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!
Until I get the rest of my reference system together, namely the gear and cabling, all I do is sit , look at my Thiel speakers and smile, smile, smile!
Extra smiling due to the fact that I might own the last pair of CS 2.4SE
Right On! sitting inside the triangle can provide a glimpse into the Thiel sound. On axis or toed-in, your individual room will play an important factor as to the how(s) / why(s) we choose one over the other.
Keep us posted on your continued placement research.
No question that isolation can play a role in one's system based upon high volume during listening sessions or listening space reflections- Dave. Keep up the research and report your findings for the rest of us.
Thanks for that greeting, Jafant. I appreciate it. And, as you were the one to first launch me on this correct trajectory when I'd first begun, I am grateful. We all may find this funny, but I love this system so much that there are times that (even with system off) I sit and look at the Thiels and smile. :)
What I have found with the 3.5s very recently is that positioning is actually more critical than advertised to get the best bass response.
Of course this is probably very room specific but I've now discovered that sitting just inside the triangle with them as wide apart as my modest music room width allows, with a decent amount of toe in, makes a staggering difference. Previously I had tried positions quite a distance from the Thiels, thereoretically to give them more breathing room. I've found out that, in my situation at least, they don't need it. The 3.5s have effectively disappeared aurally speaking.
As Dave observes above, the bass response is actually extremely tweakable with Thiels.
Although i I didn't think I needed a sub before, I think that is even more the case in light of recent speaker juggling.
You are absolutely correct by stating that I am the biggest proponent for Cabling! 20 years ago I discovered that aftermarket cabling does make a difference and I was not an Audiophile in those days.
I only provide you guys w/ the brands that I have spent some time (usually 3 months) in various systems at various dealers/retailers over the last 5 years during my business travels. During these travels, I would visit said shops weekly and listen to the gear for as many hours as necessary. Luckily, I never had a bad experience. And I can site the dealers/retailers that provided a reference to me. My permanent locale does not afford me w/ dealers/retailers. Cities like Atlanta, New Orleans and Nashville are the closest proximity.
I can see how a Bryston power amp is a sonic match for Thiel speakers. After all, these babies crave high current and Bryston can certainly deliver it!
Tom Evans is heavily favored by many Audiophiles, so it must be an excellent product, I would like a demo myself.
Last, but certainly not in the least is Cabling; my 1st love in our wonderful hobby- try listening to any rig w/o them! No, there is zero doubt in my mind that Cabling makes a positive difference! Odd, funny, thing is that w/ careful selection, anyone can budget their system. My best advice is to get out to the dealers/retailers and listen, listen listen to the various brands. In this particular thread, there exists a wealth of info by your subscribers. Thankfully, we all have various spin(s) on the cables/cords in our systems that make life worth living. Equally important, we do not own identical gear- no fun in that- Happy Listening!
most important of all, is that , we have Rob at Thiel in Kentucky to take care of us older crowd and our legacy speakers. Cheers to Rob! Let's continue to keep him gainfully employed! Happy Listening!
Excellent exchange of ideas, intel and thoughts about our beloved speakers- unsound and Dave. I look forward in your continued contributions. Happy Listening!
Jafant here is a vocal proponent of finding the correct cabling for our equipment. Until I began membership here I had a snake pit collection of various brands that I gave little thought to overall.
It's difficult for me to acknowledge that I've been a member here for only three years - and I mean that in a good way. Since joining this community my system has improved far beyond what it once was.
When I snared my first pair of 3.5's I was using what I would now term Radio Shack 12 gauge wire from a spool, and yet the Thiels literally "wowed" me upon first listen. One of the first "high end" speaker cables I purchased were entry level Anti-Cables from Mr. Speltz. I still have two pairs of different lengths due to changes in my audio stands, both Salamander.
Currently I have Transparent cabling throughout my system. I'd never before compared brands with across-the-board application since it's rather costly to do so, but it seems to be the only method of fairly reaching an opinion.
Today, as a result of your post I am going to reacquaint myself with my Anti-Cables speaker connects. From what I recall upon my first experience they made an articulate loudspeaker become even more so. And that's saying a LOT when it comes to my Thiels.
I have a pair of 3.6s. And I want to say upfront, that I love my system. I was new to all of this, and the 3.6s were the first component purchase. And then the research soon took me to how important it was to power them correctly. So, initially I considered matching it with a Levinson, and called the current Thiel people, who recommended Bryston, which I settled on. At first, I looked at a lesser model, but decided to pony up for a few hundred dollars more and get the 4B SST, at 300w. The preamp was a long painful story, and once again ultimately ponied up a bit more than budget, and got a Tom Evans Vibe. Now some of this stuff is a bit uncommon, but good stuff (and expensive in it's time) but I was patient and got good deals on all of it. After a brief, initial go-round with cables/wires from monoprice, I returned the speaker wires, and began to focus on Anticables and Paul Speltz. I started with speaker cables. (Budget was pretty exhausted at this point.) And then several months later ditched the monoprice RCA interconnects for Anticable ICs, more or less completing the system, which is how it sits now. It was interesting: Through all of this, since I'm starting with no media collection, I'd subscribed to Tidal for lossless. And they have a page at their site where they'll play about six songs, and you choose A/B which one is lossless. If you get most all of them correct, they'll gift you a free month. The interesting thing is, try as I might, I could not succeed in correctly picking these -- until the final ICs from Anticables. Then it was clear; and I got six out of six. I was fascinated at just how much strong equipment I had, and it was that last element that enabled the system to "sing". The next upgrade (who knows when the budget will allow) will be for Anticable power cord. And then a second, for the amp. Yeah, I know I'm starting to sound like an advertisement, but I REALLY like their stuff. What I'd not yet mentioned is that I finished it with an OPPO blu-ray/media server, which I also like very much. Plugged my AppleTV into it, as well as a few terabytes of Network Attached Storage, for lossless downloads, and TIDAL streaming.
