Thiel Owners

The people who worked at Thiel while Jim was alive understand the design process and what went into classic Thiel products. If only Kathy Gornik bought it back and hired back those same people, perhaps the mantle could be carried forward. In the meantime I will treat my 6s and 2.4s with loving care in the hope that I can make them last for the remainder of my life.
Also, bought an SS2 with dedicated crossover for the 6s about 14 years ago. I could never get it to integrate or phase properly despite trying every setting combination under the sun; I eventually sold it because the 6s sounded much better without it.

good news for you guys

Kathy Gornik bought it back for pennies and will resume production of the CS2.4SE and CS3.7?
:)

In progress- beetlemania.
I hope to have good news for you guys very soon. Thank You for the inquiry.

Happy Listening!

@jafant  did you get a chance to inquire about driver availability?

prof-
keep us posted as you massage iso-lation products under your speakers and into your system.
Happy Listening!

@ronkent,

The iso-pucks can be used for any device within their spec limit.
The web site mentions a variety of speakers, from monitors to bass amps under which to put the isopucks, which of course use the same principle as the Gaia footers.

My Thiels are 77 lbs each, 4 iso pucks are rated to 80 lbs, so they should be fine used for the Thiels.

Excellent ronkent-
I want to say that I have read on other audio forums about using Mapleshade platforms under Thiel speakers to very good effect.
Not too many own Mapleshade racks and footers, so it is refreshing, to read about those who do. Sound Anchors and CS 2.4 speakers are a sonic match. I have not read about CS 2.7 owners using Sound Anchors?

Happy Listening!

On my 2.7's, i had been using the outrigger with the spikes that came with them. Replaced them with big brass feet from Mapleshade and that was a nice improvement.

Also, Avalon makes some cones (aluminum? stainless steel?) that I might try down the road. Probably the best result is obtained by using three per speaker but that seems a gravity risk!

you are welcome.  wish we could post pics here.  I like Mapleshade products and my rack is the Samson rack which is pretty awesome and actually a good deal for what you get.   I would also use the platforms under my speakers but to get that size is pretty high $$.  And as i posted earlier,  and i have not put them on audiogon,   i do have a set of the sound anchors that should work for the older 2 series if anyone is interested.

Thanks! for sharing- ronkent
another excellent tweak suggestion for us Thiel lovers. Good to read more positive reviews of Mapleshade products.
Happy Listening!

" BTW...

I tried some Iso Acoustic Iso-Pucks under one of my Thiel 2.7s tonight.

Some here probably know Iso Acoustics products are all the rage these days in terms of speaker stands/isolation and their Gaia series speaker footers seem beloved."

I do not think the iso pucks were ever designed for a floor standing speaker at all.  I think they are really for electronics as was mentioned above.  On my 2.7's,  i had been using the outrigger with the spikes that came with them.  Replaced them with big brass feet from Mapleshade and that was a nice improvement.  Recently I too got a set of the Gaia feet that i screwed into the outriggers.  My girlfriend liked the brass feet better but i liked the more expansive sound with the Gaia. I think either the Gaia or the brass feet are worth looking into depending on your sound preferences. 

Good luck, bcarr38
In your previous post you wrote:

I have a pair of CS 2.3s with upgraded coax speaker which sound great but I am interested in upgrading

Was the upgrade the driver or crossover?

I am *really* happy with the CS2.4SE. It can't reproduce the left-most 2 or 3 keys on a piano but I can't hear any other weakness or shortcoming. I'm very curious to listen to a Vivid Giya or TAD Ref One or Vandy 7 again to discern how those designs are better (of course this will be confounded by changes in electronics and room). To be clear, I'm not imagining the CS2.4 is their equal but surely those speakers are near the horizontal asymptote on the performance/price graph.

have you thought about what might be the weakest link in your system? ie, consider upgrading you source or amp first? IME, these are just as important as the speaker.

Thank you beetlemania.  I will check it out.

I forgot to mention what was probably the key feature in favor of the SI-1 for me. It has fully balanced circuitry, not just balanced inputs and outputs. The only other active crossover I found with this feature is a particular variant in the Marchand line, the XM44-2FBA. Since my pre and power amps both have fully balanced designs, I wasn't keen on inserting a device with unbalanced circuitry between them.

