Thiel Owners
Further complication is that the CS2.7s were built in Lexington with traditional components. Early 3.7s were also, but then 3.7 production was moved to China with differences in all components. So, the 2.7 might get a leg up due to its home-base implementation. Another thought is that the CS3.7 baffle is aluminum with far greater stiffness than the 2.7's MDF, which absorbs some detail. |
Greetings Thiel fans, I wanted to share that 2025 marks my 40 year anniversary of owning Thiel speakers. Cannot believe it. 1985 cs 2.0 1989 cs 2.2 2007 cs 2.4 2015 cs 2.7 2018 cs 3.7 I am very interested to hear from anyone that owned 3.7's and moved to another speaker, what that speaker was. i am interested in the upper level of the Perlisten line of speakers, and maybe the new Magico S2, but would really be interested in hearing from anyone who moved from the 3.7's to a new speaker. They are so hard to beat. |
@ronkent
I suppose you might be familiar with my speaker trajectory since I detailed it in this thread and then in my other long thread on the forum.
But just as a recap: I had the 3.7s and absolutely love them as they were probably the best speaker I have ever owned, but aesthetically they were a bit too big for my room, so I downsized to the 2.7s which are very similar in character, of course, a little more fun in some ways and a little less suave than the 3.7 in other ways. All in all I was enough with the trade-off.
However, I also purchased my “end game” speakers: Joseph Audio Perspective 2.
They are my endgame because they are much smaller than even the 2.7s, which really helps the situation in my room, and yet they still sound quite huge. They don’t sound quite as big as the 3.7.
An ultimately the 2.7 and the 3.7 have more grunt because they’re just bigger speakers. And the Joseph speakers, while they disappear and image like crazy, do not have quite the Sonic density as Thiels. So there’s a trade-off. (but I ended up mitigating that trade off a lot by adding some diffusers behind the speakers which add some of that image density).
On the other hand, the Joseph speakers are my ears a bit more sophisticated and nuanced tonally. They’re just about the most gorgeous speakers I’ve heard tonally. Strings in particular which could take on a tiny bit of a chalky quality on the Thiels are incredible detailed yet smooth and sophisticated.
And they have a great punchy bass.
I’m certainly not advocating the Joseph speakers over your 3.7s
I’m just saying what worked out for my particular situation.
I did something like a two year long intensive speaker search listening to everything out there and the 3.7’s were just so good almost nothing matched up. Every time I came home from an audition of another loudspeaker the 3.7 just showed them up. I really think they are game speakers unless one is simply looking for a different sound or is willing to pay substantially more. |
@ronkent Like prof i also found my next speakers after many years of search and attending the Munich show for the past 7 years. I was very difficult to find something that would outperform my beloved 3.7s in my book and that would be a total game changer for the remaining of my journey. This speaker is the Odeon Carnegie but since i don't have the space and funds to afford this model i decided i will purchase the model right under it the Semper with special upgraded crossovers to get closer to Carnegie level. My feeling is that i pretty much maxed out my 3.7s with my present rig and it will be time to move on very soon and build a new rig little by little starting with the speakers. Cheers |
prof & thieliste, Thank you both for sharing your journey as it mirrors mine to a degree. I too have found it diificult to find a replacement speaker from the Thiels. Once you have them dialed in and with the right amp they are tough to beat. I’ve opoted on a different path. I have quite a few pairs of Thiels and decided to upgrade the models I like best. Curreently I have the CS 7.2 in listening room after many months of the CS5i in the room. I’ll cut to the chase and suspense and identify the upper midrange suck out is the weak link in the frequency bandwidth. The reason is the cost/performance formula Thiel followed allowed Jim to choose 4-100uf electrolytic caps to achieve 400uf. Fighting price points I understand this decision. Although it does not use the signal 400uf electrolytic like the 2.7 uses, it still degrades the upper mids so they sound thin and recessed. Yesterday, I had a gentleman come over for lisening session. He has the Thiel CS 3.7. We listened to about 15-16 selected tracks and discussed the attributes