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!
Jafant, I don’t know anything about this particular unit, or the seller: There are plenty more that know plenty more about Krell’s than I do. I have enjoyed various Krell’s on various Thiel’s many, many times. Amongst my favorite combinations. The only models I didn’t care for where the integrateds, the KAV and home theatre series. I’m not familiar with the post D’Agostino Krell’s directly on Thiels. While the KSA 250 wasn’t one of my favorite Krell’s, I’d still put it on my short list to use now. If I were in your shoes; I’d be investigating this option. Then again, perhaps my 10 EE’s wouldn’t fit.:-)
Sorry, I don't know why the hyper-link keeps failing.
There is a listing for a Krell FPB-300 here on Audiogon.
Guys- check out the thread by our very own ranchhand1. Talking about speakers I wished I had purchased, for me, I feel that Thiel captures the best attributes of an Apogee Slant 8, Infinity Crescendo and B&W 805N. Back in those days, a good friend owned the Apogee but would never sell them to me. Eventually, I did own the 805N, not bad for a monitor. Happy Listening!
tomthiel, "...signal-shaping was done within the amplification envelope..." Wow, that seems quite ambitious, especially when considering it probably would all have been done in analog then. In today's digital era development time an effort would probably be dramatically reduced. I remember just before Jim's passing that he thought that Class D was best limited to sub-woofers. Much time has passed, and perhaps Jim might have come to appreciate the current status of Class D more, or, perhaps not.
I agree with you regarding perhaps moving to a higher impedance. Though at the risk of appearing petty, I think moving the minimal impedance to 4 Ohms would be most interesting. The required amplifier budget has scared me off the CS5i's.
I would appreciate you modifying one speaker and perform whatever
comparative tests you can between old and new. We can build a knowledge
base here on the forum for the benefit of all, including yet to be
identified upgraders everywhere.
Thinking about this more, I'm sure I have Beatles or Sinatra or the like in mono, so maybe not so hard to compare as I first imagined. Probably need to let the new caps burn in for a couple hundred hours before comparing. I'll certainly report back, probably won't find time until April or later to do the surgery.
good to read about another Industry Professional joining this group. Your experience as a dealer/retailer and Sales Manager for Thiel matters! We can all learn and benefit from you. Not boring at all, glad you found us and welcome aboard! Happy Listening!
Good to see you- tomthiel I look forward in reading more about your speaker project/experiment as well. I think that we have found our project mangers between you and beetlemania. I wish I had the skill to DIY my speakers in the same fashion as you guys. Keep up the excellent work! Happy Listening!
jafant, I currently own a pair of Magnepan 20.7's. My amp is an LSA Audio Statement ... from the LSA Group that I founded in '06. 150 watts per channel into 8ohms, doubling into 4ohms and almost doubling again into 2. Has a tube pre section and is highly updated with some of the best parts available. Cheap op amps were deleted. The design being done by through the Genius of John Tucker, currently owner of Exemplar. My Audiophile odyssey began in the late '70's. By '81 I had become a full blown nut. I purchased THIEL 03a loudspeakers from a dealer and picked them up in Lexington, just down the road from Louisville, Ky. That's where I met Tom, Jim and Kathy. Their obvious passion and love for music coupled with their obvious intelligence made me think, 'One day I'm going to be in the Audio Business.' Two years later, I walked away from a job as Vice President of a Company and opened the doors of my very own High End Store. THIEL was the anchor for me. If I couldn't have them I probably wouldn't have done it. The Iraq War and a simultaneous ruptured appendix conspired to help me close my doors after about 12 years. Some years later, in fall of '97, I got a call on my answering machine from Jim Thiel. Those of us who knew him can appreciate this very succinct message. "Hey Larry, this is Jim Thiel.... long pause... I'm calling to find out if you'd like to be THIEL'S National Sales Manager... long pause... bye.' I thought it over for about 2 milliseconds and called back. By 3:00 I was a THIEL employee. For those of you who did not know Jim or Tom, and without pandering.... I have to say that they are BOTH two of the most intelligent and inventive people I've met... and I've now been around for 69 years. That's pretty much it. Thanks for asking and I hope this wasn't too boring! Larry
I would appreciate you modifying one speaker and perform whatever comparative tests you can between old and new.
