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!
The 2.4 on reverb has not been painted by Thiel so approach with caution.
If one was paint Thiel speakers I would think they would preserve the legendary Thiel look. Painting the black baffles white like the rest of the speaker is not a good look. It’s a short cut as you would have to tape in two parts and mix two colors of paint to do it correctly. Short cutting here tells the rest of the story.
Look at the paint in photo below the binding posts. I have factory white Thiel 2.7 and they do not look like this.
They will need to be sanded (Pair on Reverb) and prep’d for paint. Dont skimp on paint quality and get a high grade automotive paint, about $200-$300 per quart. Same for primer. A good epoxy primer would be my choice for first coat.
You will need a pair of coaxial drivers as they look pretty beat up.
The pair for sale I would offer around $1500 as you will have at least $1500 in getiing them to look respectable.
They was a pair of 3.7 on US Audiomart, I believe, that were painted black. It looked like soneone used a paint brush as they looked hideous. They were in CA and I’m on east coast and I could not work a deal to get them to save them. No boxes and an unwillingness from seller to ship closed that door.
My point is Thiel speakers are worth restoring/upgrading. It has been said here and I’ll reinforce that now. "You will spend a significantly amount of money to better them" .
With all the support and upgrade recommendations that Tom Thiel has for these speakers, you will have a clear upgrade path to squeeze greater sonic gain from them.
Nice catch! Either last year or back in 2021, one of the Panel members spotted a pair of CS 2.7 speakers that had been painted "white" privately. i wonder if those loudspeakers found the next home? To my recollection, those speakers were on Reddit.
No doubt that you know your business regarding Paint(s).
I know members of this disciussion are good honest people and need to be aware of the pitfalls and look to see if there is water in the pool before diving off the board.
That pair is going to take work to remove that paint and apply a professional paint finish as if it came from Thiel themselves.
Look at the wiring fray at the binding post from pair on Reverb? No care or pride whatsoever. If you are going to do something just do it right or get someone who can.
I’ve mentioned painting cabinets. I’ve held off until I know what other upgrades I will do so it all flows as one cohesive unit.
I do know it will be professionally done in a dust free paint booth with dryer so paint bonds as intended. Thiel did customized colors, as per request from customer, so there are some very different looking colors out there.
I’d take a more concervative approach as to paint scheme but not an off the shelf color.
No Grill , In my opinion but I do suggest that one should try it .
I hear a taming or muffling , without the grills I hear nuonces that are lost but if your system is bright then maybe leave the grills on , again IMO .
So now every time I listen I have to take the grills off ! more work as if vinyl isn't already .
I just bought a pair of viewpoints off ebay for a few hundred bucks. They've been there for a while. I'm trying to stop being a dick on the internet but that's a great driver combo/crossover in a metal box. And I'm just buying it because I know it's gonna be great, I don't know what I'm gonna do with it.
RE: Grilles, my ears could not detect any advantage/disadvantage. I think the Metallic grill is quite attractive and compliments Models CS 2.4 to CS 3.7 speakers. Jim must have had his reasons for this design.
My question;
How far back does the Metallic Grill go in the Thiel Audio catalog?
Grilles - The issue is multi-faceted and full of trade-offs. Early 3s had wooden 3-D frames stretched with fabric. Fabric absorbs some high frequencies; Jim voiced assuming fabric. 1983’s CS3 used the baffle-level of the frame to complete the baffle's rounded edge profile, and the aerial parts to support fabric away from the baffle. 1989’s CS5 had a 3-D steel frame with aerial fabric (away from the baffle.) The low (1/4") profile of the frame reduced its diffractive contribution to low enough to ignore. But we knew it was there. 1990 CS2.2 and 1992 CS3.6 used the baffle perimeter edge profile of the CS3-3.5, but eliminated the aerial structure. The all-MDF 3.6 frame proved too fragile and a side-bar reinforcement was added. We considered aluminum and steel and steel won for cost. We knew side-effects (more on that later.) 1995’s CS7 (my last industrial engineering contribution) again addressed the same issues and again landed on steel. Note, that baffle was cast concrete which required re-bar in the narrow areas beside the woofers. Those eddy currents could be heard and inferred from measurements. Note that 1999’s CS7.2 upgrade changed the frame to aluminum and eliminated the rebar via fiber reinforced mineral casting medium replacing concrete.