In all, I probably went about $500 over original budget for each of the amp and preamp. But I like the match; and really have no question that my current level of quality was driven by the Thiels. But I'm glad for the journey.
Obviously Jim Thiel did not work within a vacuum all those years. I have to assume that he assembled a fine team of craftsmen to assist in bringing his theories to fruition.
My question is, where did they all go when the new regime arrived and chose to abandon all that he worked for? I know a small part of the story already gained from articles on the web, so I guess my question here is does anyone have any further information?
By the way, this thread is one of the most informative and enjoyable ones I've come across here. The comments and suggestions I've received from many of the posts have made vast improvements in my system to date. Intelligent, rational discourse is as enjoyable to me as is listening to music.
dlcockrum, I always look forward to your contributions to this thread. IMHO, the CS 5's price aside were Thiel's absolute best performing speakers. When price is considered I have to give the nod to the 3.5's as his best total value. I agree the "I" versions without the pad damped woofers were a very nice improvement. Regrettably there was very little, if no follow up in the rags on the very nicely improved "I" version. Though I am not aware of any testing that would confirm this: I would imagine these later woofers without the attached damping pads would be much more amplifier friendly as well. I also agree that they are especially demanding of set up and associated gear. If it weren't for the expense of proper amplification, I'd probably own a pair. While very nice amps, I always felt that the afore mentioned Krell 250's were hazy in the upper frequencies and didn't quite have the signature bass quality typical of Krells. As much as the pressed loved it, it wasn't my favorite Krell. I much preferred the earlier KMA 160's and 400's. For a while Larry Archibald was using Levinson. Never amongst my favorites. For me they lacked the crispness that is sometimes part of the music, and didn't have the micro and macro dynamics that the Krells had in spades. Some time after the formal Stereophile review there was some mention that Larry Archibald was enthusiastic that he got the CS 5's to really sing with bigger 600 Watt Krells. I can't help but believe that the Thiels sometimes got unfairly blamed for accurately portraying what was really on the recording.
Richardpo1, Obviously I haven't examined all that many 3.5's without their grills, but the only times I've seen a 4 holed midrange drivers is on mismatched with a 3 hole midrange driver, on used pairs sold on e-bay. I've never seen a pair with two 4 holed midrange drivers. Perhaps different runs of drivers were made with different mounting brackets? I don't know. I'd hazard a guess that the 4 holed drivers might be the off the shelf drivers not made to Jim Thiel's specifications. Not sure what the exact differences might be, if any. Perhaps it's the short coil/ long gap motor, something else? I really don't know for sure, but until I know better, suspicion would cause me to avoid the 4 hole drivers.
Dlcockrum, Ordinarily I would suggest that amps with the DR-9's power specs might be adequate, but not necessarily ideal. But, those older Classe' amps seem to be an exception to the rule and work beyond what their specs would suggest. Conservatively/under rated? I don't know. But a lot of Apogee users with their even more challenging load, seemed to indeed be very happy running those older Classe' amplifiers with them.
Another consideration is the superior time and phase superiority of the Thiels sealed box bass response over the ported, vented, etc. bass output of many subwoofers. Typically the bigger the driver the better the response gets at the lowest 1st octave, but the worse the response gets at progressively higher octaves,.
Very good discussion about the lower frequencies. There are proven, valid points there. I have two Smartsubs and even though there is wonderful adjustment for these, placement is still critical. Too close together and summed ouput was difficult at best. Experimentation with placement smoothed them out very nicely. We are actually tuning the room when doing this after all.