I tried some Iso Acoustic Iso-Pucks under one of my Thiel 2.7s tonight.

I'm not familiar with this product but, as a rule, isolation footers should be used only for electronics and, maybe, cables but never speakers. I'm not surprised you didn't have good results.

I am using small wood blocks under the spikes of my CS2.4s but only because I am protecting the rug they sit on . . . I'm not willing to damage the rug. At some point, I will take the rug out and listen for how much, if at all, the wood blocks are degrading the SQ.

Excellent reporting- prof, ish_mail and beetlemania

very informative information for those wanting to integrate a subwoofer or two into their system. Equally important is the mention of isolation of your speakers via outriggers or some other product in kind.
Much will depend on the room, type of flooring and other sound treatments.
Fun stuff to be sure. Is not this hobby great?

Happy Listening!

BTW...

I tried some Iso Acoustic Iso-Pucks under one of my Thiel 2.7s tonight.

Some here probably know Iso Acoustics products are all the rage these days in terms of speaker stands/isolation and their Gaia series speaker footers seem beloved.

I'd been meaning to try out the Gaia footers, but ended up first with 4 of the slightly smaller iso-pucks which I'd picked up mostly to test for use in isolating my new turntable.

Using an iPad accelerometer sensor app, I did much of the same tests for the iso pucks as I did for a bunch of other materials, and frankly couldn't find much measurable isolation.  Still, I thought I'd try them under one of my 2.7 speakers.  I'd heard a store demo of the Gaia footers on one speaker, where they switched back and forth between the one with the footer and one without, and thought maybe I'd heard an agreeable change.

But on my Thiels tonight, it turned out I wasn't so happy with the results.
First, the L speaker (that I put the iso pucks under) did become a bit more lush and mellow, less hash to the sound.  That in of itself is nice.
Though that could also be due simply to the 1 1/2" rise in height from the footers, changing the speaker interaction in the room, putting my ears just a bit more below the tweeters for a more midrange sound.  Hard to tell.

Beyond that, the midbass on down actually lost tightness and snap, became a bit resonant sounding and slightly more muddy.  The feeling of aliveness was reduced.  I listened for quite a while going back and forth between the speakers - an obvious difference - and also listening to both in stereo (only one having the iso pucks).  But as soon as I took out the iso pucks the sound became more taught and clean again in the lower mids/bass, and the upper frequency range returned, the whole sound took on that drive, snappiness and aliveness that I love.

So that's a bit disappointing.  I'd love a tweak like that to work for me.
But it's also in line with when I've tried some other footers on my speakers in the past, even spikes.  I tend to get the same changes and end up preferring the speakers flat on my floor, no spikes.  The design of the speakers just seems dialed in for that height relationship with the floor, in terms of floor bounce or whatever.

I'm not sure now if I'm still going to try the Gaia footers.  I may some time spring for the Townsend Seismic Isolation Bars.   The reason is that I've been very impressed with the measured isolation performance of the four Townsend isolation pods I've received for isolating my turntable.  And the isolation bars employ those pods.  The bars, unlike most footers/spike/isolation systems don't raise the speaker height.  So it would seem more ideal for my purposes.

I may try the 4 Townsend pods I have under one of my Thiels, to see how they work vs the iso pucks.  Though they will raise the Thiels probably even a bit higher than the iso pucks.

@ish_mail ,

Again, superb stuff!  Thanks for the reassurance that going the CR-1 route isn't a total screw up :-)   I'm a total newb with subwoofers.

the outriggers are very sweet and very heavy. I have heard the 2.4, 2.4SE and 2.7 models with and without outriggers. To my ears, there is a slightly improved sound and presentation using the outriggers. I venture to report that the difference is not day vs. night.

I hear a small but worthwhile improvement with the outriggers (plus, they look bitchin' and improve stability). It could be because they better couple the speaker to floor, reducing resonances. Or it could be because they bring the tweeters up a couple of inches. You definitely want your ears no more that tweeter axis, maybe a scotch lower depending on how close you sit, your height and the height of your seat.

