I mentioned before that I bought a used pair of 1.6 with dust cap damage.They still sounded great so I bought them.I was able to get most of the dents out,to look presentable.Most of the used 1.6 I have seen have some sort of dust caps damage?I know the grills don’t protect the drivers at all.Im not going to mess with the dust caps any further so I don’t damage them.I guess my point is why are so many of these speakers used as floor jacks instead of being taken care of?These were not cheap speakers new!Im happy I was able to pick up a pair of these in any condition!
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!
13,726 responses Add your response
I must say, thanks to tomthiel! This post has become very interesting even though I don't have the 2.4. I will be interested if this expands into other models. I do have 2 2 and 2.7. Both excellent speakers and very different from each other. Can't wait to see kits offered for all the legacy models, but this has intrigued me to perhaps start my own path. |
Thanks Beetle for doing all the legwork on those caps. That is almost exactly what I will do. I want to support Rob Gillum so I will try to see how I can do that with these caps. Probably be mid march or later though. Anyway it is nice to have this thread with that type of investigation and Mr Thiel's input. Thanks |
BUT, where does such a move leave the line / other products, niche reputation, etc?Yes, tough decisions and I have no business armchair quarterbacking Thiel's choices. Speaking of the CS5, I recall reading on AudioAsylum that Charles Hansen regarded the 5 as Thiel's best model with the 3.7 a "close second". I'm curious to hear a pair. I just took a look inside my CS2.4s. It was easier than I imagined (I was worried about getting the radiator back in) although a contortion is required to remove the radiator. From Rob Gillum: To access the crossover, you must remove the passive radiator screws and let the passive radiator drop into the cabinet. It can be rotated 90 degrees, and removed while servicing. To re-install the passive radiator, you can place your fingers at the surround, pressing outward to hold in place while re-installing the screws that hold bit in place.I discovered that the 33uF cap on the woofer is only 100V, not 630. This opens up the 33uF CSA 250V as a direct replacement, no bypass needed to get the correct capacitance, and for only $75 for a pair. I guess I could add a 0.01 ultra if I want to go crazy. Also, I think I have room for most of the options I'm considering on the coax board. If I wanted a 10uF Supreme to match a 18uf CSA, however, I might have to mount the board a bit lower as that cap is 4cm longer than the CSA. From the top edge of the 28uF SA as seen here: http://www.hifishock.org/gallery/speakers/thiel/cs2-4se-2-thiel/ there is about 18 cm to the cabinet wall (just past the bottom of the board as seen in the image). Most of my Clarity options should fit with a bit of stacking. Additional protrusion into the cabinet is moot given the fiberglass bat on the two boards. The extant 14uF SA abuts the 6mH coil but I imagine the coil's orientation prevents deleterious interference. In my case, I will need to place a cap even closer to the coil although probably a shorter cap that should provide a gap to the coil. Also, the boards easily unscrew from the cabinet and there is enough slack in the wiring to provide extra room to access the leads. Finally, it doesn't seem like a huge project to take everything outboard altho' I think I can fit everything internally. Looks straight-forward. Maybe I'll do this project sooner than April? |
Pruning a brand niche is a very delicate endeavor. Imagine the confusions that result from differing implementations of various products within a brand. I will share that in the development of the CS5 in the late 80s, I wanted to go farther out on the quality limb and market that product in the $20K market (actually introduced at $9700 / pair.) I believe its ultra implementation would have been more than competitive at $20K. BUT, where does such a move leave the line / other products, niche reputation, etc? Perhaps two quality ranges? etc. etc. etc. As a small company, we couldn't cope with the variables. Toyota marketed their upmarket offerings in the USA as Lexus: same idea: different dealers, different image, different cost/performance ratios. I have bought some nifty analysis software to guide me in this upgrade thing. I hope to find time to develop some solutions. The learning curve is cumulative, what is learned is applicable to other products. My first, stop is my PowerPoint 1.2s, upgraded via beetlemania's cap direction, coil replacement with legacy Thiel six-9s coils and wire, all in outboard XOs, and vetted with Metric Halo's SpectraFoo analysis software. |