I should buy a pair of standard 2.4s and mod those first, enabling the best comparison. My wife would *love* that! hehe - I wonder if there's a market for modded 2.4s?
I *am* serious about this, and need to decide among the many combos. I could go straight CSA for about $375. I could go CSA/CMR for about $610 or I could go CSA/Mundorf SGO for about $800. Or I could put CSA on the woofer and spend more on the coax. Some of these combos require a 4th cap to get the correct value. Life is too short!
Tom, They were indeed Brazilian Rosewood... you picked the pair personally. I requested a bold pair with great patterning. You chose this pair because I THINK (29 year old memory) that this pattern had 'great cathedral pattern? No, I sold them about the same time I was going through a divorce. They were not only stunning looking, but sounded other worldly. I miss them to this day. Larry
Beetle, I do recommend coming as close as possible to the original value, since that affects frequency balance and phase addition through the crossover. I am a big fan of double-bypassing and like your idea of adding the third cap to hit 27.93uF. That 0.33 cap can be ultra-quality which keeps the razor sharp leading edge transients from smearing.
I think that your first proposal built on CSAs is a better idea than the 0.01uF ultra with the SAs. CSAs seem to be a big step up from SAs, which were ClarityCap's best in their day.
If you do this mod, I would appreciate you modifying one speaker and perform whatever comparative tests you can between old and new. We can build a knowledge base here on the forum for the benefit of all, including yet to be identified upgraders everywhere.
@tomthiel I am able to find (at Parts Connexion) Clarity CSA parallel combos that will give me the CS2.4 capacitance in the coax (14 and 28 uF) and woofer feeds (33 uF). Reading this review of capacitors: http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html it is tempting to match the Clarity with Mundorf (writer suggests 90% Clarity and 10% Mundorf). But I can’t get the exact Thiel values with Mundorf combos. For example, I can get a 22uF CSA and and 5.6uF Mundorf. How critical is it to get the exact capacitance value, especially given that these are rated +/- 2-3%? It is possible to add a third in parallel, eg, 22 + 5.6 +0.33 = 27.93. Do you recommend adding the third capacitor to get closer to 28 uF?
Also, what are your thoughts on adding 0.01 uF bypass? I might try adding a Dueland or Cornell-Dublilier 0.01 to my existing SA in the coax feed - seems like a potential best-bang-for-the-buck mod - but not if you think that’s a bad idea.
jafant: No, but I sold them to a neighbor in NJ who has since moved here in Williamsburg, so I get to visit them from time to time. Still nice speakers, though had I the money at the time I would have gotten the 3.5s.
It's nice to see Tom Thiel on this forum. The CS3s were the first real high end components I owned, and my wife objected to the light teak finish (she also thought they were too big, so imagine how she felt when I replaced them with Duntech Princesses!), so I called Thiel to see if it was possible to stain them darker. I spoke with Tom, who told me it wouldn't be very successful, and sending them back for a new veneer wouldn't be cost effective (he ultimately suggested tongue in cheek that I just get CS 3.5s in rosewood finish). Tom's woodworking on the speakers was immaculate--the grains were beautifully matched. An extremely well designed and made product--I'm sad to see it gone.
David Fox sent me a photo of the CS3 with dual binding posts. Indeed that speaker, #539, would have been built months into the product life-cycle, and I would have been the person who made the silk-screen and punch jig for that plate . . . Hmmm . . . Be that as it may, feedback developed from reviewers, retailers and end-users citing problems that we couldn't replicate in the lab, and all turned out to be various forms of cable interaction anomalies. The coherent source architecture shone a light on problems that are just not audible under other playback paradigms. At some point (?) we quit the bi-wire game to mixed reviews.
As unsound says, there is value to splitting the signal, especially the equalized signal. For full disclosure, I am bi-wiring (present tense) my ceiling-mount PowerPoint recording studio room monitors as an attempt to preserve the transient edge of the tweeter from the deleterious effects of current draw from the woofer. Mike Morrow is making a cable where all conductors are braided together while having separate signal paths for the tweeter and woofer feed, so the entire bundle (12' long) experiences the same EMF environment, resistance path, capacitive and inductive envelope, etc. while segregating the signal paths. In my imaginary life, I would bring in my audio engineer super sidekick to measure, document and publish the paper elucidating what is learned in an A-B-C scenario of various forms of wire in my controlled, measurable, recordable situation. But, alas, life is short and priorities sing their own songs. In that song, Mike and I agreed that this solution is worth a try. I'll report my experience.