Directly to your question: 2002’s CS1.6 seems to be the first product with the thin steel plate supporting stretched fabric. The shallow baffle indentation was probably deemed not too problematic. An aluminum plate could not have been fastened with magnets. (BTW magnets near a driver are detrimental.) This ’fabric on plate with magnets’ solution persisted. The SCS4 has a formed steel cage in a shallow perimeter groove, adhered with magnets. Nice solution, with downsides. I’m replacing every element of it.
Regarding ’more on that later’. Jim was a disciplined pragmatist. Any and all design elements had to carry their cost burden. Incorporating ’better ways’ could increase costs which were doubled by the retailers’ 50 point margin. We were constantly juggling those equations. Although not sexy or particularly marketable, value engineering was a major aspect of Thiel’s approach, both in product outcome and in manufacturing technology.
So, concerning audibility, Thiel (which included Kathy as marketing director) played tug of war quite a bit. How much can be heard by whom (% of target market), etc. Every brand has a niche. As an aside, in the early 90s it was clear that something had to be done about home theater to stay viable. Thiel dove in and the rest is history. But there were other options considered. Among them was my idea of creating a brand offshoot (much like Lexus is to Toyota.) The name was to be ’Perigee - the closest approach’. It would follow a different paradigm that allowed and developed its own layers of sophistication to stretch the cost/performance paradigm. Jim’s principle objection was that it would cheapen the image of standard Thiel branded products. Fair enough. That route would have concentrated our resources in high resolution stereo playback. And it would have required product development collaboration beyond Jim's comfort zone and vision.
More complete solutions for the subtleties of ultra-fidelity music reproduction exist and can be developed. Many were beyond our knowledge or scope, and remain so today. Some have come into focus or feasibility as time goes by. New materials science is a robust field. And there are old ideas that fell away and may be re-imagined today.
Thank you , I don't know about the grill on the 2.4 but on 2.7 there is a metal dome over the coaxial speaker and I suspect that this has a lot to do with slight reduction in the mid and treble . When I left the grills off I heard more definition in voices (like breathing or multiple voices ), I felt that I heard inside a acoustic guitar , listening to a full orchestra it sounded more alive .
I know this sounds like a lot but as I confessed to prof I'm not very good at describing what I hear . All I know is that listening now is just a little more work taking the grills on and off but nowhere near the work it takes listening to vinyl in trying to get every last bit of detail .
I left the grills off my first speakers BIC Venturi 6 and my second set of speakers Image Concept 200 . When I got the Thiels I started leaving them off but at that time before equipment changes, upgrading and room treatment installation they sounded bright to me , until Tom mentioned it I have been leaving the grills on so once again I have to say Thank You Tom .
The CS 2.4 / 2.4SE has a recess section built into the baffle for Grill to fit flush.
Magnets hold the Grill in place perfectly. Your aural descriptors are fine. I will add that One does not have to work to enjoy presentation and sound from Speakers.
Rob - the magnets are installed into blank-bottom holes drilled from the back of the baffle. I don't know how many are in the CS2.4. In the SCS4 there are 8. Two pairs about an inch from the top and bottom corners plus another 4 flanking the coax driver. The fields are strong enough to need a tool to remove the perforated steel grille. I'm not a fan due primarily to theoretical considerations of interacting magnetic fields with an electrically conductive aluminum baffle between them. My objection notwithstanding, I'm confident that Jim vetted the implementation and did not object to it. The magnets are probably far enough away to not do any real damage.
