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!
oblgny you are exactly right, once you live with the tonality and transparency of the Thiel sound other speakers just will not satisfy. I have ventured off campus more than once and the 3.6 always end up back in the system as they are now.
All speakers have tradeoffs, the slight leaness inherent in Thiels is easily overlooked considering everything else they do.....for me anyway.
The lean quality of Thiel is precisely what makes me so damn fond of them. Lean can mean different things to different people, but it is just that perception that struck me as uncolored, perhaps even a tad unforgiving of reproducing sound.
I returned to a much simpler setup before I got the 3.6's, from separates to an integrated. I wish I had kept my Pass X150.5 amp a little while longer to hear how that would have been with the 3.6's. With my 3.5's it was possibly the best sound I've ever gotten - there was ZERO to kvetch about.
Hmmm...I can't...I can't...I won't....
Yeah, right. Looks like I may be shopping separates again?
Your post reminds me that a leanness has always been the characteristics of Thiel speakers I listened to (and it's a very common description of Thiel). Virtually every Thiel I ever heard always sounded amazingly accurate, but also like it had somewhat squeezed the sound of each instrument just a bit too hard into a thinner element. (Contrast that to something classically "big and rounder" in the midrange like a Harbeth or older Spendor). It was one of my few complaints, and it was also jut about my only complaint when I had the big CS6s, which I otherwise adored.
That's an area I've found different in the 3.7. It does not sound lean; completely the opposite, it sounds more rich and full than most of the speakers I've been evaluating. I even just expected the Harbeth speakers to at least sound more filled out in the midrange, if only because they sounded so midrange rich in the store and that is their reputation. Yet the Thiels sounded even richer than the Harbeths. One of many tests I use is a recording of John Williams playing classical guitar. No other speaker I've auditioned yet renders Williams' guitar with such realistic weight and size.
"Moving up" the Thiel line as I have - 2.2's, 2.3's, 3.5's, and now 3.6's - does not necessarily infer that each was an improvement over the former inasmuch it does infer that each is rather different from the former, if not by definition "better".
The most immediately remarkable impressions were experienced from the 2.2's to the 3.5's - each had what the previous model had with a dash of mo' better everything tossed in.
The difference between the 3.5's and 3.6's is, with the 3.6's, a more pronounced, perhaps forward midrange that, to my ears, seems to soften the notably crisp highs of Thiel in general. This is not to say that the highs are suffered by any means, nor is the low frequency response. The few low-end hertzes I was willing to sacrifice with the 3.6's mattered not a whit; the bass is palpable, tangible, there's an appreciable sense of timbre and naturalness. I can't even imagine a need for a sub. No, sir.
Me no likey subs.
Thus far I've found that the 3.6's show their finest at a volume level a little higher than I normally prefer. And it's there that everything pours forth - the music is felt, defined, passing "the other room" test, causing me to re-enter the living room and think, "what a genius I am to have found these speakers."
Many contributors to this thread have been fortunate enough to purchase these speakers used at considerable savings. Considerable savings over what a comparatively new purchase of another brand would incur. That alone has made Thiel my reference point for considering any other brand. Extraordinarily difficult to beat.
For now, the 3.6's won't move. They're too damn heavy for one, and secondly they're just too damn good. Did I mention they're heavy?
They're heavy. Swapping cables is something of a chore requiring tipping them onto their sides onto a carpet to get at the connects on the bottom. Oof. Ouch.
Jim Thiel was one of the best, if not the best speaker designers! In a way, under appreciated. Yet as time goes by, he is justifiably getting his due more and more. If he had lived longer, Vandersteen would still be in the rear view mirror. My opinion of course. Best......
Auditioned the Raidho C 1.2 monitors today. They would normally be prohibitively expensive but a dealer has a great demo pair deal so I gave them a listen.
Very nice high end frequencies in terms of smoothness combined with subtle detail - open, lifelike, while not too bright (generally). Bass quite surprisingly big and impactful from a monitor. Decent soundstaging.
