@tomthiel,
Thank you. I too think the CS2.2 and that tweeter are pretty special and will look forward to hearing more about the enhancements.
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!
14,003 responses Add your response
One more question about my 1.6's and adequately powering them...is the IOM Ultra enough or is the 500 better? Is the 500 too much? Thanks!! IOM Ultra
IOM NCore 500
|
@jafant. thanks for the response (@unsound, too). Currently, I am using bi-wired Anti Cables for the Treos. Sources at this moment are an Ayre CX5eMP and a Lumin D2. Listening habits include a lot of classical, jazz, rock (though not much metal), bluegrass and acoustic guitar in various ensembles and formats. |
“I like the Treos, but I have really fond memories of Thiel 2 2's that I had years ago. ” I am using an Ayre AX-5 Twenty to drive my heavily modded CS 2.4 (albeit, total resistance is on par with OEM). The CS 2 2 looks to be an easier load. With my combo of amp and source (Ayre QB-9 Twenty), clipping sets in just shy of 100 dB on the 2.4. That’s more than loud enough for my tastes. YMMV, and unsure how the difference in sensitivity translates. Curious what is missing with your Treos. I absolute love my hot-rodded 2.4s (almost certainly my last ever speakers). But if I were buying new, the Treo CT would certainly be on my very short list. |
@tomthiel I’m sorry if some of the questions have already been discussed. When are we going to have full access to what’s going on behind the curtain? Will it be a grand opening of “Thiel Renaissance LLC” with an online store and multiple items for each of the models you’re working on? Will it be a trickle release of upgrade paths? Will it be a collaboration with CSS? I’m getting impatient like a kid waiting on a cereal box toy. |
beetlemania Good to see you as always. I understand what 77jovian is trying to convey. I was not impressed with Vandersteen Quattro nor Treo speakers. Something was missing, I cannot place my finger on it. One is better off with the 3A Signature or 5A speaker. Aside from these (2) models, next best step up is the Kento. It is simply Outstanding! Thiel models CS 2.4, CS 2.4 SE, CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 are far better than Vandy Quattro and Treo to my ears. The CS 3.7 is a strong competitor against the Kento. This is a Testament for Jim's design and execution practices.
Happy Listening! |
Jon and other impatients- My hope is to join forces with CSS and other talent to re-incorporate Thiel Audio. I have a clear vision and a strong group of significant upgrade offerings. What I lack is critical mass to attract capital for the key ingredient. That is new drivers. Without that key ingredient, classic Thiel’s are dead men walking. I won’t itemize the disappointments, but I will say that my commitment continues. First offerings will be ‘universal’ applicable beyond Thiel speakers. Cable and a family of suspension products plus a new capacitor family are in this group. Manufacturing start-up is the order of the day.
|
jafant - we do have a robust stable up upgrades that address issues beyond classic Thiel's scope. None of Jim's work is being altered. The jujitsu is attracting serious talent to form a viable company. I will no-doubt have relevant products for all of you. The big deal is to develop replacement drivers to keep these products (and more) viable into the future. Stirring the pot. |
CS5s. The difference between the 5 and its 'improved' version is that Jim's newly developed woofers weren't ready when the 5 had to be released. The improved woofers incorporated copper shunt rings for more stable motor response. Those i woofers are not available (as far as I know). Nearly all 5s in the field are 5i conversions. The 'i' drivers have MDF mass plugs instead of the 5's rubber cone mats. In my recent minimal recordings I used CS7.2s as site monitors. Very nice. My studio has the CS5i, which are overall less articulate and nuanced, but their coherent bass alignment makes them more real to me. My invisioned CS5.2 will have a sculpted baffle for proper driver placement, thereby eliminating 32 elements for analog delay on the 2 midrange drivers. |
TomT I can see with my minds eye that the elimination of 32 parts in a crossover would make for a rather large improvement in dynamic coherence and scale. While working in a retail audio shop I saw 2 PRS of 5s in our shop that were nuked in the process of party powered by some sort of bridged Adcom amp. There were over 100 parts on this crossover sled. What a sight for smokey eyes. TomD
|
@tomthiel as an owner of a number of Thiels (3.7,2.3,SCS2,SCS4) I am excited to hear about your plans, and fingers are crossed for your success. But I really have to, and hate to ask, any plans for improvements on my beloved 3.7s? I need these to last forever! |
@beetlemania. Sorry for the delay in responding. The Treos are quite good at portraying round, live instruments in space. The sound gets out of the cabinet and lives in the room. Which is wonderful and one of the qualities I love about Thiels. Compared, for example, to a pair of Harbeths I heard recently, that sounded nice, warm and relaxed, but boxy. But the Vandys tilt to the lean side, lacking in the upper bass-low midrange perhaps. So they don’t give me the weight, authority that I want, especially at the lower volume levels I am listening at more and more. Sometimes I just want more of the belly of a sawing double bass. |
A pair of CS 3.6 showed up on craigslist today. Asking $100. My curiosity was piqued; the owner, a very nice guy, shared that a cat had mauled just about every driver save one. Tweeters too... that cat must have been the size of a mountain lion. I thought about it. On the one hand, I don’t want to be the guy who stuffs a bunch of Parts Express drivers into a pair of big Thiels. On the other hand, a proper restoration will cost more than a good pair of used CS 3.6, which is not the model I am looking for anyway. I didn’t feel I could do them justice, so I let the seller know I had decided to pass. And I’m kind of proud I did. Kind of proud of saying no to the siren’s song of yet another needy project. I hope they go to a good home.