Thanks! for posting jon_5912 Any speaker that requires bi/tri-wiring would not interest me either. JT was very wise in his approach to loudspeaker building. Happy Listening!
I suspect it might have been more of an opportunity for the end user to make things worse. Still, I can't help but wonder if the models with bass boosting eq's might not have had some different considerations.
I definitely remember reading that Jim thought that biwiring caused more problems than it solved. Sounds like he tried it once, decided it was a bad idea, and never did it again.
"A single pair of five-way binding posts on the loudspeaker's bottom panel provides signal connection. Thiel believes that bi-wiring can cause detrimental interaction between the cable and loudspeaker, and therefore offers only a single input (footnote 2)"
unsound - Please note that I am not in a position to actually transform these ideas into reality, although I am dreaming some dreams . . .
Regarding multi-amplification, the signal-shaping was done within the amplification envelope, wherever it made most sense. The line-level signal was handled as two or three (depending on driver configuration) discrete signal paths, each with its own power amp. My vagueness relates to Jim's ability to manage different aspects (voltage vs current, etc.) in different amplification stages. Signal shaping including driver heat compression, etc. is integral to the whole system design. Jim was a uniquely talented circuit guy before we hit on the "let's do loudspeakers" idea.
As an aside, Jim's first patent was for a lovely head-amp circuit. Thiel developed, manufactured and Monster Cable marketed that unit. Variable capacitive loading via faceplate buttons allowed the user to "find" the best load for his particular cartridge / cable set. But higher output MC cartridges and then the digital revolution buried that product.
Back to speakers, thanks for those ideas. Fully balanced operation would certainly make most sense. Regarding high-frequency clarity, you have a point; even though the EQ has no active HF circuitry, there still exist jacks, circuitry, wire, etc. . . .
I could be mis-remembering (only 35 years), but I don't believe any Thiel product had dual binding posts from the factory. We tested extensively and found the waters far too mudied by bi-wiring. Cable interactions with the amp and crossover-drivers are extremely complex. Compounding that complexity via multi-wiring always caused more problems. Investing in better single cables always won hands-down for better sound. Controversial for audiophiles; unanimously clear for our development team. Do you have a picture or brochure of bi-wired Thiels?
Much Thanks! for the insights on these vintage loudspeakers. I know many of the gentlemen here are grateful for your contributions as well. Happy Listening!
lrsky, Thiel has used air core inductors since the very beginning. And since the development of the 03 in 1978 and going forward, we used six 9s copper in all chokes and internal wiring. At the time we were an innovator with film capacitors and even in the woofer section we used or bypassed with film types. If Jim were redesigning that product today with its same cabinet configuration, I believe he would use six nines copper in the voice coils or replace the drivers with 3.7 type updates, but add titanium to the tweeter alloy and extend the response past 30K. He would source the best modern caps, not available or affordable then, and (I believe I would and he might) take the crossovers outboard. Jim wanted to have powered woofers in the CS5, if cost were no object and development resources were available. Jim wanted
to make powered speakers from the beginning (our early pre-market prototypes were
powered, more on that another time). By the way, that cast marble baffle requiring abrasive diamond
machining could have been kept at a higher price, probably adding some damping component to the casting process. The CS5 bass drivers (first and third from
the ground) could benefit from SmartSub technology, with an outboard amp and crossover to clean up EMF interference for higher pristinity (how's that?)
As an aside I would explore a 6 ohm nominal system impedance (rather than 4) so that more people could get better performance from less than stellar amplification, which was the biggest limitation to that product. I would add some cabinet damping material to the wood panels where identified via Chladni Pattern testing which I now use in guitar design. Stuff like that. Do you still have those speakers Larry? Weren't they Brazilian Rosewood?
I owned one of the first pairs of the CS5 THIEL Loudspeakers. I've always wondered what Jim could have done, cost no object to the crossover of that wonderful speaker. Massive air core pure air core inductors, maybe Mundorf caps. Wow, that makes me shiver just to imagine.
You bet your ass a souped up version of the 3.5’s would have an audience!
With regards to the EQ, I always had it engaged, when it wasn’t the sound was less...something. To my humble ears the 3.5’s also have a more distinct mid and high impression. I also figure that Jim Thiel’s reason for it was worth adhering to since I know NOTHING about designing/engineering a loudspeaker.