Prof wrote:

If using a first order crossover with the sub were about maintaining time/phase coherence, I’m not going to have that anyway. The subs will have some delay, and will be placed behind the speakers, hence time delay. I could ideally get them phase coherent with the Thiels with the phase controls, but they’d still be at least a cycle behind in terms of time coherence (unless I go whole hog and want to digitize the entire signal to allow the mains to be delayed for time coherence with the subs - which I’m not yet willing to do.

Prof is right. Even if he places his subs at the same distance from the listening position as his main speakers, the group delay of his JLA subs means that the best he can achieve is phase, but not time, coherence. This is true for both the Thiel SI-1 and the JL Audio CR-1. I explained how I came to post fake news about the SI-1 on this point in my previous post. Apologies for that.

Prof wrote: And, btw, isn't that what the Thiel subwoofer integrator does? Digitize the entire signal to mains and subs?).

Nope. See p 3 of the SmartSub Owner Information manual, https://www.manualslib.com/manual/328036/Thiel-Smartsub-Ss2.html:

All signal processing [in the SI-1 Integrator] is done with analog circuitry. Digital circuitry is used for user interface, calculation and circuit control functions.

How does the SI-1 accomplish level adjustment and phase alignment, accounting for both SmartSub group delay and variable subwoofer placement, and why do SmartSubs lack a phase control? ... We know from the documentation that the SI-1 includes continuous phase adjustment in its bag of tricks for “Smart” integration. Since Thiel surely knew the group delay of its own SmartSubs, computing the phase adjustment to compensate for group delay at any crossover frequency is simple enough. On the other hand, I suspect that the SmartSub circuitry does not account for variable subwoofer placement. Instead, this issue is probably addressed by the instructions on p 9 of the SmartSub Technical Information manual, http://audio.manualsonline.com/manuals/mfg/thiel_audio_products/sw1_ss2_ss3_ss4.html:

The subwoofer(s) preferably should be approximately the same distance from the main listening area as the main speakers.

To the extent that this instruction is followed, the SI-1’s phase adjustment for SmartSub group delay is sufficient for total phase alignment. The user must enter the main speaker sensitivity into the SI-1, and Thiel knows the SmartSubs’ sensitivity. With this information, automatic level matching is straightforward.

OK, then, how can we implement the “straightforward phase alignment and level adjustments” mentioned in my previous post using the SI-1 with non-Thiel subs or if the subs are not placed at the same distance from the listener as the main speakers? Although in this case phase alignment and level adjustment are no longer smart, they can be implemented simultaneously using Method B, as described toward the bottom of p 4 of the instructions that accompany the SoundDoctor test CD: http://www.soundoctor.com/testcd/Soundoctor_Test_CD_v2-7-2.pdf. In this approach we use the level, polarity and phase controls on the subwoofer, just as we would with a more conventional crossover with voltage-type filters, such as the CR-1. Note, however, that the phase adjustment on non-Thiel subs will be the amount needed beyond the default phase adjustment that the SI-1 computes for SmartSub group delay. Fortunately, we don’t need to know the SmartSub group delay to implement Method B, because I don’t know the value of the SmartSub delay.

My initial attempts at implementing Method B indicate that the group delay for SmartSubs and my JL Audio f112s are surprisingly close (within 5 degrees at 80 Hz). I should do some more careful work to confirm this. If anyone knows the group delay spec for SmartSubs, I’d be very interested to know 

In the end, what did I get with the SI-1? Definitely a good price (thanks for not bidding you guys). Definitely a high-quality crossover with a nice remote. Possibly, improved frequency response with the SI-1’s acoustic type filters.*

BTW, I’m very pleased with the results I’m getting so far. I’m definitely hearing the improvements promised for switching to two subs, for using an active crossover, and for addressing phase alignment.

