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!
jafant - first a disclaimer. I have no real experience with the WATT or any other Wilson products, beyond interested observation. My connection is primarily one of curiosity. The WATT has been considered an audiophile reference from its beginning, and called such by JA in Stereophile. It turns up in very discriminating systems and spaces. My curiosity revolves primarily around what all of us at Thiel would hear from it and see in its measurements, which is a flawed design, a broken speaker (in its early iterations), from our point of view. The WATT/PUPPY illuminates by contrast how Thiel never really fit into the high end mindset. We required even-handed solutions to all identifiable aspects of performance and cost, whereas much of high end tolerates and even extols excellence in some areas regardless or at the expense of other aspects.
The Wilson approach has certainly won the day. Most high end speakers would flunk Jim Thiel's first-pass analysis. They are plain wrong in many ways while being outstandingly good in some ways or other. But Thiel didn't engage in competitive analysis - at all. We had our hands full doing our own thing, independent of whatever 'the market' or 'the times' seemed to relate to.
David Wilson was a star. His audiophile recordings were extremely good. He with his soprano wife Cheryl moved in high circles. He had a ready audience and nearly demanded respect. On the contrary, at our first 1977 CES we came out with a lovely corner suite, and garnered a positive, encouraging response from many attendees; but there was no safety net. I remember an establishment industry person asking to general amusement why we were 'here'. 'Shouldn't you be barefoot and pregnant back home?' Kentucky wasn't seen as legitimate compared with the genesis of most aspiring companies. I'm not complaining, Thiel received solid, constant support and encouragement from the audio press along with pioneering dealers who wanted something different, what we wanted to provide. My point I guess is that if we had come from Kentucky with products that contained the design shortcomings of early Wilson products, we would have been summarily dismissed.
My comments are more general sociological observations than any particular analysis of any particular products. The marketplace is an ecosystem unto itself and companies make their ways however they can from wherever they begin. Wilson was a trail-blazer into a different sphere than where Thiel lived. We lived where we were comfortable, creating products we hoped would bring value to people with whom we identified.
Welcome! Good to see you here tonight. Owning Power Planes, 3.5 and CS 2.4, you certainly have the Thiel bases covered. Stand by until a Panel member chimes in about 3.5's being in a corner. The CS 2.4 will not sound as accurate placed in a corner.
Take the time to read though this thread. There is a plethora of information that addresses all of the speakers in your room/system. I look forward in reading more about musical tastes and system gear.
Thank You for the kind words and participation here. Yes, I have my finger on the pulse to be sure. As I have reported many, many times here, it takes quite a large sum of Money to better my CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Incredible!
My 1st demo of CS 2.4SE are Serial Numbers (50/51). Knowing now what I did not know, back then, makes me want them even more!
Hi fellow Thiel owners. Long time owner here. I have power plane 1.2's , 3.5's and 2.4's. A couple questions regarding the 3.5's being used as home theater speakers. I have an early model SVS subwoofer with the thiel EQ plugged in. A B&K 200 watt power amp is powering Thiels.
2. My dedicated theater room has a stage area with wall cavities on either side of the screen. I was using some infinities which seemed happy in corner cavities . Their cone enclosures need replacement so I figured I'd try the 3.5's. Enclosed in the corner wall cavities they seemed a bit muffled. I moved them out about 2 ft from the corner walls and about a foot in front of the rear wall. this puts them on the stage on either side of the screen. Kind of works with improved sound but not blending in with the surrounding décor. They have passed the movie audition as far as being able to reproduce movie effects at high decibels. The movie Dune has been a good demo.
Am I trying to make something work that isn't meant for this application. It feels like I'm taking a luxury range rover and using like a 4wd pickup. Might work for a while but eventually somethings gonna break. Also is there anyway these could be made to sound better in the corners? Enjoying this thread. Great resource!
jafant - your audio interest is immense! I, on the other hand, have very little experience outside the realm of Thiel. I believe that some day you might become a candidate for an enhanced CS2.4.
beetle - I think their hall ambience retrieval is real rather than an artifact. Consider that a large portion of speakers have the 100Hz bump, but don't 'hear' the hall. I suspect that Wilson's heroically quiet enclosures along with their ultra high quality crossover components reduce low-level spuriae enough to allow perception of deep musical subtleties.
Those kinds of parameters are some of what I'm addressing, while keeping an eye on classic Thiel value/cost constraints. Our collective outcomes are promising and encouraging to me.
In house at Audio Advice, I auditioned the Sasha and Sophia loudspeakers.
