johnnotkathi
Thank You for the follow up. Sounds like you are off to a great start.
Happy Listening!
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
13,446 responses Add your response
@77jovian, Much of the recent amp discusion here has previously been disucssed here. Suffice to say that I doubt that the Ayre AX-5 twenty is up to driving the CS 3.6's or 2.7's to their potential. The steady impedance levels of these speakers are beyond the specs of this amplfier. Your old Krell KSA 200 would seem to be a much better match. |
| Post removed |
It’s super useful to know that unsound demands peaks of around 105 dB (think table saw volume). If you want to play many Thiel models that loudly, yes, you do need a moonrocket amp. You can also get there by using something like JBLs rather than Thiel.
My Ayre AX-5 Twenty, paired with my particular digital source, will begin to clip at an indicated 40 on the volume with typical digital files. My speakers are CS2.4, heavily modified under the guidance of Tom Thiel. I don’t have a good SPL meter but estimate the volume at clipping would be 95-97 dB. I mostly listen at an indicated 20-24, maybe low 30s if I have the house to myself and want to play loudly (peaks probably around 90).
If you have several days to read through this thread you will see many reports of happy Thiel owners using all kinds of amps that unsound would consider unfit. Off the top of my head, a couple of CS2.4 owners report great results with ARC tube amps. Wes Phillips glowing review of the CS2.4 included use with multiple amps, some of them quite low-powered and probably none of them meeting unsound’s criteria. When I first heard a pair of CS2.4 they were driven by an Ayre AX-7 (60 W into 8 Ohms). Sounded excellent to me. And I drove a pair of CS1.6 with an Ayre AX-7 for many years, never detected clipping.
The need for a super high-powered amp will depend on many factors including personal listening preference and room size. But the measurements should only be a guide. You will never, ever know what a combo sounds like until you actually listen to it.
Here are the measurements for the AX-5 Twenty. Looking at these, I would not be afraid to mate an AX-5 even to a pair of CS-5s. Obviously, that amp will not get anywhere near 105 dB but I suspect it would sound excellent within its volume limitations.
https://www.hifinews.com/content/ayre-ax-5-twenty-integrated-amplifier-lab-report |
Beetlemania is not incorrect. How ever 105 dB peaks (and quite a bit louder as well) are not all that uncommon during live performances (and I think that’s what we’re trying to replicate here). MS tone burst measurements at low impedances might suggest adequacy for speakers that briefly dip into such impedances, but the speakers under consideration here spend the vast majority of their time below 4 Ohms. I think RMS measurements are a better consideration for the applications at hand. The amplifiers I usually suggest are the same or have the same parameters as Jim Thiel would use (including Jim’s minimum recommendations). |
beetlemania Good to see you again. I hope that you are well and had a prosperous 2023. While I cannot attest to stock AYRE components, I can and will attest to the Twenty Series being up to the task of driving Thiel loudspeakers. This fact has been confirmed by many Audiophiles. Is AYRE a Krell or Levinson? No. Can this brand hold its own? Yes. Equally impressive that you matched an AYRE AX-7 with CS 1.6 speakers. Stepping up to an Ax-5 (20) with CS 2.4 is a sweet upgrade all-around. Reading back from the beginning, my 1st CS 2.4 demo featured a Creek integrated in the 60-80w neighborhood. That Amp rocked, without the slightest hint of clipping.! Older Krell and Mark Levinson (particularly the 383 integrated) are sonic matches indeed. Those amps can provide >100 dB peaks for Classical music buffs. Great discussion. Season's Greetings and Happy Listening! |
@jafant, Actually the CS 3.5’s even with the up to 12 dB draw from the eq, thanks to its 4 Ohm nominal / 4 Ohm minimum load (actual 5 Ohm measured) in smaller rooms with less volume demands can get by with as little as 100 Watts into 4 Ohms. That’s a standard 50 Watt rated amp truly capable of doubling down to the load at hand. Though I generally suggest as a rule of thumb / general guideline that most users double a speaker manufacturer’s minimum suggested power. It’s the lower impedance’s that reduce the efficiency of some of the other Thiels. 400 Watts into 2 Ohms is like 100 Watts into 8 Ohms. I don’t think many would think 100 Watts is excessive.
|
@jafant, Honestly I use the Adcom ACE’s mostly to offer more outlets. Years ago when I lived in a NYC apartment I used an earlier though highly regarded older Adcom ACE version for the same reason. At that time I thought it might have helped with video noise. Those older models only accommodated two prong plugs. The newer models can accommodate three prongs. The more recent models use a different “ils” ( if lightening strikes ) circuitry which claims to offer more protection. Where I currently live we have overhead power lines unlike the underground one in NYC. Theses overhead power lines are subject to more frequent brown and blackouts. So far (22 years) with these Adcom ACE’s in place, none of my gear has had any ill effects from them. I’m not sure if the Adcom ACE’s are helping with that, but as I already need the extra outlets, I don’t want to tempt fate without them. I’m not sure that any of these kind of products really clean up the power in any meaningful way. |
I often bring earplugs to shows that I think will be loud. Makes my ears actually hurt and my great preference is to relax into the beauty and flow of music. Musical communication, for me, doesn’t happen at high volume. I find there is a sweet spot of volume wherein I’m fully immersed in the music.
