Thiel Owners
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? Tom |
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. Grrrrrr.... |
Hello Tom, 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. Arvin |
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? |
Hello all, 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: 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! Arvin |
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. |
Here is the link for the article mentioned above: https://www.strata-gee.com/forgotten-thiel/ Curious to see if Tom has any specific suggestions for hot-rodding the 2.4 SE |
Nice to see all these Thiel pixels! My (memory of) 38" ear height relates to average seated ears. I don't know what height was assumed after mid 90s, but probably the same. Measurement distance is 3 meters with an assumption of that as minimum listener distance. Notice how little tilt would be required to adjust for spikes at 10' to 12' assumed distance. Rob, or anyone, please correct me if 38" is incorrect. One day soon I will have spectrum analysis equipment to verify such matters going forward. Regarding measurement methods. Thiel did have a SERIOUS anechoic chamber at 20' high x 30' wide x 50' long (approx). Room reflections shelve at 200 hz. We began life balancing for 2db down below 200 hz and above 200 hz flat out to 20K+. That target was modified over the years to conform to general industry practice, AGAINST Jim's wish for FLAT is FACT, not opinion! Jim had designed and built an interrupted pulse stepped signal generator which fed 1/3 octave pulses to the speaker (6' off the ground), @ 1 pulse acceleration, 1 pulse measured -calculated room decay before next pulse cycle 1/3 octave higher. Pulse sweep was 20Hz to 30kHz. Jim also used rapid full-range sweep above 200Hz and noise burst / Fast Fourier Transforms, before such stuff was available on PCs. Oh, there weren't any PCs when Jim developed these tools. All those measurements were correlated with free space measurements (speaker suspended from edge of roof 20' above ground) and half space (ground plane) with speaker firing into open space (woofer bounce) and firing down-angled with mic at position of first ground bounce, and buried in the sandbox for infinite baffle response to isolate edge diffraction effects. All these measurements converged into a well-rounded picture of frequency, time and power response where we knew how the speaker would interact with a room. Thiel believed that speakers should do their job of flat response including edge diffraction, and the room must be massaged to do its job of even support. I don't know where these presumptions landed by Jim's death in 2009. An earlier commentator above shed light on that; Jim may have migrated away from flat to align with generally held expectations. I always wanted to garner consistent assumptions from the recording engineering community, but we couldn't find consensus there. Everybody second-guesses everybody else! Larry Staples was an early Thiel pioneering dealer in Louisville. He and others like him forged a new path in audio which became known as "high end". Hello Larry. |
One more thing. It's important to note the depth and breadth of research and development that Tom and Jim worked on and succeeded in, in designing loudspeakers. They approached each issue three dimensionally. As Tom so accurately states, every solve has a side effect which may introduce more problems than it helps. An admission of mine. When I Founded LSA Group a decade or so ago, I voiced my speakers only to 'sound' the way I thought seemed natural. And because I have a good sense of music, they were enormously pleasing. There was NO science involved, NOTHING akin to the task undertaken by THIEL AUDIO. Jim will be forever missed. Tom accurately states that the new THIEL owners, rather than 'Tilt at Windmills', simply tried to exist with a 'me too' product. It is a shame that Jim did not have a like minded young engineer that he could have passed a wonderful legacy of work on to. Best to all, Larry |
limited to perhaps 200 Hz and above.Yes, Thiel's graphs are truncated at 200 cycles: http://www.vandersteen.com/media/files/APJ%20Files/APJ_6-7r.pdf Those CS2.3 measurements are superb! For the bass, I think Stereophile's nearfield technique fills in the gap nicely. |
Much of the spike length was intended for carpet height piercing.The outriggers and spikes on my CS2.4SE raise the speakers a good 2". I think these spikes are a bit longer compared to the standard version. About one-half of my floor is slab and tile with a hand-woven rug under the speakers. I use 1.5 x 2 x 0.25" wood blocks under the spikes to protect the rug. The other half, which includes my listening seat, has wall-to-wall on top of the slab. I find the spikes to improve the SQ at least a little altho' not sure how much is due to listening height v. better coupling to the floor. |
@beetlemania, I don't think it did too badly at low volumes but I cranked it up pretty quickly to see how it would do with something loud and meaty and it wasn't up to it. I was at the dealer and I didn't spend a whole lot of time listening for subtle differences. I find that it takes me a long time to make up my mind about whether something is different, better or worse and I can't really do it at the dealer. I listen to make sure it's about what I want and then take it home and usually need weeks to make up my mind 100%. I'm also a believer in having too much power. It might be my imagination but I think having what would seem to be way more power than necessary makes a difference. My current setup has 2 200 watts@8ohm/channel amplifiers running bridged mono. I've had this setup for 10 years or so and I prefer it. |
From the manual for the CS2.4: Optimum phase and time alignment is provided only for a seated listener who is eight or more feet away from the speakers.There is no mention of ear height, which is very important for the first order filters (ie, vertical dispersion). Measured at 3 meters.That's >twice as far as Stereophile in JA's open air arrangement and 1 m more than Soundstage in their anechoic chamber. Do you know if Thiel had an anechoic chamber? Or did they measure outside? Must have elevated the speaker well off the ground if the latter. Comparing Stereophile and Thiel measurements (published in Audiophile Journal archived on the Vandersteen website) it's quite clear that Thiel measured from farther away. Not only do the Thiel measurements indicate much flatter frequency response, the waterfall plot is much cleaner than suggested by Stereophile, with a clean initial decay even in the upper midrange. |
38" ear height is design target.I imagine there must also be a target distance to the listener, as well, that corresponds to the 38". In Soundstage’s measurements of the CS2.4, they measured at 2 m which is their standard. But the height was a manufacturer-specified 30" from the bottom of the speaker (presumably w/o spikes). |
@jon_5912 Stereophile measured the CS3.7 impedance as low as 2.2 Ohm, so even the more powerful AX-5 might be a marginal match for big rooms or loud-preferring listeners. Still, I'm surprised the AX-7 didn't at least deliver good sound at moderate SPLs. Wes Phillips used several amps for his CS2.4 testing including a vintage Fisher measured at 6W into 4 Ohm! . . . while not my first choice for the job, did not acquit itself too badly.But for his review of the CS3.7 he used the Ayre MX-R and Musical Fidelity Nu Vista (480w into 4 Ohm). |
Prof, my detailed response didn't show up. Hmmm. Bottom line is that the height change from feet is very small compared to the sonic integration triangles at normal listening distances. 38" ear height is design target. Baffle motion from recoil forces is substantial for short tweeter wavelengths. Spikes work. |
I sent Rob @ Thiel a very brief email congratulating him on continuing with the excellent service that he has already demonstrated over the years. Though my email did not warrant a reply, Rob did - and quickly. And I'm not even a customer at this point. I'm scouring the ads now to "invest" in yet another pair of Thiel. I j just can't NOT support this guy! |