However I would rather have a mechanical solution and lose the hypothetical downgrade mechanism.
After looking at images of different Thiel speakers I'm guessing that most just have speaker fabric covering them , since the 2.7 and 3.7 have the same design coaxial speaker that are not recessed that they might be the only speakers with a metal honey cone dome covering them for protection .
Found this 3.7 with a unique woofer smileypete.com
Interesting woofer indeed. I wonder if that might have been a development prototype. Its acoustic center would be farther back than the star-plane unit. Smileypete.com is a local Lexington business rag and that article was published before Kathy sold the company. So it's not necessarily from out in the wild.
The 2 large conical shapes, one smaller than the other, by appearance don’t seem to align symmetrically which I think is a good thing. The stepped alignment of the cone segments themselves would reduce a polarity of shear from traveling and returning back into the cone and again becoming a part of the next signal. Purify drivers have a stepped surround which I believe serves a similar though unintended purpose for reducing shear wave interference. A shear wave can only travel thru solids and travels in 2 directions until it collides into another and splits again and again. That is why the grill frame material and shape is important and can be heard when the style is changed, or when the grille is removed. This wave action and their collisions is generally not well understood but is used in the study of seismology and should be used in acoustic design and implementation... TomD
I've been looking at / listening to grille effects on the SCS4. It is somewhat eccentric in that it has no fabric and the full-baffle is covered by a perforated steel mesh that is quite transparent. The electrical / magnetic fields meter shows that the intense fore-aft fields through the center of the coax are modulated by the metal grille. The EMF changes shape (becomes wider), but most notably, the electrical field is reduced by an order of magnitude in front of the grille. Back fields are unaffected. With my head a foot in front of the coax, I can hear a slight lifting of a veil by removing the grille. I would call this change so slight as to be barely noticeable. Other products may differ. My high-frequency hearing is far from what it was. So others may hear more difference. With all this pesky learning I would remove the grilles while listening.
Over the years that seems to be common among reviewers and listeners. I always attributed that to the fabric, but it seems there are other elements involved.
I removed the steel door that covers my breaker panel box which is located in my audio room. With 2 friends present I did a door on door off listening test. Obvvious improvement every time with panel off. Steel will alter the flux field as a signal travels a copper wire. Same as I found replacing steel fasteners with brass holding drivers ,tweeters ,crossovers and circuit board fasteners.. Any ferrous material will bend or alter a signal path . Generates interfering energy. TomD
Tom - Thiel had gone to non-magnetic (stainless steel) screws by 2007 SCS4. I don't know when / which other products migrated to non-magnetic screws. I had verified (and taken to heart) your observation regarding non-ferrous connectors.
Today's biggest (repeat) lesson is that XO networks don't belong behind a driver, whether shielded or not.
Tom - my thoughts are that having a steel grill even a mesh in front of a driver with a very powerfull neo magnetic field will alter the inductance of the coil as it moves between the magnetic field . The steel in front will bend the intended field. TomD
If a crossover is mounted to the floor base of the cabinet it will be closer to mechanical ground and then resonace will be more easily drained. Plus the mounting of the crossover to the backwall is like a backboard on a basketball goal. Bouncey bounce. TomD
The mechanical issues are real and worth improving upon.
However, I believe the far larger issue is the interaction of the crossover components with the fields emanating from the driver(s), especially the woofer. These interactions and their sonic effects are not subtle. I had previously noted here that the CS2.2 qualities of 'hoodedness' and bass-transient overload (which sounded like a hard, mechanical splat) went away when taking the XO out of the cabinet and spreading out its components.
The present experiments on the SCS4 move the XO network from a densely packed panel on the back, behind the coax (in a high EMF bath) to either A: outboard with same layout, for testing, or B: split into separate woofer and tweeter boards, mounted on edge with shock-mounts on the cabinet bottom. EMF is more than an order of magnitude lower in the new location, plus mechanical vibration is reduced to near nil - and throw in qualitatively better thermal management for kix.