@jafant By “stock”, do you mean the original version? There are reports of people swapping fuses but I’m otherwise unaware of non-stock Ayre gear.
|
In my (limited) experience switching between low power class A, 100 watt tubes, high power class d and now higher power class a/b with my Thiel 2.4, power requirements seem to depend a bit on what you want to get out of the Thiels. I found the sound pleasant with all levels of power and definitely preferred the tube sound for things like solo acoustic guitar or small ensemble jazz, and maybe also with minimal house and ambient. However, with both the high power class d and the high power class a/b, the speakers seemed more capable of sorting through things like complex orchestral music. With lower powered amps, it was noticeably harder to distinguish between individual instruments with that kind of music. Now if I wouldn’t listen to orchestral music often, I might have stuck with the tube amp as this made the speakers more forgiving of bad recordings, and I really enjoyed the warmer sound for pop/folk. These speakers really take on the sonic character of whatever you attach to them in terms of sources and amplification I feel. I guess budget would be a confounding variable in this little theory though: perhaps a top-of-the-line lower powered amp will produce better results than a not so well made higher powered amp, as the former will probably be able to handle complex music better regardless of power rating. 77jovian, if I were in your position I would go for the speakers, and then see if you feel Iike you are missing something with your current amp. Chances are you might not, depending on sonic preferences and music tastes. |
On the black CS 3.7 I didn't see in ad disclosure the paint was not original nor they were painted by the seller. If that is true then I would ask for paperwork of what company who did the work and what process was followed to finish the CS 3.7.
I'm going to restore some CS6. The process will be documented with paint/clear coat used. If done correctly a pair would cost between $1500-$2000 depending on material chosen and labor. If you were painting multiple sets of speaker the price would drop significantly. A few quarts of high quality automotive paint will cost $250-$400. Add all the other necessary materials and you will be at $750-$900 very quickly. Preparing cabinets and sanding will cost $300-$400 then you have the painting. My point is if the painting process is done professionally with high quality paint this would increase the value. If done by some obscured person with no paper trail then I would proceed with caution. In this example if the CS 3.7 are purchased for the asking 4K then I would have them professionally restored around the $1500-$1700 price point which would put you in the $5500-$5700 price point. Well below the market average and for a mark free cabinet to enjoy and if you sell you have all the paperwork.
|
unsound,
I completely agree with that statement. I'm in the professional motorsports business so I was speaking from my experience. This industry has more than a few highly skilled craftsmen up to the task. You also validated my point with pair of 3.7 for sale. Who and what method to paint the cabinets were used as Thiel had/has very high standards. Preparing the cabinets takes the most time to achieve the best paint finish. Most fall short here. I'm leaning towards a Bentley Snowy Quatrz for my CS6. However, that Bentayga Bronze is calling me also. |
@duramax747 , It would seem that you’re in a unique position to have the resources to get this right. I do hope you can post photos when completed. |
@duramax747 , I agree, the proportions are nonpareil. |
jafant - I think so. There are lots of elements in place. I'll post an update summarizing what's been learned and where we're going. Our collaborative workhorse has become the SCS4. So that'll be the first out of the gate. If you want an extremely good bookshelf speaker, or one that's been modified for stand mounting, get yourself a pair of these critters. I don't think there's another phase/time coherent small monitor out there. More to come. |
Hello, I am new to this forum as well to a pair of CS2s. Of which I just replaced the dust covers and grill cloths, veneer will likely follow. I consider them worthy candidates for the work.
Couple of questions and thank you in advance for any help! I understand there was a update to this model during it's production that offered beneficial sonic upgrades. Does anyone know the approx serial # this began? Mine are in the 3ks.
Has anyone recapped these crossovers and if so results?
Again, thank you and I look forward to reviewing the 262 pages of knowledge and opinion as time allows.
Scott |
quasar24 Welcome! Scott. Good to see you here today. The Panel does have a couple of CS2 fans and owners. Feel free to peruse these pages or stay tuned until one of the CS2 experts chimes in to address your query. I am looking forward in reading more about your Musical tastes and System.