of the CS 7.2. He mentioned his 3.7 had more weight in the middle than the CS 7.2, but the bottom end of the CS 7.2 was better and highs we about equal. We had the discussion that the CS 7.2 upper mid range can be remedied, but the bottom end on the CS 3.7 was set in stone. Hence why I have kept them as I knew they could be improved. Tom alluded in this thread to the fix he designed for the 4-100uf electrolytic caps. Please understand this is not the full upper mids network crossover but a portion which is a part of the problem creating this suck out.. The thought is, to single out the 100uf caps and hear what Tom designed as an alternative. Tom sent me his schematic and the idea of using a CU cap that he designed I must say is brilliant. Knowing copper foil caps very well I know they have plenty of weight to them and are ultr smooth. Just what is needed. This isn’t replacing crossover parts with better parts. This is implimenting a better design and using higher quality parts. I’m happy to report that Tom is making this upgrade as I type this post. I will hopefully receive it this week and install it in the CS 7.2. The gentleman with the 3.7 will be returning so he can listen again after the upgrade. In addition I have a member in this thread stopping by, actually he is staying over night, who wants to hear the big Thiels with his McCormack hot-rodded amps. I will report how this session goes and I know at least one will chime in here to report their experience. It will be interesting to hear feedback as this is only a portion of what Tom proposes for the CS 7.2. Implementing his Bi-Flow technology, his wiring ( not a wire upgrade and I’ll leave that to Tom to explain the benefits), the remainder of his crossover upgrades, and the film technologiy that I have heard and know it will be revolutionary for the audio industry. This is why I haven’t moved on from my big Thiels, as I have the back story as to where they will be going as far as their performance. I will be receiving a pair of 3.7 very soon. When they arrive and they are beaming with confidence at their ability to be a conduit to the music that is played through them, I’ll open the door to the listening room where the uppgraded CS 7.2 are only to say "Say hello to my little friend"! Your older brother. |
Installing 4 100uf caps replacing the 1 400uf cap is well worth the improvement . But there are 2 problems to address one is the space on the board and the other is the small size of the eyelet where the leads are soldered. This became an even larger problem when I installed 15uf and 1uf Purity Clarity Caps which use 16awg stranded lead wires . I had to install larger eyelets to fit all the wires . Reading duramax747 question about replacing 4 100uf electrolytic caps with 1 Cu foil cap on his 7.2 work on the 2.7 replacing the 400uf on the mid , if so do you think it would sound better than replacing the 1 400uf electrolytic cap with 4 100uf electrolytic caps ? Question for Tom , would changing the 416uf to a 226uf work on the 2.7 mid range ? would/should the negative 565uf be lowered by 1/2 at the same time ?
|
vair68robert - a general thought. Changing any value would subvert Jim's expertise. Thiel controls drivers over a 7-octave span rather than the few octaves required for fast slopes. Board space and wiring density are real issues in revisiting an existing design. My layout strategy is quite different from Jim's - it requires considerably more footprint. Also, the wiring nodes are replaced by direct coupling of each component output to its mating component input. Duramax is alluding to replacing Thiel's signature 1uF styrene/tin bypass with a newly designed multi-section 1uF cap. In its ultimate form it would be all copper, but the particulars of its multi-section ratios is the key improvement. The larger number of smaller value caps also makes its own performance enhancements. Cheers from the rabbit hole. |
Can anyone recommend an "audiophile solution" to using straight banana plugs on the bottom-mounted binding posts? I know I can cobble something together at the hardware store, or from Amazon, but what have you all done? I just laid my speakers down to see if any of my expensive cables can fit and found my right-angle bananas were badly bent. I need something better.
|
I think I found a workable solution to connecting cables with straight banana plugs to the down-facing binders on our Thiels. Rummaging around through my audio junk box I found a set of four gold spade lugs I had bought off Amazon. These are very thick, fit a 5/16 post, and have a wire barrel that just happens to fit a 4 mm banana plug.