Still, not as rich in presentation and sound to a CS 2.4 model. Across the street is Audio Excellence. Here I would run the table with CS 2.4, 2.4SE (the clear winner), CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 models. I would visit these guys again in 2014 and the owner would not sell the CS 2.4SE. All other models were for sale.
Over the last 3 years, I have heard Wilson Audio Alexx, Sasha DAW and Sabrina for reference. These particular speakers are far better than original Sasha and Sophia by a wide margin. The Alexx does have the richness of my CS 2.4SE for $100K. Then , there is the cabling , gear, and room to match.
In the Fall of 2012, I found myself in Raleigh NC for work. As luck would have it, I found a Thiel Audio and Wilson Audio dealer/retailer across the street from each other. I had my 1st CS 2.4 demo earlier that Spring and was curious about Wilson Audio for comparison.
The closest I have ever traveled to such a Loudspeaker system was the gentleman, whom I purchased, my CS 2.4SE speakers. I his studio, he owned an original Infinity IRS Beta V set-up. Impeccable, all-original, from 1985. No modifications at all. You would have been impressed by his room and system.
No- no auditioning experience with either WAMM/WATT. Although short in length, the Video gave a small Audio sample of an incredible venture via Dave Wilson (RIP). I wish those guys from JS Audio (Baltimore) would have played more musical selections.
And what an incredible mix of Cabling and Gear (something old, something new)!
I can only imagine the room/space to house such a behemoth System!
Thank you for your appreciation. My interest in high-end professional digital sources began twenty years ago. In my opinion, Merging is a point of no return. I can wright a lot about it, but I don’t want to go off topic.
Back to my updated CS2.4, I would like to spent some word about its. Saturday, for a few hours I listened they and I can say that I was very impressed. - Resolution
- Holography,
- Sound more clear and cleaning,
- Naturalness,
- Linearity,
- Pleasure of listening, leaved me speechless.
Every parameter of my beloved loudspeakers, that I know as the lining of my pockets, it was improved.
Really!
I didn’t think I would get such a result.
All this improvement I checked it out with only 15 hours of work.
What will happen in 100 hours of sound?
It was a hard work, but it was worth it.
My system has taken impoprtant jump forward in quality .
With these results, I bless every penny spent.
My upgrade consist in:
Outboard Crossover.
In the picture the cabinets inspired on the CS 2.4 design
All caps replacement.
For the coax I mixed Clarity Caps CSA 250V with Jantzen Alumen Z-Cap and Miflex KPCU 03 250V 0.1uF. While for the woofer, Clarity Caps + Miflex KPCU 03 250V 0.33uF
All resistor replacement with Mills MRA12. I paid particular attention to 16 and 30 Ohm resistors by inventing two passive coolers for them. As you can see, I inserted a thermal pad between the aluminum and the resistor in order to dampen the vibrations and isolate the contact with the aluminum.
I kept all the genuine coils.
I tried replacing them with Jantzen wax coils and the Cross Coil, but I got a bad result.The sound had worsened, distorting the CS2.4 sound characteristics.
As regards the components running-in and the relative improve sound, I will update you. 🙂
Re: Wilson Audio, IMO, their cabinets are some of the best out there although I’m not a fan of the drivers. I’ve heard MAXX, W/P 7 and 8, and Sasha. One thing they maybe do better than any any other I’ve heard is create a sense of hall space on live recordings. It’s cool to listen to but it might be a coloration from the Wilson midbass hump?
They are good speakers, IMO, but you can do as well or better for less money elsewhere. I would choose my modded 2.4s (or 7.2 or 3.7) over the Wilsons I’ve heard.
petaluman - I can't be of much practical help other than referring you to Rob Gillum at Coherent Source Service. If the 03a schematic exists, he would have it. There is an aftermarket op-amp EQ called the 'golden flute' in a brass tube. Here's a little context.
The 01 series had a 30Hz EQ for which I don't remember the topology, but I doubt we used op amps. The 03 was 'improved' and also different in that it was a combination ported box with optional EQ. The 03a was sealed and its 'improved further' EQ came with the package. I do know that the CS3 is discrete with all film caps, etc. but may have caps in the signal path. (I have a unit, but no schematic.) The CS3.5 EQ is all discrete, all polystyrene caps (except for the unregulated power supply), metal film resistors and direct coupled - no caps in the signal path. That unit is presently being upgraded. Now upgrades for all obsolete transistors are available and soon there be will a significant upgrade. Still working on it.
So, in general, the EQ keeps getting better, but the only schematics I have are the original 3.5 and 3.5 Renaissance in process.