But...didn't care for them over all. Tonally I found them somewhat bleached and bland. They also sounded somewhat sculpted (as they actually are) with a BBC-like dip, which made lots of vocals and orchestral music sound naturally smooth, but showed up as a more obvious tonal and dynamic reticence elsewhere: for instance drum snares, rim shots I knew to have excellent presence in other more neutral speakers like the Thiels were dulled and made more distant. Acoustic guitar finger picking attack was made too polite - one classical guitar piece by John Williams which has shows tons of effort and energy on the Thiels and some other speakers sounded weakened and far less exciting on the Raidhos. Also, even when there's significant (apparent) bass extension there's something about a small monitor trying to sound big that I never quite buy.
Once I got home and played all the same tracks on the 3.7s I was amazed by how much better I thought the whole presentation was - clarity, organic quality, control, imaging, dynamics...just everything seemed better. Played the same John Williams guitar track and it simply sounded more like a real guitar in front of me, being played enthusiastically. It seems to me Jim Thiel didn't have to sculpt the frequency range to make for smooth sound - the 3.7s just are smooth, yet full and exciting at the same time.
Thanks....though your comments on the 2.7 bass sounded promising...right up until you mentioned you use a sub with them. It's no wonder you find the bass satisfying ;-)
As a 2.7 owner, I don't think you will be missing much as compared to the 3.7. I never heard the 3.7, but I find the bass satisfying.
Actually, when I auditioned them I was very surprised by the bass, much better than I expected.
(Although I do use a smartsub, to be honest you would never know it was there.)
I was just thinking yesterday "Now I see why some people get into DIY." That way you can attempt to build speakers that do the things you are looking for. If you have the talent, time and persistence (which I don’t...I have zero interest in DIY).
As for sub/monitor combos, I’m pretty much allergic to subwoofers - heard the combos in many set ups, including my own. No matter how many times I hear someone claim "it’s a seamless match" I immediately hear the sub and it annoys me. (The best blend I ever heard was actually a combo I owned: Quad ESL 63s that attached to Gradient subwoofers, specially designed to match the dipole radiation of the Quads. But that was a very room dominating system, like big, black room dividers).
It’s possible if I had enough time and resources on my hands I could end up with a subwoofer that mated well enough with some monitors, but it’s a no-go for my room. I’ve tried my best to make the technology invisible in the room (even my home theater speakers are covered in black velvet, against a black velvet screen wall). Subs would mean doubling the amount of speakers put in the room, when I’m looking to reduce (and I would not have the flexibility of placement options necessary to optimize the subs to blend them with stand mount speakers).
The problem is the Thiel 3.7s must be placed well into the room, where I like most of my speakers, for best sound and also to allow traffic into the room. The right speaker sits essentially blocking 1/2 the room entrance and if you saw a picture, you’d understand immediately why I’m trying to find a smaller speaker solution. Any inches I shave off the depth/height of the speaker helps.
I do think it’s possible smaller floor standers could satisfy me for several reasons. One is that they obviously help solve my aesthetics/ergonomics problem. Two, the 3.7s aren’t bass monsters to begin with. They are rated only down to 33Hz, yet I find this adequate to satisfy. The Joseph Perspectives, for instance, are similarly rated despite being much smaller and I found them generally satisfying in bass depth. Imaging was also terrific as well, though falling a bit short of the imaging size and precision of the Thiels.
The auditioning I had of the JM Reynaud monitors left me intrigued, but I have to say I really don’t care for their looks, especially their selection of wood finishes, so that’s a bit of a hurdle.
And on that aesthetic note: as I mentioned I have a pair of beautiful Harbeth speakers in Rosewood that I'm currently selling in another web site. I figured that the Harbeths, being smaller and more traditional looking than the Thiel 3.7s would be an easier sell for her. But she surprised me, saying she much preferred the look of the big Thiels in the room. I find she's right: the room has a contemporary decor and the more modern, sleeker lines of the Thiels actually blend in better. Hence...promise for the 2.7s.
I should have the Thiel 2.7s in house sometime after next weekend.
Confusion and Hesitation are problems I continually see on this site. Been there, done that.
Down sizing is not a great option.
Through this thread; l realized that I have had the Avalons for 12yrs. Changing from a 20yr Spectral owner to Pass amps is what made the Avalons sing even better.
