were available, so there is plenty I don't know. I'll tell what I know. We found hearable and measureable time-domain slurring caused by recoil-swaying of the "unanchored" speaker cabinet. The woofer moves the cabinet in amounts which are very significant to tweeter frequencies, especially their transient attack/timing/phase behavior. Over many years' experience I found the presentation to be more focused with spikes. And transient tests measure more cleanly when spiked. As usual, there are other considerations. Speakers on carpet usually sound smoother, mellower . . . more polite, "nicer". I judge that mellowness to be caused by subtraction of transient detail. And another thing: direct coupling to a wooden floor can cause coupling resonances in the under-structure, euphonic-harmonic and/or dissonant, which are not stimulated with the insulating carpet or isolation-type feet. Another note is that spikes that are not locked down can absorb energy via motion losses between the threads.
There are so many particulars and mitigating circumstances that I hesitate to comment. But you asked, and my comment is that rock-solid stability at the micron scale aids the speaker in its job of transient replication.
|
^^^ Thanks for the added info. |
I forgot that the new crossovers would be outboard. That would almost certainly rule them out for me. Tom Thiel is planning both as options. The outboard versions are likely to be more tricked out. Internal mounting is space limited and reduces the options for big capacitors and so forth. From the pics I’ve seen, the CS3.7 has one or two 100 uF electrolytic caps and something like four 75 uF ’lytic caps. Upgrading all of these to film caps (probably Clarity CSA) will need a lot more space and it seems unlikely that you could simply replace the ELs with film without also changing the layout . . . and taking a bite out of the cabinet space. Still, Tom is planning an upgrade path for those who don’t want to go outboard. |
thanks guys for the input
|
ronkentI can offer my perspective on the outriggers query. During my initial then critical auditions of the CS 2.4 and CS 2.4SE loudspeakers, my ears found that the CS 2.4 can go without the outriggers (carpet over slab). The CS 2.4SE exhibited a subtle overall sweetness from top to bottom with the outriggers (carpet over slab). I did listen to both models over 100 hours each prior to making my decision about which speaker to purchase.I figure that coupling plays a factor regarding the CS 2.4SE. Perhaps Tom or Rob can share a little more insight?Happy Listening!
|
Oh, right, I forgot that the new crossovers would be outboard. That would almost certainly rule them out for me. |
@prof I should add that the layouts will be different, especially for the outboard solution. This, more than the change in parts quality, is why Tom wants to ensure that the new orientation is not deleterious. |
@beetlemania,
Thanks for the updgrade info. That's more comforting that parts values will remain so similar. |
ronkent,
Yes for the most part I've used the Thiels sitting on my floor (shag rug over wood floor) - no spikes, nuthin'.
I like playing with speaker positions so I recently put some Herbie's gliders under them (which screw in to where the spikes go). It raised the Thiels a bit and to my ear thinned the sound a tiny bit. I tried to make up for the height change by angling the Thiels a tiny bit down toward me.
Seemed to get a bit better.
But whenever I've tried footer thingy's, the tone of the speaker gets dark and base gets less tight. Everything snaps together when they are just sitting on the carpet. |
i asked my distributor if he could order the lastest crossovers in 2015 he told me Thiel didn't have them available anymore. Well, the only person to ask now is Rob Gillum at Coherent Source Service. He has an easy inquiry form on his website and he has replied to my multiple queries within a few hours if it’s a business day. |
I prefer the sound *with* the outriggers. Not sure how much is due to better floor coupling versus the added 2” higher axis. Has anyone tried comparing the sound with and without the outriggers that Thiel provided?
|