I took my Dunlavy SC 4s outboard 20 yrs ago as is my current build. Crossovers also sound better when mounted on brass Audiopoints this can be done in the cabinet or outside . Noticeable ..TomD
I've been informed that the 'teardrop cone' woofer was indeed a development prototype. It seems that a calendar year elapsed between that prototype shown at the January 2006 CES press conference, and the actual shipment of the finished 'star-plane' product in early 2007. It seems reasonable that much of that time was consumed by iterating the flat star-plane version of the concept along with its necessary crossover implementation, which would include midrange and possibly tweeter XO changes because the woofer acoustic hole went away. I bet the final XO was simpler.
I presume that the acoustic launch plane of the star plane would be farther forward than the teardrop cone prototype. Time alignment would require a different baffle angle - but the cabinet seems unchanged. There is no analog time delay in the XO (as there was in the CS5.) Much remains mystery to me.
Thank You for the detective work in reference to the "Teardrop Cone" design. Could the image/speaker in question have indeed been a Prototype for CES press conference?
Then the Star-Plane (wavy) cone design rolled out at a later date?
Yes, that's what I am told by David Cubine who was our long-term in-house publicity and customer service man. Dave says that photo was taken at that press conference. Note the passive radiator has the later 'star plane' diaphragm (names are mine.) Seems that Jim found a way to marry the voice coil to the star plane and eliminate the undesirable pocket made by the cone.
I don’t think there are any teardrop cone speakers out in the wild. The pair that I saw at Thiel / Lexington in 2012 was #1 & 2 which went to shows, lived in the showroom, etc. It had two identical-looking star-plane diaphragms.
Grill on or off ? While Tom took some measurements on his SCS4 speakers and found very little difference in sound and jafant listened to his CS2.4 speakers and found no difference in sound so I can only speculate that the improvement I am hearing is do to either the design difference in the steel protective grill of the 2.7 (and 3.7 ) or the design of the flat coaxial speaker in both models and it's interaction with the grill design . I agree with Tom on grills off during listening or at least try it if you haven't .
I agree with jafant that the speakers look better with the grill on , if only the woofer on the 2.4 and 2.7 were black !
The first step in building a nice sounding systems, is to make sure all the elements of your system are set up correctly and efficiently by performing a number of verification measurements. This video will give you some ideas.
My 3.7s definitely sound better with the grills off. In fact, I'm unable to distinguish the occasional sounds from the environment from that which comes from the speakers. It's that good.
Just hooked up the Viewpoints to my computer system. They're on the B speaker output of my 2001 Creek 5350SE. Audio is from PC through AudioQuest dragonfly red. The A output is on my 2010ish VA Mozart Grands. I've got $7k MSRP worth of speakers that I paid $1,040 for. Great value is available on the used market if you keep your eyes open and know what to look for.
These couldn't be more different. The Thiels have the usual crisp, clear, coherent sound. Not much bass but that's fixable. The VAs have a lot of bass but it's kind of slow port bass. I think they're getting relocated. I wasn't sure I was gonna care that much since it's just a pc system. Even with the very limited bass it's easier to follow the bassline on the Thiels because they're so much more distinct. It's funny, I usually don't like the Thiel sound until I listen for 10 or 15 minutes. They sound off a little bit off at first but once I get used to it again everything else sounds wrong. They have better upper bass punch. It's super quick compared to what I'm used to here. Much more even and balanced, the VAs bass sounds too disconnected from the rest by comparison. That little coax really was a great driver.
Alright, had to go get an adapter but I hooked up an idle psb sub series 100. It's a tiny sealed box sub but it's working great in this setup. It gets me to 40 hertz with no problem at as loud of a volume as I'll ever need nearfield. I went to an online tone generator sight to figure out where to set the volume and crossover. This system is at a whole new level, how fun.
listening to these bass covers and the sub is integrating nicely and filling out below around 100hz where the speakers start to drop.