|
I sent an email to Gary at Coherent Source Service inquiring if the tweeter ferrofluid will eventually need replacing as my CS1.2s age (similar to replacing the crankcase oil in a car). If so, at how many years of use. He responded, "I don't have a complete understanding of how ferrofluid breaks down. Some old tweeters come in and the ferrofluid looks great. Other times it comes in and looks sludgy. I don't think time alone is a determinant in the breakdown of fluid, so I'm exploring whether heat or exposure to adhesives in the driver are the primary factors." Based on my serial numbers, he thinks my 1.2s were built in 1989-1990 putting my speakers to >35 years old. I'm pretty good at DIY electronic projects. I have ordered new ferrofluid and plan on replacing it in the tweeters. If there is anyone here who has done this, I'd appreciate any advice. I'll post results of any difference in sound quality afterwards. |
Greetings from Prague — longtime passive lurker here. I’ve found lots of useful information and many interesting stories (thank you, tomthiel!) here . I’m a big fan of Thiel loudspeakers. It all started with the CS2.4 a few years ago. Currently, I own the CS3.7 and CS2.3 in a secondary system. Now I’m contemplating the CS7.2, CS5i, CS7 or CS2.7. They’re currently all for sale relatively close by and at roughly the same price — $4,500. Are any of them worth it compared to the CS3.7? Can any of them deliver fuller mids and the same smoothness as the CS3.7? Or are the CS3.7 truly the "final" Thiels and I should invest elsewhere — electronics, room treatment and so on? My amps are Threshold SA/2 Class A monoblocks. I believe they have plenty of current delivery. My current listening room is small, but I plan for a bigger one in a new house. I sold the CS2.4 after I got the 3.7s. The CS2.4s were always a little edgy, but had more midbass — which I think is slightly lacking in the CS3.7. Overall, for me, the CS2.4 perform better in technical aspects than the CS2.3, but they lack the refinement of the CS3.7. I would prefer a slightly more relaxed frequency response. The CS2.3 has a nicely relaxed frequency response, but lacks the detail, separation, and refinement of the CS3.7. But they’re still Thiels, and to me, they’re great for casual listening and movies, as they’re slightly more forgiving. And with good amplification, you can still enjoy well-recorded music. I mainly listen to acoustic music and have a strong bias toward smooth vocals and instrument separation. The CS3.7s are fabulous at this task, given proper amplification and a good DAC. But I would appreciate slightly more dynamics and more midbass energy. Thank you all in advance!
Some of my reference recordings: https://tidal.com/browse/album/315756254?u https://tidal.com/browse/album/1099334?u https://tidal.com/browse/album/16991276?u https://tidal.com/browse/album/70197763?u https://tidal.com/browse/album/142845359?u |
@brunner007, While perhaps not addressing you immediate question; the Threshold SA/2’s while very lovely amps with good current delivery into impedance, I think the Threshold SA/ 2’s have about the bare minimum power output needed for some of the Thiel’s you’re considering. Perhaps you might consider more powerful amps, especially if you’re considering a larger room. |
@unsound, thank you for your suggestion. I agree, the SA/2s are not the most powerful amps. I also have Hypex NC500 monoblocks (700W into 4 ohms) and a Pass Labs X150. But the Thresholds have such lovely mids and rich, detailed bass :) Unfortunately, top Thiel models are really scarce here in Europe—especially if you're looking for ones in good condition and at a reasonable price. Finding suitable amps for them is much easier. That’s why I’m considering buying the loudspeakers while they’re available, and then getting different amps later on. |
brunner 007 - all good advice here, as usual. My thoughts apply to some matters of historical model development. My relevant experience includes living with the CS2.4, but neither the 2.7 or 3.7. However, I did hear the 2.7 and 3.7 in the Thiel listening room the day the finalized 2.7 arrived from the Canadian outsource engineering firm, Warkwyn. First-off, I consider the 2.7 to be a 'real' Thiel speaker. Although developed after Jim's death, home team Thiel faithfully applied their work to Jim's vision, methods and standards. Multiple circuit changes were authored by Warkwyn, but coaching and approvals were from Thiel. The results prove their good work. In direct comparison, the 3.7 is the more articulate speaker with deeper bass and greater precision and dynamic range. But the 2.7 holds its own. Your room, amplitude and budget should guide you more so than differences between the models. Note that the 2.7 uses the bass driver and alignment of the 2.4 and the coax of the 3.7. XO