I have been considering a pair of Rockports for about 1 1/2 yrs now. Alan Goodwin- Goodwin's Highend offered me a pair for 15k and I saw a pair offered in Denver for the same. Maybe when they get to 10-12k will I really start considering them.
But they are Not a downsizing. Just 50lb heavier and a "bit larger"
To replace the Avalons will take a larger Avalon or maybe the Rockports. But I will need to live with them for at least a year before I give up the Avalons I now have. 12yrs of a satisfying relationship that has even grown better since the Pass amps joined the system will be hard to replace.
Final caution, Do not let the 3.7s go without serious consideration. You will play hell to replace them.
I applaud your heroic efforts. Yes, truly full range is where it's at. A fairly reasonable facsimile for me took a pair of Wilsons and their 300lb+ sub. The music, the room, the air came alive! (23'x35'x14') room. Can only imagine what 2 of the beasts could do. My neighbors (even at low volume) lived in fear as their coffee cups and wine glasses vibrated on their table.
Lucky to be able to go to the Green Mill lounge to see Patricia Barber. Ricki Lee when she is at one of the small venues.
You became the designer/builder through your efforts. Took a longtime. When I get home; I just want to fire up the system and a "big fatty" and lay back.
The monitor/sub is ok for a weekend getaway. Even full range systems are just that; A System.
HP was right all along; Live Music and a night out is extremely pleasant.
All our our efforts are still not the Real Deal. Again, I applaud your effort. Enjoy what You have accomplished.
What I neglected to say above is that I think that your original point above really being about weak-sister sub/standmount systems having inherently more bass problems than they’re even worth is actually true and a perfectly valid one. But, I suppose that maybe the problem is less about the design goal than about the overall execution....the bass region being both so much more critical to the listening experience and technically difficult to get right than many of us may be, initially anyway, willing to deal with.
I tried and tried as well. But, in my own case, I came to the opposite conclusion - good, "killer" subs and and 2-way standmounts just might be the Only way to solve that problem...at least if you ask me. But, what I found was that all of that pushed me well into the DIY waters before I learned how to swim with it.
I have some amps that each have a suite of digital pro-tools (crossover, EQ, delay...everything except phase adjustment, which turned out to not be so critical for me) and with 3 of them (one stereo amp each for highs, mids and lows) I had the architecture in place to build my own speakers from scratch.
But with all that flexibility I found that I was, in a real way, suddenly freed from all the oppressive blunders and corner cutting that speaker manufacturers invariably make...crossover points that are too high or too low, crossover overlap or underlap, mismatched drivers, questionable crossover components or design complexity that’s intended to cover up for mismatched drivers, bad parts, etc, etc. But with an ability for me to design the speakers completely around the crossovers (from the start) instead of the other way round, I found I could finally have speakers (OB in my case) the way "I" would’ve made them, because...well, I Did.
All that led to my current setup, a pair of 15" Hawthorne Audio "Augies" paired with my own horn-version of Danny Ritchie’s "Wedgie" OB standmounts. But, again, no passive crossovers along with endless control over just where all the parameters are set is what made the difference...throw in some generous amounts of conditioning to settle the digital noise down and voila, it’s done. OB bass does load the room a little differently than box designs, but OB, IME, has the edge in everything else bass.
In this setup though, there IS no bass region any more...only bass instruments, with every bit as much tone, body, color, texture, harmonics, transparency and extension as instruments in any other portion of the range. As big as the Augies are, they hit hard and are more invisible here, from what I’ve ever heard, than any floorstanders I’ve experienced. Yes, all that took years of tweaking and a lot of off-roading on my part before I ever figured it all out, but it is possible to make this approach work and work well...even if all the challenges end up being not to be taken lightly.
In effect, I suppose I had to become my own designer.
I tried and tried. IMO you cannot put together a coherent full range system out of disparate parts. That's what designers do. You can augment a full range system down to 16hz ; but a giant killer monitor/sub system??? You can amaze people (even yourself) for a period. Then the cut, the one note that your heart is waiting for and Blah! Your make an adjustment and all is good until the next BLAH!! Bleep+#!?% moment.
I suspect coherent full range is what you need and have.