Richardp01, This is fourth time this week I've tried to respond to your question with attention it deserves. Every other time I lost the contents just before sending. Oy! In the mean time your follow up posts answered a lot of questions I had for you at that time. Obviously you have found that for your preferred set up, in your room, the 3.5's sans eq with the Velodyne DD12 works better for you. Who am I to argue with your success and satisfaction? I generally suggest keeping the 3.5's eq in the system for a variety of reasons, even when using a sub. One can actually get deeper bass response from some of Thiel's smaller, less expensive models than using the 3.5's without the eq. Very often multiple sources of bass output will smooth out bass nulls and peaks better than bass output from a single source. Unlike the dedicated bass channel such as is found in home theatre audio, stereo bass when summed to mono can send conflicting signals, compromising bass output. Typically I would expect two 10" woofers to have less energy storage and more agility than one 12" woofer. As for the effect of the eq on the rest of output, I have no doubt that you hear what you do, but I am surprised. It's interesting that of the reviews printed around the time of the 3.5's release, such as those found in the Absolute Sound, HiFi Heretic, Sensible Sound and the original Stereophile review from Anthony Cordesman, only the later Stereophile review (and the only one that readers can now find on line) from then editor and owner of Stereophile Larry Archibald (who BTW kept the 3.5' s as his reference loudspeakers for longer than any other speakers other than the later and much(!) more expensive Thiel CS 5's) found any quibbles with the eq. Even he found the 3.5's better with than without the eq. Interestingly enough he suggested a bit of sharpening, of higher frequencies with the eq which is quite a bit different than the smearing you've noticed. FWIW, I do agree with Larry Acrhibald's opinion of the eq, including his observation that many audiophile often already have a prejudice to these type of devices. Such different impressions happen often, for example, as I recall the reviewer for The Absolute Sound found the 3.5's to be a bit (paraphrasing here (it's been a long time)) too buttoned down and reticent, where as Larry Archibald found them a bit forward. Go figure. FWIW, I find them neutral. Your suggestion of relieving the demands on your 100 Watt tube amp is not without merit, but keep in mind that the eq starts to increase impedance and ergo sensitivity as it kicks in which mitigates the demands on the amplifier, especially a tube amp. While a 100 Watt tube amp could certainly be adequate depending on room and desired sound volume, a bigger amp could negate those concerns. As for your use of the Velodyne DD 12, I think that the placement of which in your room might have something to with the improvement you've noticed. As does the digital processing it provides. That processing is especially interesting to me, as I've been long considering using a digital room correction device with adjustable eq function as a replacement for the Theil provided eq. As you've discovered, the likes of which can adjust the bass response to ones particular room rather than some anechoic standard. I've yet to find a budget friendly unit with enough eq adjustability to match the 3.5's equalizer yet. As for the recommendation that others try the Velodyne, I think it important to note that the original asking price of the Velodyne DD 12 is more than the original cost of the 3.5's! I would imagine used prices being similar. Furthermore, if one were to consider using a subwoofer, I'd recommend considering using two rather than one, for the reasons above, even if that meant using smaller ones.
Well, it finally arrived this afternoon from Nevada...
My Primare A34.2 is back in the box, up for grabs here on the site.
Damn, I forgot how heavy the Pass X150.5 was. Is.
What I didn't forget was how great my Thiels sounded with it in the past. It's back, and it's staying. I'm done. It's playing now. I'm a happy camper.
Well...kinda done. I just bought a Khozmo passive preamp for a pittance here on the site just because...well...
I think the Pass is as uncolored an amplifier that a body could hope for, I think that my 3.5's are also as uncolored a speaker that one could wish for, so why not toss a passive pre into the chain and see what is...revealed? (No, I'm not giving up my B. A. T. preamp.) My system is now complete, with the only exception possible being the availability of 3.6's or higher in a geographically/financially desirable future.
I would like to offer up another dilemna facing me. The Pass and the BAT have XLR connects that I would like to use, but this takes the Thiel EQ out of the chain since it has RCA connects. I could purchase XLR adapters, but that pretty much defeats the intent altogether.
Flatter is better. I did some careful listening to mens and women's voices comparing the boosted bass mentioned in a previous post (which sounds closer to the bass with the CS3.5 equalizer ) versus the bass adjusted to have a flat response and guess what? Flatter is better. Women's voices are less chesty and Frank's voice is smoother.
If anyone wants to add a sub woofer to his system I strongly recommend one with the measurement and balancing tools similar to those that come with the Velodyne DD series. The auto-balancing feature is not so useful; you really have to get in there and manually adjust the phase angle, crossover frequency, crossover slope and several parametric equalizers as well as the subwoofer volume to obtain a flat response. And you need a microphone and a signal generator and software to display the measured response on a TV or computer screen. All of that comes with the DD series.
Good thread- Dave. Thanks! for sharing. I was not impressed w/ Aerial either after reading so many positive reviews. I wanted to like them do not get me wrong.
I scored a replacement midrange driver for my 3.5s by placing a WTB ad on Audiogon. I soldered it in and voila! no perceivable change even though the mid driver I replaced had three holes on the surround. Since I thought the speakers sounded fine even before I started looking for a replacement there was no surprise. I will send the wornout driver to Thiel when the other one starts to fail. That way there is no down time for the repair. Now that I have the equalizer out of the circuit the other| driver may last forever.
By the way I've noticed a slight narrowing in the sound stage without the equalizer and a little better focus in the image overall. Everything involves a trade-off. For the moment I prefer the extra clarity in the sound to the slightly smaller stage. I have tube electronics so the highs are still smooth.
I also added a little more bass back in the system by raising the woofer crossover point. It may not measure as flat at my listening location but it moved the bass response closer to the original.
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.