changes are required for the cross-point changes between the models. That said, I'll add that the model 2 has a sonic signature with a somewhat elevated mid-bass. That came about in the CS2.2 being our first passive radiator, coupled to the room better than anticipated. The bigger bass was pleasant, plus many listeners liked it better than Thiel's more accurate target. We kept that signature for the model 2. (I've never heard the 2.3, and the CS2 is beyond accurate memory.) But I have used the 2.2 throughout my career as monitors, and the 2.4 resembles its balance. Perhaps the 2.7 might too. Similarly, the 7.2 (and I believe the 7) have an accentuated deep bass. Impressive, but somewhat less than technically accurate. I suggest you consult the Stereophile reviews for your products of interest. Also, both cables and especially amps can produce such shifts in tonal balance. The speaker is part of an interacting puzzle. Beyond all that, if the 2.7 lands on your radar, we have a simple upgrade that cures its largest shortcoming. Warkwyn specified a single 400uF electrolytic series feed cap. Jim never exceeded 100uF to keep parasitics down. He would have used 4x100uF caps. I use 8x50uF in a cylindrical array around a new 1uF cap made of 10 cascading sections. A part-swap would elevate performance substantially. Note that the CS3.7 is functionally a 3ohm load, as is the CS5 for purposes of driving. Only a few amps in the world can drive them to their potential.
|
brunner007 Welcome! Good to see you here. The CS 2.4 speaker is certainly a sweet spot within the modern Thiel design. It performs well with low, moderate and high powered Amp(s). Take the time to read through this thread as we have many fans/owners of this model. Stepping up to the CS 3.7 speaker requires a large room and higher powered Amp(s) to truly sing. What other gear and cabling is in your Systems?
Happy Listening! |
I owned Thiel 3.7 and 2.7s at the same time for quite a while, going back back-and-forth between them to decide which one I was going to keep.
I’ve given descriptions of the Sonic comparisons a number of times in this thread.
Here’s a few links . If the link doesn’t take you to the exact post, it will at least take you to the page in which the post appears and you can scroll down and find me talking about the 2.7.
I ended up keeping the 2.7s because they were a better fit for my room, and because I loved how they sounded. |
Prof - I really appreciate you sharing your 2.7/3.7 selection journey. Your lived experience with those models is extensive; mine is not. Your observations parallel mine from a single audition. Speakers are very complex organisms. Each and every observation results from many interacting variables. The 2.7 face some challenges that would not have been on Jim's plate: namely the crosspoints are different than the driver design(s). The bass-mid crosspoint of the 2 is an octave higher than the 3. Among the most sonically important differences is the very large capacitance needed for the midrange to roll in higher than it wants to. 2.7's 416uF vs 3.7's 226uF-all polypropylene. 400uF of the 2.7 is a single electrolytic cap. Jim never exceeded 100uF for good reason. As we all know, descriptive sonic vocabulary comes up short. I'll resort to a visual analogy. Among the aspects of light description are 'balance' and 'rendition'. Balance, described in degrees Kelvin, is much like sonic tonal balance, how warm or cool. Color rendition describes the spectral content benchmarked against sunlight, which by definition illuminates all wavelengths equally. A low Color Rendition Index notes incomplete wavelength content. Frequencies that aren't illuminated can't be seen. I liken a large electrolytic capacitor to low CRI. I'll call it SonicRI. In the 2.7, some of the sonic content, mostly within our envelope of 'detail', is obscured, swamped by parasitics in the cap. Your descriptions of imaging shortcomings fall in this arena. I found the 2.7 to lack the fine-grain resolution of the 3.7, especially in the time domain. I speculate (I haven't measured a 3.7 or 2.7) that zooming in on the 2.7 onset transient of the impulse / step response would show a slower and less ideally shaped rise. Also, the integrity at the top of the spike would be less organized, more ragged - less precise would be my summary. This misbehavior would be masked by the better tweeter behavior, but it can be heard as a defocused sheen across the midband. To your question. Some users here have replaced that 400uF cap with 4x100uF and report cleaner sonics. They might chime in here. My further refinement uses 8x50uF plus a more sophisticated bypass cap, all in a unified concentric field. Field trials are underway in the SCS4 and CS7.2. There will be more actual outcomes to report shortly. Feel free to PM to discuss further.
|