* I think my use of the DARO (automatic DSP room correction) that comes with the JL Audio Fathom line and the fact that my whole system, including acoustic treatments, is designed to optimize the sound at the sweet spot (vs. throughout the room) undercuts to some extent the Sound Doctor’s argument against worrying about frequency response. Jim Thiel believed the difference between acoustic-type and voltage-type filters matters in the cross-overs within our speakers, so why not also for sub integration? … I have no plans to test this conjecture by installing a more conventional crossover for comparison. So with no evidence to the contrary, I’ll continue to tell myself that the frequency response matters, too, just to keep myself happy.

But, as I said in my previous post, no one using a CR-1 or other crossover should lose any sleep over this IMO.

Thanks, @prof

Jim Thiel's concept for the SmartSub line and the crossovers that go with it was to save the end user from having to get into the weeds learning how to integrate successfully. He also wanted to advance the state-of-the-art for sub integration (e.g., SBIR correction in the SmartSubs and acoustic-type filters in the SI-1). The downside for me in using the SI-1 with the JLA's is that I've had to effectively reverse engineer the SI-1 controls and understand the nonstandard aspects of its acoustic-type filter design. Talk about getting into the weeds! Fortunately, I enjoy this kind of puzzle. If I understand things correctly, the integration is essentially the same as it would be with the CR-1.

You should have it much easier working with the CR-1. There's really no need for you (or anyone else) to follow me through the weeds unless it interests you. Good luck!

@ish_mail

Thanks very much for all that info.

I will have to read it more than once to have any hope of processing your post.

It's timely as next weekend I'm picking up my CR-1 crossover to finally test the JL subs crossed over with my Thiel 2.7s.

(I also have the soundoctor CD and info...and I've just received a Dspeaker Anti-Node that I will try on the subwoofer channel.  But first I'll stick with the CR-1 crossover and see how far I can get integration).

Good to see you again- ish_mail
very informative replies to prof 's queries. I look forward in reading more on your research. Happy Listening!

Here come some long-delayed replies to several points raised by Prof on 12/9 in his response to my original post to this thread. First, a correction:

I wrote on 12/9: 

The [Thiel] SI-1 uses first-order crossovers; the [JL Audio] CR-1 uses 4th-order crossovers.

This is what I was told during my research before bidding on the SI-1, but it’s not true, as seen on p 10 of this document: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/328036/Thiel-Smartsub-Ss2.html. (For more complete information, read the whole Integration section, starting on p 8.)

Thiel argues that standard LP and HP filters can not produce linear frequency response in the net acoustic output, even with some extreme tweaks. See pp 8-9 for examples in which optimal independent selections of standard LP and HP filters combined with optimized level and phase adjustments fail to deliver linear acoustic output. The standard LP and HP filters used in most active crossovers, on the other hand, are designed to deliver matched (mirror-image) voltage profiles, not matched acoustic output. For example, the JL Audio CR-1 uses 4th-order Linkwitz-Reilly filters that guarantee matched voltage profiles.

Thiel’s goal for the SI-1 in crossover mode (augment mode is another story) was to match the total response of the main speakers to the total response produced by a generic sealed sub driven by an ideal (according to Jim Thiel) 4th-order LP filter with Q = 0.5 damping. Evidently, “total response” refers to the net acoustic output determined by the voltage profiles of the HP and LP crossover filters in combination with the distinct acoustic properties of the sub(s) and main speakers. To accomplish this goal, he uses a nonstandard, highly customized HP voltage profile to make the total response of the main speakers match the shape of the target sub response (see Fig. 11 on p 10 in which the red curve shows the customized HP voltage profile for reflex mains that are typical of the Thiel line). Once this is accomplished, “straightforward” phase alignment and level adjustments should complete the integration (this is IMO; it’s not stated explicitly by Thiel).

BTW, the first-order crossovers in Thiel’s main speaker line are designed for first-order acoustic response, not first-order voltage profiles. From Thiel sales literature for the CS3.7: “The Crossover is a true first order *acoustic type* that provides the utmost in spatial and depth imaging performance as well as overall realism. This is the only type of crossover that provides complete accuracy of amplitude, phase, time, and energy, and therefore the only type that does not distort the musical waveform.” The design of first-order voltage crossovers is relatively simple; the design of first-order acoustic type crossovers is significantly more difficult and expensive. Presumably, this is one reason why very few speaker designers undertake phase and time-coherent designs.