BTW... I mentioned earlier in the thread my interest in Kudos speakers as well. There
is almost no talk on Audiogon about that brand, it seems because they
are a small British company that doesn't get much word outside
Britain. But a couple years ago at an audio show, walking through the
hall, I heard the most life-like symphonic sound coming from inside a
room. I popped in and there were these huge horn speakers which I
presumed were making the sound. As the tracks switched to - I think
Stevie Wonder and other tracks - there was that incredible clarity and
palpability of sound, and dynamics, that had me say "Yup, that's why
some people love horn speakers." Turns out it wasn't the horns playing
at all, but the modest, slim, non-descript wooden two-way floor standing
speakers right beside them. They blew my mind and I took note of the
brand.
Recently I was in an audio store and noticed they had the
elusive Kudos speakers - smaller, cheaper models than the one I'd heard
at the show. I listened to some tracks and there it was, that sound I remembered from the audio show. They really wowed me. It turns out Kudos has introduced a series of flagship speakers, one of which may be within my reach, so it's now on my radar. In my mind, thus far, my "smaller speaker" solution has come down to between the Thiel 2.7, Joseph Audio Perspective, and the long shot Kudos Titan 606 (if I ever get to hear it...and I might).
I mention this partially because, as a Thiel fan I found the Kudos pushed many of the same hard-to-find buttons (though the Kudos are brighter and less neutral) as the ones Thiels push for me.
Yeah, my wife...and especially one of my audio buddies...mock me if I suggest I will end up with "the speaker." If I haven’t by now, I probably never will. I always start pairing down my speaker collection, but then build back up again.
Especially since I renovated my 2 channel room into a home theater/music listening room, the tension between "big and fully satisfying sound" and "discrete enough to work in the room aesthetically" has been a real back and forth. I switch between floor standers and stand mounted speakers. When I set up one of my monitors I always love the sound and think "this is so great, what more do I need?" That happened again recently when I put my old Waveform (egg shaped) monitors in my system. The tone was so gorgeous, the dynamics so convincing, it was only when certain sections of a song would hit where I would miss the drama I was used to with the extension of the bigger speakers that I’d say "Oh yeah...that’s why I tend to go back to floor standing speakers."
I still have one of my all time favorite speakers - the Omani-directional MBL radialstrahler 121s. Within their frequency range they astonish me. But then I ask myself "Why do the MBLs have so much less time in my system when I have a floor stander like the Thiel 3.7s?" I seem to eventually crave what a big speaker can do. (And adding subs to my monitor speakers is a non-starter for several reasons).
So this time of trying to downsize somewhat, I’ve tried to find an in-between: a speaker that is smaller than the 3.7 but which has *enough* frequency range to make me not feel I’m missing something. That’s why I’ve been auditioning mid-sized speakers like Audio Note, Audio Physic, Joseph audio Perspectives, Harbeth Super HL5 Plus, and some monitors that are larger and go low for their size - e.g. JM Reynaud Offrande Supremes, and others. And that’s where the Thiel 2.7s come in - they may look good enough in the room to leave there, while giving enough sonically of what I desire. Though, I’m no longer under the delusion that anything will be my "last" speaker.
I picked up a pair of Harbeth Super HL5 Plus speakers to check out in my home and while they were excellent, I couldn’t pass up the deal on those Thiel 2.7s, so I’m selling the Harbeths to finance the Thiel purchase.
On a better note. Good luck with the Thiel 2.7s. In my search to replace my 3.5s. Speaker size was a concern to me due to thinking that we would be moving back to Alaska at a future time. Anyway those thoughts have taken a back seat to other issues. You sound like you have the knowledge to make them work in your HT system; but will they be as satisfying as the 3.7s for music? I tried for 4yrs to find Speakers to replace my 3.5s I came to the conclusion that a fairly large speaker is required for coherence and satisfaction through the frequency spectrum. But as I learned that the room was really the major component; I realized through careful placement and acoustic treatment that you could fully enjoy a large speaker system in a variety of rooms. I always told my wife that I intended to downsize one day. She just laughs at me now. Yes smaller Speakers and subs could keep me satisfied for a bit; but long term, a full size/ full range speaker is needed. Just my thoughts.