brands like Thiel that stay on top of the cost/performance tradeoff are likely to have better products than the cost no object "luxury" brandsI agree but still wish that Thiel had a full-out assault on SOTA speaker. Not that I could ever hope to afford such a product but it probably would have informed new, cost-effective ways to coax (pun intended) even more performance from the 1s, 2s, and 3s. Maybe Jim Thiel had this in mind (cs7.3?) but left this Earth far too early. At Parts Connexion, retail pricing for a Clarity SA 15 uF is ~$20 and 33uF is ~$46. *Every* CS2.4 could have had SA caps for, maybe, an extra $200 retail (tbf, I don't know that the SAs were available when the 2.4 was developed). No doubt Jim Thiel had very good reasons for his design decisions and I shouldn't second guess those decisions. But, IMO, an extra $500-2000 retail in better passive parts for the 2s and 3s could have elevated their performance to the next tiers. I'm going to test that speculation! |
This thread is a great example of why brands like Thiel that stay on top of the cost/performance tradeoff are likely to have better products than the cost no object "luxury" brands like Wilson or magico at any price points where they compete. A lifetime of value judgements and performance oriented engineering vs primarily just putting the most expensive parts in a box made of something exotic is bound to result in much better performance for the money. |
Eventually I hope to have upgrade paths for various legacy Thiel products that Rob can supply.Haha, I can see it now. I'll get my pair dialed-in then you and Rob will come out with a kit for the 2.4s. There is no end to audiophile nervosa! the buyer gets what he gets with myriad value judgements / assumptions bundled in the mix. It is not for the faint of heart; the process will lead to critical listening / comparison and then value engineering assessment to assure that the gains are solid / uncompromised and the costs are no more than necessary Just picking the caps for the SE version probably took Jim Thiel and his team many days and weeks, never mind the initial design. Choose worthwhile candidate caps (this is what I'm doing), burn them in for a week or two, conduct careful listening tests/comparisons, probably measurements, too. Being a buyer, not a manufacturer, I don't have the time and money to try multiple combinations. Moreover, manufacturers are *highly* motivated to get the very best sound possible, albeit balanced by cost (except for Wilson and the like for which crazy prices are built into brand expectation). In my case, my SEs sound superb but I also know there probably are gains to be had with tricked-out XOs. I paid ~$3K for my used pair and I think they sound as good as anything new up to ~15K. What if there is a relatively inexpensive way to make them sound as good as anything new up to $30K? As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, I think Thiel made some of the best drivers in the business. IMO, the main thing that separated Thiel SQ from that of the very best was attention to the passive parts. Tom Thiel wrote that it wasn't that Jim Thiel was unaware or disbelieving of ultra caps and the like, just that he wanted to balance SQ against cost so that more people could afford his creations. And I am grateful because I am one who can afford Thiels. Not much if they were tweaked like this: http://jeffsplace.me/wordpress/?p=5464 I suspect a CS7.2 or CS3.7 with a cost-no-object XO would sound pretty much as good as anything I've heard. But something like that Dueland-capped XO would probably add $20K retail, more than a pair of CS7.2 or CS3.7! Tom Thiel has been very generous with his knowledge and sdecker shared his successful experience of re-capping his CS2.4s. This is a project I'm confident I can complete and with good results. I will certainly report back on this thread in hopes of helping other DIYers. |
This kind of wrangling of details normally occurs behind the design curtain and the buyer gets what he gets with myriad value judgements / assumptions bundled in the mix. It is not for the faint of heart; the process will lead to critical listening / comparison and then value engineering assessment to assure that the gains are solid / uncompromised and the costs are no more than necessary. Eventually I hope to have upgrade paths for various legacy Thiel products that Rob can supply. We're doing this first trial in view of this supportive group. Thank you, beetle, for jumping in. |