I wrote:

Note: The 4th-order crossovers in the JLAs are not compatible with the 1st-order crossovers in Thiel speakers.

Prof’s challenge to this comment is well taken. First, the words “not compatible” are too strong. I thought I changed incompatible to “inconsistent” before posting, but clearly I did not. Better yet, I should have written “inconsistent with Thiel’s emphasis on phase and time coherence in speaker design (through the use of first-order acoustic type crossovers). This is accurate, but one might still infer from my comment that the Thiel SI-1 can deliver phase both and time coherence. I did think this was true at the time of my post, based on the misinformation about the SI-1 using first-order filters and my assumption that Jim Thiel would only bother with first-order filters in pursuit of his signature phase and time coherent designs. However, according to my correction above, it appears the main advantage of the SI-1 is more accurate frequency response relative to active crossovers that use voltage-type matching. Is this distinction important in practice? It’s not clear. Jim Thiel presumably thought so, but Soundoctor makes some good arguments that suggest owners of active crossovers with voltage-type matching shouldn’t lose any sleep over it; see here http://www.soundoctor.com/whitepapers/subs.htm.

This still leaves a few more questions/comments from Prof that I should answer. I’ll address these, as best I can, in another post; this one is already pretty long.

Absolutely! unsound.
 a very important cleaning tip. Luckily my speakers were very well cared for prior to my purchase. They still exihibit a very fine shine. I do not know if the previous owner ever used any kind of cleaning product? I do know that the gentleman reported only using a microfiber cloth to wipe them down once per week.

Happy Listening!

Jafant, I would suggest not spraying Endust (or any other product) directly on the cabinet, but spraying directly on a soft cloth first.

Good to see you- prof
good to read that are digging the CS 2.7 speakers. I knew that you would.
Happy Listening!

beetlemania-
the outriggers are very sweet and very heavy. I have heard the 2.4, 2.4SE and 2.7 models with and without outriggers. To my ears, there is a slightly improved sound and presentation using the outriggers. I venture to report that the difference is not day vs. night.  Thiel owners across other Audio forums like Sound Anchors to good effect. Still another option is using maple wood slabs under these speakers as well.
In all of my auditions the rooms were carpet, from the range of, very thin commercial to full on luxury thick.
Happy Listening!

jon_5912
it would be interesting to learn the number of pairs built for CS 3.7 speakers. Good to read that your dealer/retailer and Thiel customer service took care of you.
Happy Listening!

Good to see you- ronkent
did you fix the driver yourself? I will reach out and touch Mr. Gillum next week and report back his current position w/ customer service.
Happy Listening!

Many thanks! unsound
for the cleaning tip. I would use this product very sparingly on any cabinet.
Happy Listening!

Good to see you- corvette01-
the only class-D gear that I have ever auditioned was Primare separates w/ Vienna Acoustics speakers over 10 years ago. The pairing made for a very good demo. There is a CS 3.7 owner, on a different forum, that uses Rogue Audio M-180 amps in his system. No, have not heard any class-D gear w/ Thiel loudspeakers. Thank You for the suggestion.
Happy Listening!

Good to see you here- luizfcoimbra
Much Thanks! for telling your Audio journey. I must say that you are the only owner using Argento cabling. I have read reports/reviews about the brand over the years. It has been a long time since I heard B.A.T. gear. I cannot fault you for moving up to  Magico. Keep writing your musical thoughts/impressions.
Happy Listening!

Jafant,
I  tried a extra Nuprime class d amp that I have with my 3.7s for the heck of it,and was very impressed with the overall sound and the bass!I might want to sell my Xpa-1s and go class d.My 3.7s seemed happy with class d.Have you ever used a class d with your Thiels.

Hey guys,

I’m chiming in at somebody’s request (after having mentioned Thiel speakers in some other post). I’ve started my hi-fi journey listening to my dad’s Altec Lansing A7’s. I’m 35 now and that’s what I grew up listening to until I was 10 or 12 when that system was disassembled and the Altecs were sold to help us go through a financial crisis here in Brazil.