Hello folks - here’s a side-trip down memory lane with some destinations in mind.
I recently got a pair of original model 01s, with two more pair of later versions coming this summer. What a trip! The only reference I’ve come across here on Audiogon is someone asking about the Conceptions Electronics source - never much if anything about their bones or performance. But nevertheless, the first work of a designer reveals his soul much like the first work of any artist. There is a lot to love in the 01, even though not much of anything about it survived the ordeals of time. The 01 preceded much of audiophiledom or our awareness of various subtleties, and certainly of time / phase alignment. Mid 1970s didn’t know that stuff. Jim’s native impulse was to design a portable, flexible, honest speaker for myriad uses and users. That was realized in a high efficiency, highly dynamic, accurate transducer with extraordinary bass and linearity. Imagine a bookshelf-sized (02) cabinet that is flat ±2db, 30Hz to 17kHz at 95dB/w-m with linear 6 ohm impedance. Its use of a purpose-built equalizer raised market red flags, but also differentiated its performance and our fledgling company from the masses. (There were masses of new companies entering the fray in the day.)
Despite the shortcomings, I am thrilled with their performance. And they provide a foundation for some further explorations - specifically their two drivers which are no longer available. The 10" Eminence woofer was used in the 01, 01a, 01b, 03, 03a (and nearly phantom 03b). The same requirements were filled by Vifa when our needs exceeded Eminence’s directions (PA and Musical Instruments.) The CS3 and 3.5 share the same needs for sealed bass with linear extension to 40, 30 or 20Hz depending on model & EQ setting. Combined there were 11,000 pair produced using the ’same’ woofer, and a major cause of obsolescence is driver unavailability.
Note also that the never-produced CS4 (4-way) was upstaged by the CS5 (5-way) via market demand, not internal preference. That CS4 would have two of the same 10" woofers, a 6.5" sealed lower mid (think CS7), a ?new? upper mid, plus what became the UltraTweeter used in the CS5, 3.6 and 2.2. The CS4 would have used a bass equalizer. There is a lot to love about having such a woofer and tweeter for service and upgrade for all those models.
Back to the 01. In my small venue - live music and recording work, I use various Thiel models as monitors or sound reinforcement. Most recently the SCS4 is drafted, but, I am enamored with the 01 for that duty, especially as souped up with modern implementations. The 01 provides real 30Hz bass, 4+ x the efficiency, less demanding impedance, and a neat, retro mystery vibe. BTW, I’m recessing the tweeter into a wave-guide to get what has become known as phase and time coherence, where the rebound of the tweeter meshes smoothly with the woofer onset, one tweeter-cycle late. Thiel’s ’phase / time coherence’ now seems to be called ’phase / time alignment, or coincidence’. Fair enough, language morphs. And springtime is just around the corner which brings access to my fair-weather studio.
A few days in and I'm really enjoying some solo cello on my computer system. It can't be a coincidence, I never listen to classical here. And I'm sure it's low res, poorly recorded or something. Whatever it is I'm really enjoying it here and I wouldn't have before.
JA - the SCD-1 makes good music, especially feeding the Benchmark DAC3. I just received the OPPO 105 from Bill Thalmann. Long-term, iterated design upgrade. Very mature. Interestingly to me, his development references included no digital counterparts, but rather his Oracle Mark IV into his own phone stage and best CJ souped with teflon caps, etc. All new analog circuitry. Sound is clean and neutral with no discernable digital glare and solid bass. Soon I hope to make direct comparison with the ES9000 and SCD-1.
I am packing up my SCD-1 to ship it out this weekend to a buyer. The SACD section died last week, and the CD section will likely die on shipment. The original shipping packaging is toast (with all SCD-1 owners). I am shipping in a Magnum Dynalab 108T shipping container (double box). The buyer and I are expecting the FedEx shipment to put the final dagger into the SCD-1.
So, if you want a working SCD-1 you should seriously consider local pickup instead of shipping.
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.