@tomthiel *Super* helpful. I owe you a beer or three. Next step is to pull a radiator and see how much room I have to work with. The solution with SA/CSA/Mundorf Supreme is the least expensive (of the options I'm considering) and with the smallest profile. I’d like to go with CSA/CMR on the coax, however, if space allows. Something of a crap shoot in terms of ending up with similar tolerances/values for replacement parts, vs sticking with the originals that were part of the original design.A bit of a puzzle to get the correct cap combos that match the original values but not too onerous. I suppose it’s not without risk but I’d be REALLY surprised if I end up with worse sound. Hedging against that possibility is one reason to stick with Clarity on the coax feeds. If it does end up making things worse, Rob Gillum has extras of the SAs that were the in the CS2.4SE. Having Tom Thiel guide me gives me a lot of confidence. |
I like where you are going. It might be possible to move the coil, if there is room in the cabinet. We could move the 0.15mH coil outboard past the end of the panel. That would require crimping and soldering lead extensions - not desirable, but possible. Damp all the caps with putty (BluTac, Mortite, etc.) especially if you stack the caps vertically, to damp microphonics. Note that the power capacity of the chosen caps matters-at least as much as original spec. And if the film-wrap direction is marked, match the original. |
Thank you *so* much for all this great info, Tom! I think any changes would be small enough to dismissOK, I'll keep this as an option depending on space. I don't know the relative merits of CMR vs Mundorf.Reading the anonymous writer at humblehomemadehifi I've concluded that person is a careful listener and has credible thoughts on cap performance. Reading the descriptions literally and between the lines, the CMR appears to be the near equal of the upper range of Mundorf, perhaps a tad less transparent but a scotch more neutral. I think I would be happy with either. From that website and others, it seems that going further up the Supreme line to Oil, Silver Gold, and SGO have rapidly diminishing returns with equally rapid $$$ increase! He/she is a fan of coupling SA with Supreme: Making a capacitor using about 90% Clarity Cap SA and about 10% Mundorf Supreme works very well, this tends to open up the top end just nicely without altering anything else. As of now, I'm leaning 20uF SA + 12 CSA + 1 Supreme on the woofer; 15 uF CSA + 12 CSA + 1 CMR and 12 CSA + 1 CSA + 1 CMR on the coax. The double bypass to replace the 28uF cap seems the most challenging to stay away from the coil. Maybe I can get the 27uF CSA from a European supplier - that would really help. If you can make some trap doors in those corners, you will clean up bass standing waves and flutter echo enormously.The other opening on the rear wall is a large (5'W x 10'H) walkway into the next room, conveniently in the corner! I have a bookshelf in the other corner on the rear wall. I also have cloth window shades (the front wall is almost all glass) and plants on the floor and hanging along the front wall. One-half of the floor is tile, so I also added a rug on most of that. This room was *really* bright when I moved in but I'm pretty happy with it now. Running a tone sweep fails to reveal any unacceptable room modes. |
I do not have a rule of thumb for how to account for changes in ourboard XO environment and I think any changes would be small enough to dismiss in the absence of research equipment and process. 0.01uF is very small for these voltage and current processes. It couldn't hurt, but . . . I like your cascading scheme. I don't know the relative merits of CMR vs Mundorf. Do not place caps on coils due to EMF field interaction. Keep the leads long enough for a heat sink while soldering. Use 4% silver x 96% tin solder or equivalent. I like mechanical / twisted connections under solder, flux the wire first. I don't think 40cm cabinet intrusion is enough to matter much. Do not change XO board orientation in the cabinet. Pay attention to potential wire buzzes when re-packing the cabinet. Your room geometry accumulates pressure at the rear wall-floor intersection, and behind your head. That wall opening is great. If you can make some trap doors in those corners, you will clean up bass standing waves and flutter echo enormously. |
7' from the wall is a great luxury. Do you also have a high ceiling? Ceiling bounce is a real issue.I'm kidding about getting the 7s. The 7.2s were close to the best I've heard but I'd rather tweak out these 2.4s (for now!). My room is vaulted with the tall end at the listening position. I had fabric on the ceiling for a few years to reduce reflections but took it down to wash the dust and decided it really wasn't helping to a worthwhile extent. I think I'm saved by two openings on my rear wall including a ~5'W x 4'H just above my head behind me. XO layout space is a real issue that will have to be engineered as we go.I think i can fit the double bypass options by stacking the caps on each other and on the resistors. I will cut the extant leads close to the caps to make sure all the leads can tie