As I've mentioned, the woofer / enclosure parameters are conceptually similar for the 03a, CS3 and 3.5, but not for the 03 due to its ported bass. Let us know what RG says.
For the record, JAFANT provides this forum for which I am grateful for this way to share insider information among us.
Tom, Thanks again for providing this forum for Thiel-philes! The schematic I found some time ago that says its for the 03A does have LF347 op amp(s) in it, so it must not be yours. Could you please provide the correct historical schematic for the 03a and/or any of the series you mentioned as equivalent?
In case anyone is interested TMR is listing an Amberwood pair of CS 3.6 speakers for $1399 + $399 shipping - serial# 1241; 1242 ... condition listed as 7 out of 10.
JA - I don’t know what to say! That is quite a kludge. The WAMM became a pinnacle of audiophile extravaganza. It (Wilson Audio Modular Monitor) launched an enterprise that audio history will be chewing on for a long time.
My personal perspective is the degree of difference between Wilson and Thiel, along with the huge success that Wilson achieved / and continues to achieve. Whereas Thiel spent considerable energy containing costs, shaving margins, internalizing capability, and working toward balance of all aspects of sound reproduction, Wilson embraced filling an affluent market niche where higher price was a fundamental advantage and some performance aspects could be ignored. Jim was especially flabbergasted how ’the market’ could forgive the WATT’s 0.33 ohm highly reactive impedance at 2kHz.
I have a vivid memory from the mid 80s when I attended Wilson’s introduction of their first generation WATT (Wilson Audio Tiny Tot), before Puppy came out. That opening demonstration was illuminating in so many ways. The Corian cabinets with lead damping were impressively inert. The sound was nowhere near flat - and the assembled audience was so avidly enthusiastic. David Wilson’s presentation included justification of the $5000+/pair price ($12K today) in terms of cost, including "more than $250 / cabinet for just the machining of the mineral loaded polymer baffle." Since I knew the material, I would have been embarrassed to claim $5 machining cost. And so on and so forth.
I’m not chewing sour grapes, merely expressing my personal astonishment of how the brand was embraced from the outset and over the ensuing decades. A NYC dealer once told me that "someone with a half million $ to spend needs to find a half million $ product." Another regaled me regarding how Wilson had done everything right.
Thanks for the question. I am reminded that we ordinary folks live in a very different world than some others. And there may be more of them than us judging by the direction the market has taken toward extremely expensive offerings. I might add that, with the exception of happenstance convention and dealer showroom sightings, I have never actually experienced Wilson music playback. Perhaps it’s wonderful beyond words, and I’m merely expressing my lack of sophistication.
Check out the Original Watt Puppy 1 via AXPONA over on YouTube.
It appears that Dave Wilson(RIP) incorporated a Radiation driver array into that legendary design from 1981. Let me know your impressions and thoughts.
beetlemania - these tweaks have accumulated over the few years we've been working on these upgrades together. The 2.4 is in a relatively good position among its peers, with its 2 crossovers at distnace from each other and from the woofer. Also, those boards I made for you placed the resistors centrally, away from caps. You might consider a through-vent in your cabinets - after I work out the particulars - to draw cool air from the bottom to exit near the top-back. More learning required.
1: Hang the crossover on the outside/back of the cabinet
Interesting! That would have been useful when I was making all those comparisons. But I would still need binding posts for my Cardas spades. Oh, well, I ended my journey in a great place 🤗
@improvedsound - what a lovely playback system you have! I am honored to have Thiel speakers in such sophisticated company. I'm not sure how much knowledge there is about Antelope and Merging in the American hi-fi marketplace. I love them from the world of high-end recording. I especially appreciate the Merging converter due to its roots in the Nagra DAT technology, which I used heavily around Y2K when high resolution audio was in its infancy. We chose 24bit/ 88.2kHz because Redbook 44.1kHz rendered more cleanly with the simple 2X math. Anyhow, I love your gear and wish that you might talk about how you approached your 2.4 upgrade, what you learned and what you achieved. Thank you.
thieliste - I don't think so. The only components of real concern are the electrolytic caps. Thiel used high-performance, high-temperature, long-life Ecaps with a normal use horizon of 40 years. 'Normal' is a slippery target, but Rob has said the only failed caps he's seen are in conjunction with mis-use of some king.
You have bypassed 3x100uF 'lytics in the midrange resonance shunt. You also have a bypassed 75uF 'lytic in the tweeter shunt circuit. Replacing that one with a good PP would probably produce some sonic upgrade.