The first system I could put together many years later was built around Thiel SCS 4 bookshelves. I had a budget (though very nice) Xindak integrated amp, Synergistic Alpha Sterling X2 speaker cables and interconnects, a cheap Musical Fidelity M1 DAC (that’s still with me for I don’t care much about digital) and a Music Hall 9.1 table, with the Project Carbon tonearm, a Dynavector Karat D3 and a Hanss phono.

The SCS’s were replaced by 1.7’s shortly after their launch, the Xindak was replaced by a BAT VK-300x integrated, and later on, quite quickly, they were replaced by 2.7’s in a great deal.

Also gone was the integrated in favor of a VK-53se and VK-255se. Organic cables (Argento’s bottom line) also replaced the Synergistic entry level ones, and the front-end was also progressively upgraded from the Music Hall to Kuzma Stabi S and then Kuzma Stabi Ref with the 4 Point tonearm and a Transfiguration Phoenix S cart.

More recently the BAT’s were replaced with Zanden’s lovely 3100 pre and 8120 power and now it’s time to see the Thiels go...

I very much regret Jim’s passing and everything that’s happening with the company. I’ve never owned any loudspeaker other than Thiel up
to this point, but I’m settling with Magicos now for the lack of a Thiel option to upgrade the 2.7’s.

Unfortunately, they’re not up there with the best anymore (Magico, Rockport, TAD and Tidal, in my book), but I’ve had many many enjoyable years with my Thiels and contrary to what’s somehow spread, I never found them overly bright, harsh, or cold.

Much on the opposite, the Thiel and BAT pairing has been wonderful, very warm, laid-back and authoritative. I have always been impressed by Thiel’s soundstaging, resolution, transparecy and well-controled bass.

I wonder how the 2.7’s drivers would sound with top-notch internal wiring and crossover parts, as well as in a quieter cabinet, but I guess I will never have this answer and that’s a shame. They have been a great company for the last 4 years or so, firstly because I loved them, secondly because I had to spend so much (say 3 or 4 times their price) to have a meaningful upgrade that it really took me a while to move forward for obvious reasons.

They will be collected by my dealer this week (as part of payment for Magico’s S5 MkII) and I’m sad to see them go. I would have loved to have them replaced by something that never saw the light of day due to Jim’s passing.

Incidentally, would anybody know if he had something in the oven like a 7.3?

Thank you guys and long live to your Thiels! I would keep the 2.7’s if I had the means (and the space) to build another room and system. They would be paired with BAT’s amps or some warm SS. I heard them powered by Pass gear (X.250 and the two chassis pre-amp), by the way, and didn’t like it at all. There was a LOT of slam, punch and resolution, but images were artificially supersized and the sound was overall fatiguing and not as refined as with BAT gear.

They work well with Zanden gear, though not as nice as with BAT in the long-term. Thiel's coaxial driver is a bit too hot with the Zanden. Argento cables (I have the Serenity line) works like a charm!!! 

Best,

Luiz

Thiel Audio used to suggest only using "Endust" for keeping cabinets clean.

The veneers have a bit of a perfumy smell, presumably from the previous owner's home and I have a sensitive nose. I might start with just a damp microfiber cloth. I'll look at Endust and some other options, thanks.

Beetlemania,
The Les Pauls you mentioned are mine.I was going to sell them to go back to B&W,but decided to hold on to them for awhile?Now I have B&Ws upstairs and my 3.7s downstairs.Working well this way!My B&W system is more for movies anyway.

thanks to those responding to my posts about the drivers failing.  both times it was the midrange part of the driver that failed but of course the entire unit had to be replaced which is not hard to do.   the first time was only about two months after i had the speakers so it may just have been defective from the get go.  the second time was about two year into use and by then i had acquired the fantastic PS Audio BHK amp, so i know it was not clipping from lack of power.  I play them loud but not really ever above 85 db as measured by the app on my phone.  i played the older Thiel speakers just as loud an had no problems with the 2.4's for the seven years i had them.  i had the 2.2's for about 16 years and did lose one tweeter but that was it.  I do have one backup just in case,  but wonder how long Rob will be able to take care of us.   