Happy Listening! |
Hello Scott, Good to meet you. In these 262 pages there has been barely a whiff of mention of the CS2. I'll attach a tribute I wrote to the CS2 several years ago and add some here. Generally first generation Thiel models survive a few years before they get replaced by what we learned first out. The CS2.2 (1991) came seven years (longest run) after the 2 (1984) with over 7500 pair sold - most in our history. Its clear mission was as trickle-down from the model 3 plus benign tradeoffs: Less bass extension, less output capacity, smaller woofer allowing an octave higher transition to smaller midrange for easier transition to the tweeter. It worked. I'll add that the cabinet material :1-1/8" industrial particleboard of 100% spruce for almost double the stiffness of the later 1" MDF made for one of the best cabinets in our long history. To your question, the XO transition serial number was 4901 about 2 years in. Rob Gillum of Coherent Source Service can tell us the particulars, but I have the later schematic. I can supply some back-story. Larry Archibald, then publisher of Stereophile loved the CS2s, but niggled them more than once in print. I found out more than a year later that he listened exclusively without grilles, even though he was told and other reviewers enumerated how integral the grille was to their performance. We wanted Larry to update the record with his better assessment, which he wouldn't do (egg on his face). So Jim looked for an improvement and found an extremely subtle change which gave Larry a scapegoat. Short story is that the grille's absence accounted for the lion's share of Larry's complaint. Also, you may not have the 1" butyl tape anchoring the grille board to the baffle, which brings further significant improvement. I agree that the CS2 is worthy of upgrade and may have been hot-rodded by some on this forum. But things get a little sticky. That tweeter and midrange are no longer available. The woofer is early but true Jim Thiel with many enhancements. It will stay. Rob has a midrange drop-in if a re-engineered unit proves unfeasible. Understand that newly developed drivers are to fit multiple products in order to justify their development cost. The CS5 needs a lower tweeter which is now an unviable 2" MB Quart dome, and the CS2 and 2.2 need a small midrange. A 3" Thiel driver might fill both the CS2 and CS5 needs. It would use the double-cone geometry and Jim's lifetime motor improvements. This is not a front-burner project, but of great personal interest to me. Bottom line is that mid and tweeter changes require crossover changes. So you don't want to dive too deeply tweaking around obsolete drivers. All that said, there is some low-hanging fruit for you. Replacing the series resistors with Mills MRA12s makes for an inexpensive and lovely improvement. There are 1 tweeter and 2 midrange feed caps to replace with Clarity CSAs to significantly clean up the sound. Of further note, as many on this forum know, I've been developing new internal wire. It is lab proven and now being developed for manufacturing. It incorporates new art and I am as thrilled as can be about its upgrade performance, including affordability. Within the foreseeable future your speakers will be formally addressed. For now, I probably have those caps for you to experiment with, and the resistors are readil available. Send me a PM if interested in wading in. |
Here's a readout of the CS2 tribute. CS2 Chapter in Thiel History The CS2 began life in 1984 after the game-changing introduction of the CS3 in 1983. The CS3 was the 4th iteration of the model 3 – equalized sealed 10” 3-way with bass response to 20Hz. It demanded a fairly large room, a very robust woofer, and a midrange to cover 7+ octaves including in and out ramps. The model 3 spent significant budget on that very capable woofer and the active equalizer to take it so low. Its right price was considerably higher than Jim wanted to charge, and many of its virtues were not needed by many listeners. The model 4 filled smaller spaces with a bass limit in the mid 40s from a ported 6.5” two-way floor-stander. That format became the CS1 series. Thiel needed something for smaller rooms with less demanding bass at significantly lower cost than the CS3 while providing better performance than the 04/CS1. The CS2 was born from that need. From the beginning its identity included trimming costs without sacrificing performance beyond bass extension. In fact, its midrange could be cleaner since its crosspoint came in at 800Hz rather than the model 3's 400Hz. By this time Thiel had established a strong working relationship with Vifa, who co-developed a 3.5” full-range driver for our CS2 midrange needs. Vifa and Jim co-developed the woofer with some of his emerging motor geometries and techniques, even though it was still a conventional overhung motor design. A reflex woofer costs about half of a boosted sealed woofer because its low-frequency linear excursion requirement stops at the port tuning. In 1984 all cabinet work was still conventional tablesaw work along with our newly acquired inverted router. The CS3 baffle was being sculpted with hand tools, at considerable cost. We developed the routable CS2 grille board as a wave-guide and diffraction control mechanism with considerable success, at very low cost compared to the CS3 baffle. Later when we bonded the grille to the baffle with rubber tape, it became even more effective. The port cost nearly nothing compared to the $ multi-hundred equalizer, which audiophiles wanted to be more transparent (requiring higher cost.) The CS2 load was a very resistive 6 ohms minimum, and moderate 87dB sensitivity, making it extraordinarily easy to drive. We focused our collective energies into cost-effectively producing this low-cost / nearly full range, coherent source for smaller spaces. It was our first real hit. The introductory price was $1350/ pair against the CS3's (insufficient) $1950. It met its market and sold consistently well. Its 1991 replacement CS2.2 was driven by our developing CNC capability for a more sophisticated cabinet to support new driver technologies first developed for the 1988 CS5. The CS2 served as a sophisticated, elegant entry-level speaker for a broad audience. It sold about 7500 pairs over its 7 years, the most of any Thiel model.
|