I had a very hard time of it warming up to my 3.6’s unless I really threw some juice at them, and even my 20/20 hindsight favored the 3.5’s.
I emailed Rob the other day inquiring as to whether he might have discovered some 3.5 cabinets lying about but, alas, he didn’t. I still have a complete set of guts from a pair and was thinking re-investing in them. Yes, I am looking for another pair. Them midranges is the weak spot buying used, and many of the pairs on eBay are in pretty poor condition if you look closely.
I’m currently enjoying a new pair of Maggie 1.7i’s that are staring back at me, almost aware of the fact that they’re perhaps temporary. One thing that they do share with my appreciation for 3.5 is this great snappiness in the highs. I’m listening to a bunch of Bill Frisell stuff right now and what I recall from my 3.5’s is this excellent articulation. Hell, even Jim Thiel admired what planars can do.
I just missed a Pass Labs INT 150 the other day. Couldn’t have been available for more than a day. They sell fast off the Reno site.
I, for one, would be highly interested in seeing/hearing what a souped-up 3.5 can do!!! I have decided to build my system around these amazing speakers. In fact, I recently replaced my Denon PMA-2000 IVR integrated (very good sounding, Mid-Fi or not!) with an ARC LS-7 line stage, PH-3 phono pre-amp and D240 MKII amp...all in effort to make the Thiels sing just that much better!
I have always used the Bass EQ. While there were those who preferred not to use it for purity-sake, I always felt that there had to be something to it if Jim Thiel designed it specifically for the 3.5's. With it, it wasn't hard to hear that the 3.5’s played lower, with more power and clarity, than my previous Martin Logan set-up (Motion LX-16 monitors WITH a Dynamo 300 subwoofer) ever did...This is truly a full-range speaker. It didn't take me long to realize that I've finally found speakers that I could live with for a very long time.
Anyway, excuse my ramblings. Yes, a "super" version of a 3.5 would be an awesome idea, one I’m sure any owner, previous or current, would be interested in.
Thanks for your participation in our discussions...your insights and observations have been very informative and revelatory.
I am interested in developing a "felt need" list of priorities for legacy Thiel upgrades. The 3.5 with its EQ might be a candidate, but I need more than a hunch. I can tell you that the equalizer was dear to Jim's heart as a good solution to the problem of deep bass and that it was abandoned due to dealer feedback including association with Bose's marginal implementation. Would a souped-up CS3.5 have value?
Just wanted to share a email I received from Rob at Coherent Source Service re the Electronic Bass Equalizer module that the CS 3.5 uses:
Hi
Arvin,
Thank
you for the kind words. Also thank you very much for the ownership of our
CS3.5’s, they truly are stunning performers. As for the CS3.5 Bass EQ, there
are a few issues with age. With age the eq’s will develop some DC negative
voltage output, at the output jacks. This DC voltage at the outputs Usually 1or
2 volts will cause weak and/or distorted signal output.The problem is almost
always caused by an FET which has developed a short due to static voltage being
applied to the output during hook-up. EQ’s with serial numbers above 3770 have
had this circuit removed. I also find that some EQ’s, can cause cracking and
popping, due to dirty trimpots. Most of these EQ issues can be corrected by
cleaning and adjusting of the channels biasing circuitry. The EQ service is a
standard rate of $150. Please let me know if you would like to set ups a return
for servicing the EQ. As for the caps. It is rare that a problem occurs, and is
usually a factory maintenance issue.
Not sure who else here owns 3.5's or uses the Bass Equalizer, but I figured I'd share just in case. At any rate, my module does exhibit the crackling noise Rob mentions in his email, so I will most definitely send mine in for service. The $150 flat rate he's quoting seems very reasonable, especially in the world of hi-fi services!
I believe I may have purchased the last pair of Thiel 2.7 to leave Nashville. They were advertised on eBay as b stock from a warehouse leftovers, but I couldn’t find a thing wrong with them. Birdseye maple wood. Thiel shipped them VIA AIR on a skid. I recently added a Classe CA2300 and a Mytek Manhattan II. Using Audirvana as playback software, I was blown away by the improvement in sound. Miss Jim Thiel designs. Don’t know why someone didn’t pick up where he left off.
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.