together. Is it a no-no to place caps on the coils? I think this 3-D arrangement would extend the XO profile about 4 cm further into the cabinet. the smaller values must be higher quality to get improvement.Thanks for the warning! I would suggest a 32 ± SA bipassed with 1uF ± teflon as a high likelihood of success.Can't get a 32uF in a single cap. Could do a 20uF SA + 12uF CSA + 1uF CMR or Mundorf. What do you think about adding an ultra 0.01 to the 33 SA? I would imagine outboard XOs to reduce size / layout constraints and take the XO farther from driver EMF and microphonics.In an earlier post you warned about taking the XO outboard because the values are dialed-in for the within cabinet environment. Do you have a rule-of-thumb for how to modify for outboard? |
7' from the wall is a great luxury. Do you also have a high ceiling? Ceiling bounce is a real issue. XO layout space is a real issue that will have to be engineered as we go. Thiel used good resistors, I don't remember the facts. You might trace the specs of your actual resistors. But I do know that we chose those carefully, considering costs. There is a theoretical and audible improvement from more linear resistors, but I don't know where the present solution fits in that landscape. The general answer to the mod / value / cost of caps is that the smaller values must be higher quality to get improvement. We are fudging to get the most gain for the least cost by using less expensive caps for the bulk of the work and tricking out the smaller values which we can more easily afford. The woofer cap deserves cost restraint, the impulse transient is far slower for lower frequencies. If the 33uF is a Solen film cap, that's probably OK. Upgrading to an SA seems plenty to me. Note that Jim bypassed 'lytics (etc) with a small value teflon for bigger sonic improvement than swapping the whole thing for a film type. Out of the blue (no real research yet), I would suggest a 32 ± SA bipassed with 1uF ± teflon as a high likelihood of success. FYI: Gary Dayton worked with Jim on these issues and may be willing to share some insight if you (all) want to rattle his cage. As an ultimate 7.2 upgrade, I would imagine outboard XOs to reduce size / layout constraints and take the XO farther from driver EMF and microphonics. I always heard added congestion when packing the XO into the cabinet. |
I like the CSA +, + with the 0.33 being a teflon or other ultra-grade cap if possible. Ultra bypasses are far less important on the woofer, put more value on the coax feeds Thanks for this, Tom! There appears to be much more room to replace the single 33uF woofer cap. Plenty of room to replace these with 15+18uF CSA or 33uF Mundorf Supreme EVO or, most inexpensively, 33 uF SA. Obviously, I can’t make any purchase without first looking at the boards myself and seeing how much room there is. |
beetle, the actual combined cap value is important for proper tonal balance and phase addition thru the XO region. I like the CSA +, + with the 0.33 being a teflon or other ultra-grade cap if possible. Ultra bypasses are far less important on the woofer, put more value on the coax feeds with less value on the traps (where the electrolytics are.) Mono is good for critical analysis, either from a mono source or summed in the preamp. oblong, Rob might have an upgrade path for those CS7s. Note: 5' from the back wall gives you about 5ms reflection delay where the ear-brain identifies it as a reflection and not smear of the initial signal. That's where the big Thiels come to life. Tom |
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. |
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 |
Thanks for the helpful reply, Tom! 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. |
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)" https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/225/index.html |
tomthiel, I couldn't find any images of the dual binding posts on the CS 3's, but reference is made here: https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/684cs3/index.html |
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? |
| Post removed |
tomthiel, Wow, I just love this insight! Would Jim have put the cross-overs before or after the amps in a self-powered speaker? If I may humbly suggest considerations for revised 3.5 eq's: Mono operation for those with dual mono pres and mono-block amps, as well as for use in home theatre applications. Industry pro standard AES pro true balanced operation. Perhaps a return to the dual speaker terminals of the earlier CS 3's, to restrict the eq's input into the upper frequencies. If a digital option were to be considered, direct digital input and output, preferably with IS2, perhaps with DSP room correction for actual rooms. And of course anything else that you guys might deem worthy. Thanks again! |