Another fine evening with the CS2.4SE. They sound even better tonight, maybe because everything is warmed up after the ride in the FedEx truck. I played a bit with location and toe-in, found a spot I like and put the outriggers on.

Other than zero audible output below 30-32 cycles, I don't hear any notable shortcomings from this speaker! Near SOTA neutrality, resolution, transparency, and soundstaging. Can't ask for more at this price point.

Also: are the drivers easy enough to replace once you receive the part?

I replaced a tweeter in my CS1.6s. If you can work a screwdriver and soldering iron, you're in business.

ronkent,

That sounds a bit worrying, as I’m probably making the 2.7 my main speaker.

No problems with mine so far (and it’s second hand, it was probably played even louder by the previous owner).

Though I don’t play them very loud when I’m in the room, I do crank them somewhat to listen to them from down the hallway. So far they perform like champs. But your post does make me nervous!

I better buy some replacement drivers as back ups.   Though I've never in my life blown a driver in any speaker I've owned, so hopefully that mean my listening habits are generally meek enough to keep my Thiels safe.

Was it the tweeter, or the mid, or both that you had problems with? What happened? Do you listen really loud?

Also: are the drivers easy enough to replace once you receive the part?

I bought a very early set of used 3.7s back in 2012.  Serial numbers in the low forties.  I blew the mid in the first couple of months, thanks a lot Beethoven.  I took it to the dealer, they sent it to Thiel and I got a brand new mid/tweeter back free of charge.  Been going strong the last 5+ years.  I went from a single Cambridge 840 amp to two and that may be the difference.  Maybe one didn't have enough power and was clipping.  I also have a pair of 2 2s that I bought 7 or 8 years ago that have never had a problem.  They've been used every day for a while now.  They're great.

as a Thiel owner of over 30 years,  starting with the CS 2 and ending with the 2.7's,  i can attest to how great they  really are.   however i have had issues with the mid/tweeter drivers of the 2.7's,  and have had to replace two of them.  Luckily they were covered under warranty and Rob graciously sent me new ones.  I also purchased a spare as you never know what is going to happen with them.  has anyone else had issues with the drivers of the 2.7's.  up until these speakers,  I only had to replace one tweeter (in the 2.2's) in all the preceding years.

I continue to pinch myself with luck that I managed to bag a pair of the 2.7s in my coveted ebony finish.  They are just about the most beautiful pair of speakers I've seen, and aesthetics count a lot for me.

Before getting the 2.7s I was just about to start the process of having my 3.7s re-finished in a better color for my room.  Though I would likely have liked the results, I'm glad I didn't get around to is, because selling a custom finish pair is generally harder than selling one with a standard finish.

Wow! Well, I'll consider myself lucky despite the less than ideal condition of my pair's cabinets. I seriously thought about just getting a standard pair and modding them but really wanted the outriggers and I dig the "vermilion maple".

Yes, please let us know about driver availability. Cross-overs can be repaired/upgraded, even by a dummy like me, but not so much the drivers!

beetlemania,

as reported per saffron_boots, only 91 pairs of the CS 2.4SE were produced.  Hopefully, the remaining drivers, cross-overs and other critical parts are available via customer service/Mr. Rob Gillum in Lexington KY?

I will attempt to get an affirmation on this important matter.
Happy Listening!

Looks like there was a Les Paul - Gibson sunburst pair of CS3.7 for sale last fall. What a great looking speaker!

OTOH, I've read that the CS3.7 (and by extension 2.7?) were made in China, both the cabinets and drivers. I recall the delays Thiel had going from prototype to production with the CS3.7 . . . I'm super glad my Thiels, including the drivers, were made in Lexington.

you and me share one of the last pairs built.

Did they not make the full 150 pair production?

bcarr38-

a quick check over on US Audio Mart, I spotted a pair of CS 3.7 speakers in CA dated from October 2017. The listing still appears active and available for purchase.  Hope you can grab them!

Happy Listening!

Very nice! beetlemania.
you and me share one of the last pairs built.  As far as I know a simple microcloth is fine for cleaning.  I do not believe that the special finish requires polishing. If I find out otherwise, I will message you.

Happy Listening!