Best Wishes on your Journey nkonor
P.S. --- Ended up with a bigger house, multiple rooms, plus storage capacity.
I did enjoy the JA line of speakers. In similar fashion to Thiel both brands plays well (no pun) w/ tubed and solid state gear. Whichever your room dimensions, you will want to maximize the sound and presentation. Happy Listening!
Jafant...while I appreciate your enthusiastic input in to this thread, I do find it frustrating that you keep saying things like this, especially to me:
------------- "a room size of 20x20, minimum, is the starting point for owning the CS 3.7 speaker. It throws that size of a sound stage." -------------
Why are you trying to tell me that when I actually have lived with the 3.7s for years now, and I’ve explained a number of times why it simply isn’t the case they need a room that large to sound superb?
I mean...you are you are saying that to an audiophile (me) who has had decades of experience tuning systems (I also work in professional sound for film). And, unlike you, I actually own the 3.7s and so can talk from direct experience as to how well they can sound in a smaller room, when proper care is taken.
I really think it does something of a disservice to keep repeating the idea that large speakers like the 3.7s inherently require a large room to sound excellent.
As anyone in this hobby should know, the final sound will always be a combination of factors, especially the speaker design, the placement in the room, and the room acoustics. The 3.7s are actually EASIER to set up in a smaller room than other large speakers, due to their exceedingly well damped bass region.
In my room with correct placement, the 3.7s are not activating any obvious room nodes, and go rumbling-under-the-feet deep when required, while room reflections are controlled meaning the sound is super low in added hash for extremely fine tonality and super precise imaging. Soundstaging-wise: the entire front of the room melts away with the biggest, deepest, most life-sized soundstage I’ve heard from a speaker anywhere near their size (and I’m not talking "heard in my room" but in anywhere, from a similar sized speaker). It’s like being wrapped in sound. Play the right orchestral piece and the back wall is "gone" with an almost life-sized sounding orchestra stretching side to side, off into the distance. I’m not compromising the soundstaging of the 3.7s - I’m deriving the level of soundstaging they are actually capable of!
My room was renovated in consultation with an acoustician, and so it is treated carefully (and I can modulate the level of reflectivity in the room). I’ve had many large floor standing speakers in there, some flat down to 20Hz and all have exhibited superb sound, with excellent bass - in every instance, better than the larger rooms in which I’d originally auditioned them - cleaner, more spacious, more in control, bigger, etc. Because...that’s what paying close attention to placement and room acoustics can do.
One of the best speaker experiences I ever had was at a reviewer’s house for The Absolute Sound. He had the big full range MBL 101D speakers in a hilariously tiny room - comically so. It felt like a closet. But...he’d treated the room well and finely tuned placement of the speakers. I’ve heard and auditioned the MBL 101s many, many times in many different room sizes. Nothing ever came close to the performance I heard in that guy’s tiny room.
I’ve had plenty of superb smaller speakers in that room - smaller floor standers, monitors of all types - the size of which you may have recommended over the 3.7s based on your assumptions, and I can tell you none came close to what a large floor stander like the 3.7 can do in the room.
I know you want to be helpful, but I do think you could update your thinking about speakers and acoustics, and take into consideration reported experiences like mine and others that doesn’t fit with your preconceptions - because you keep giving out confident-sounding advice that doesn’t seem very nuanced and thus can be misleading.
BTW, I think perhaps your reply mixed up the Joseph speakers I referenced? I said I was interested in the Perspectives not the larger Pearls. The Perspectives sounded beautiful when auditioned in my room, certainly better than in the larger store demo room.
a room size of 20x20, minimum, is the starting point for owning the CS 3.7 speaker. It throws that size of a sound stage. I would label that kind of space large. The CS 2.7 comes into a room smaller in size or a medium space. The Joseph Audio Pearl model is more on-par w/ the CS 3.7 speaker. Both are very fine loudspeakers with the Pearl costing much more. Happy Listening!
I will certainly report my impressions here. It would be cool if the 2.7s work out for me.
After a lengthy auditioning process of numerous smaller speakers, the one left that I'm still considering are the Joseph Audio Perspective speakers - far smaller than the Thiels, but big sound (not as huge as the 3.7s) with gorgeous tonality.