There were 2 revisions for the 3.7, rev1: 12jan08, rev2: 9dec08. So yours would be final form.
jon_5912 - I wholeheartedly agree. Jim not only was a master of his design craft, he applied tons of time to evaluating each component to identify where costs could be shaved without sacrificing performance. His performance / cost ratio was amazingly high - there's nothing superfluous and nothing dragging down the net result.
To put some practicals around that, in his last years, Thiel looked long and hard for someone to take on his role in the company. Serious, multi-pronged search, to no avail. One big disconnect was finding anyone who 'got' the time-phase coherence thing to the point of cooperating, Another was finding someone willing to slog through the value engineering. It would be easy to double the cost with very little performance advancement.
3.7s have the crossover housed in a little compartment in the bottom separate from the main box. Thiels are "small signal systems" but they're so good at it. My guess is that nobody alive today could design a better version of the 3.7s for anywhere near the price.
"Thank You for the follow up. What other electronics/gear is in your system?"
This is My sistem:
Source - Computer Transport, feed by linear power supplies on separate chassis; DAC Merging Hapi; Master Clock OCX HD Antelope; Software Player HQPlayer; Preamp Audio Research SP16 with output film condenser improved; Two amp W3 Moon (bridge mode)
This is an old photo. Taken before the outboard crossover cabinet was built
Hello all - in response to some questions from some of you who are upgrading your crossovers, I’d like to post some of my reflections. I have uploaded a CAD drawing of my modular outboard crossover cabinet to my virtual system. That drawing is empty of components, which can be added as appropriate. The cabinet system holds individual boards for each driver and can be size-scaled as needed. It is simply form follows function as were the speaker cabinet designs.
First some general background.
Upgrading a crossover is fraught with uncertainty. All components interact with all other components, and all components have some amount of other electrical elements. In other words, a cap doesn’t just have capacitance, but also has series resistance, which varies with load, etc. Foil coils present differing resistance and capacitance than wire coils, etc. Re-balancing those elements after any change is highly demanding, and beyond my knowledge. I try to stay out of trouble by being cautious and self-critical of sonic changes. These considerations are why Rob is ’unenthusiastic’ about cap changes, or any changes. He has made his own determinations whereby he wants to stay with Jim’s results. I am cautiously venturing further and value all feedback from you who brave the territory.
As a general comment, I will be repeating some things I’ve said over the past few years here, on the chance that repetition might be better than omission for some.
Why consider outboard? Every performance parameter is improved by getting the crossover away from the electromagnetic, vibratory, hot stew inside the cabinet. The crossover is built-in for cost and marketing considerations. I have developed three solution styles to address the problems.
1: Hang the crossover on the outside/back of the cabinet (with a covering grille)
2: Locate it in a ventilated and isolated sub-base
3: Locate it in a separate enclosure a couple feet behind the cabinet.
Let’s look at some problems.
A: Temperature fluctuations are destructive. Components’ electrical values change with temperature, more than a little - enough to make a notch filter not match its target driver resonance, etc. A hot resister can influence or even melt a cap. Driver coils can burn out or come loose. Note that all elements generate heat, not just resistors. Jim used small-gauge coils where appropriate because their dissipation factor is better than a small resistor. Heat dissipates by convection into a cooler ambient environment, but about 80% of the heat is dissipated by direct radiation. So, keep components away from other components and away from elements that reduce direct radiation. Note, we can increase dissipation by raising components off the board for 360° radiation and convection. This improvement is only possible when we isolate the xo from the vibratory environment in the cabinet where all components must be locked down.
A special case is temperature inside the sealed cabinet, which can reach about 200°F. I am venting the enclosure via small diameter air inlet on the bottom and outlet on the back near the top for convection air-flow. Long-term sessions remain more sonically consistent via more consistent ambient temperature.
A difficult case is cooling the voice coil. An aluminum VC former connected to aluminum diaphragm works great - the cone can get hot enough to sizzle spit. But resultant electrical eddy currents are sonically degrading. The bullet phase plug (such as the 3.6 midrange) allows airflow to the coil. I have developed a heat sink on the back of the cabinet for each feed wire to draw heat directly from the wire while electrically isolating them to avoid eddy currents. The motor structure gets surprisingly warm in heavy use. I’m hooking a drain wire from the back plate to a heat sink on the cabinet back to dissipate heat as well as drain the electrical charge which accumulates from the relative motion of the parts.
Thiel speakers have always been considered best as small signal systems most suitable for simple music rather than rock or Wagner. Taken together these heat management methods move Thiels toward more robust use.
That’s all for now. Next session I’ll speak to EMF and other fields.
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.