These aren't the ones I bought but I'd probably choose these instead--being Nakamichi.
|
Very cool thread. I have a couple pairs of CS1.5s that I love. I’m in the process of setting up a listening room / home theater. I will use one set for two-channel listening like I do today, but I’m wondering if I could reasonably use the other set as my surrounds in a 5.1.2 setup. I’d set them up near the back corners of the room, angled towards the listening position. I’m thinking that since I’m using a couch, which has a lower back than a recliner would, and because of the angled face of the speaker, I could make this work without having to buy more typical surrounds (1-2ft above ear-level and then pointed at listening positioning). I’m curious if anyone here has any experience with a similar setup. Fwiw, the center listening position would end up being 6-7 feet from the floor-standing surrounds. |
thejazzmarauderYou may need to elevate the CS1.5s that you are using in the rear to obtain the correct ear/height positioning. In other words elevating as opposed to tilting. I'm not sure where the convergence point is in relation to the front of that speaker but maybe TomThiel will be able to point you in the right direction. |
All Thiel floorstanders are designed for an ear height of 3’ and an ear to tweeter distance of 8’ or more. On a CS1.5 @ 33" tall, you can position a rod on a block on top of the cabinet to use as a sight to your ear height. A laser and target works even better. Any combination of lift and/or tilt is OK. Tilt is better at keeping the floor-bounce bump as designed. Lift may avoid obstructions better. At your 6-7’ distance, the driver integration will be less than perfect, but probably better than many installations that haven’t sighted-in the proper geometry.
|
TomThiel Thank you for all the help and support you provide to the members here, not to mention all the clarity and insight you provide into the design of these speakers. You help make these speakers an even more enjoyable asset to have. I wish you well in your future endeavor to start up Thiel Renaissance, I know I plan to be a part. I'll be heading to duramax747 this weekend to have a listen to the CS 7.2's and decide if I want to move up the line from my CS 6's. Have a good weekend everyone, I know I will. |
Hi Everyone, A while since I checked in, but I do continue to read the posts here all the time.
|
Reporting back from a visit with member ig316b. I wasn’t able to get the Upper mids notch filter installed but our session was very productive. ig316b can add but for me the focus was this.Amps. Not really comparing sonically, not for me anyway, but to see if his McCormack Platinum .5 DNA were up for the challenge to drive the big Thiel’s. I was quite surprised how well they did with the Cs 7.2. They had the bottom end control for the 12" woofers. The clarity of these amps was very good. Voices and instruments had their own space and never sounded harsh. For the bottom end I wanted to push these little gems so I put in a percussion disc La Bamba track #10. I had some volume on this track to wake up the woofers and see if Steve’s amps were up for the challenge. This is chest thumping bass. We were in the 94-96db range at listening chair as I wanted to see if these amps would hold the line from the barrage of kettle drum strikes that hit hard, fast and were relentless. Room This was something I did not expect to have a discussion about. When ig316b first came in the room he was wide eyed trying to take in the space the Thiel’s were occupying. I’ll leave it to him what his opinion was but with the Thiel’s the room really makes a difference with how they perform. This is a dedicated room Tom designed. The comment I hear repeated often is "there is no reflections heard at listening chair". No rugs nor side wall dampening. Just good design. Coax.We were comparing the coax of the CS 7.2 to the CS 6 which is a generation below. ig316b noted this was a better driver which had more detail and ambient info. This begs the question is it possible to upgrade the coax in CS6 as well as CS2.3 since they share same coax I believe? If so what does that look like. Direct drop in? Crossover revision? I’m located in the SE and our AC went out last week. It reached 104 degrees outside so with the big Class A amps in there which hover around 130-133 degrees the listening room was on the warm side. ig316b was a trooper and persevered. I want to mention that this hobby has some of the best people I’ve ever met and ig316b is at the top of that list.
|