I also played around with the idea of grabbing some JM Reynaud Offrande Supreme V2 monitors, which sounded quite nice.
I've also recently become quite interested in Kudos speakers which have an amazingly vivid and palpable sound, with great tone, but auditions of their higher end models are very hard to come by in North America.
Prof, I was watching those 2.7s, but I did not bid. I have been very curious whether either the 2.7s or 3.7s would be worth the expense to replace my reliable 3.6s. I will be interested to hear your thoughts on comparing the 2.7s with the 3.7s.
you are going to be pleasantly surprised by the CS 2.7 as it is no slouch. I look forward in reading about your impressions, thoughts and comparisons versus the CS 3.7 model. Happy Listening!
Did anyone here notice that nice pair of Thiel 2.7s in ebony on audiogon a few days ago?
I bought them!
(Sorry to anyone who was bidding, I know it sucks to not get an item).
When I first joined the forum it was right after Thiel stopped production of Jim’s designs and I was tormented as to whether to buy a second hand pair of 2.7s or 3.7s. At that time, due to hemming and hawing too long, I lost out on the most gorgeous ebony pair of 2.7s - probably the nicest looking speakers I’d seen, with a finish that is a perfect match for my room.
I ended up with the 3.7s in a gorgeous Morado and as I’ve expressed here, they sound extraordinary but because it’s a living room that also shares duty as a home theater as well, and home theater speakers are already taking up a lot of space, the larger Thiels have to be placed in a non-ergonomic part of the room. If I can downsize at all I can help that issue, as well as the aesthetics of all those speakers in a smaller room. I’ve continued to demo quite a number of possible downsizing speaker replacements...but the Thiel 3.7s are too good for the money and hard to beat sonically.
Seeing this incredibly rare pair of 2.7s come up in the ebony finish I’d lusted over before was something I couldn’t resist. I have to give these a whirl - see if I can keep a good helping of the Thiel sound I love, but allowing a bit of downsizing (even a bit can help out).
I’ve read the very few comparisons on here between the 2.7 and the 3.7 and all come out in favor of the 3.7, so I’m going to go in presuming this will be the case. I’m spoiled by the scale of sound put on by the 3.7 and that may be tough to overcome. Though I’ve also heard from some others who preferred the 2.7 (some say they actually like the 2.7 midrange a bit better).
So, this will be fun, to compare the two. And as a heads up for Thiel lovers: once I’ve decided between keeping the 2.7 or 3.7, one of them will be up for sale after!
I seriously doubt that Thiel had a patent on 1st order cross-overs. There might be others, but the only patents Thiel had that I know of in audio were with re: to subwoofer room proximity signal to amp adjustment.
I think Mike B here in Texas who just replaced the 2.4s he sold to me knows Gary. He's spoken about calling him with questions while I always just call or email Rob. Too bad the new guys trashed the old equipment Jim Thiel had put together to make his prototype drivers. Brings us to the same question of what will happen when the replacement parts are gone from Rob's stock. He already wa render me when I bought a used SS1 sub and had the px02 reconfigured to my 2.4s that they only have the filters left for the 2 series (same works with the 2.7) and I they had no replacement amps for the SS1 although a new series sub was in the works whose amp would be interchangeable. I fear counting on things like that with the owner turnover. I'll shoot Mike an email. He's probably busy these days with a 2 channel with CS6s and a surround with 2.4s, doesn't have much free time. Does anyone know who bought the 3.7s on EBay? I'd love to know what they paid.
interesting query. I suspect that much would be dependent upon how many names were on the original patent? If the 1st order cross-over patent was under Jim Thiel only- I do not see any problem(s) once it expires , no one else comes forward to file another claim.
Since Rob Gillum still holds a residence at Thiel -Kentucky, I wonder if he has a hand or stake in those loudspeaker designs?
Serious question, one of Thiel's long time employees went to Bryston, his name is Gary something. When the patents on Thiel's 1rst order speakers expire, would a company such Bryston or any other company take up the mantle and reproduce "real" Thiels again? A new an improved 2.4 and 3.7. Even a new 7.2.
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.
