So, how do I get this new technology into my 3.7s?
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!
13,494 responses Add your response
tmsrdg, The last iteration, which implemented this new technology, had me scratching my head. It was very obvious something significant changed from the last iteration, This is when I just wanted to sit back and listen to music thru these monitors. We didn't conduct any tests with CS 5i after this. After we listened to the last song, Tom clapped in applause to what was experienced. I immediately asked Tom if this can be done with my beloved CS5i and he said "absolutely" and every other Thiel speaker. I was so motivated from this, that being in a 117 degree attic in the south, in the mid of summer addressing the issues Tom and I agreed needed attention, doesn't even calculate with me. I'm on a mission. Next visit Tom will have a fully upgraded pair of SCS4 with their new stands. |
tmsrdg - it’s weird stuff, and addresses something where Thiel already excels. The terrain is the integrity (or not) of how the driver energy translates into the limp air-mass for you to hear detail. Thiel’s bezels, waveguides and curved baffles with pebbled finishes all address this issue. But further research demonstrates the audible effects of wavelaunch turbulence. In short, the moving driver diaphragm moves air up to its modulus of deformation - it misbehaves as it tries to establish a coherent wavefront in the air. By modifying the surface to better manage the sheer forces and turbulence in the boundary layer between the non-moving baffle surface and the moving propagation wave, we define wave-fronts with considerably more integrity. Douglas has patented two interlocking technologies: one addressing the propagation surfaces and the other managing the boundary layer behavior in the port itself. I was exposed to this nascent tech in 2018 and have been co-developing it for these past 5 years. A surprise is hearing a type of sonic improvement where you wouldn’t expect needing any. |
I'll throw some thoughts into the mix. Critical listening in an unknown space with unfamiliar gear and recordings is a challenge. In this case, the room had been designed to be modifiable for feedback from FuzzMeasure analysis, with which I am quite familiar and fairly adept. The room features a structured masonry / brick front wall and solid, infill masonry side walls. Such a rigid room makes for exceptionally clean sound, but carries downsides of pesky modal behavior. We borrowed 2' behind the listener from an adjoining room for a tunable chamber. Room side, right behind the listeners, is a unique porous wood-sliver panel, floor to ceiling, wall to wall. The acoustical panel drop ceiling at 10' has a 2' x room-sized chamber above to generalize the floor-to-ceiling modes. That sealed chamber still needs two short dividing walls to isolate it from a very large attic space. Chasing slap echoes, tuning modes and identifying further work to be done on the 4 deep-set windows consumed much of our time. We used music along with test tones and sweeps for this work - any music with broad-range content would work - and did. By Sunday morning we could compare and contrast the playback system elements under consideration. Reference cables included Morrow and Straightwire as well-known to me, and some serious foreign contenders that Max knew and loved. We settled on the Morrow as baseline to demonstrate my TRX interconnects and internal hookup wire. TRX is Thiel Renaissance X (24th iteration) - of major conparisons, not all TR. We benchmarked via Benchmark, Iconoclast, Cardas, Audience, Straightwire, Kimber, Morrow, and many home-brews to try out ideas as they surfaced. Suffice to say this wire dive was way deeper than the original late 70s exploration, the 1988 CS5 re-examination and the 2005 survey for the CS3.7. Incremental progress was made via input from the above-mentioned collaborators as well as advanced interaction with MIT operatives. I am aware of wire skepticism. My approach is not fundamentally skeptical, but is strictly evidence-based as well as requiring theoretical foundations. This family of analog signal cables embodies those requirements. Most of all, it must perform demonstratively well on all fronts. I have employed a hefty handful of listeners along this trail. This trip expanded to include duramax747's assessment. Feedback/ input has been extremely consistent and positive. Disappointments and dead ends have mostly been attributable to available materials and compromised methods of the prototyper's constraints. If I were to propose adjectives, they run toward clarity, detail, and depth of structure. All support Thiel's core performance attribute of 'vivid solidity'. The measurements support the subjective sonic experience. The outcome reflects the lessons learned along this deep-dive journey. We are especially encouraged because among prototyping limitations is working with available materials and methods. I use magnet wire with polyamidimide insulation - far from audiophile standards. My positioning filler is fibrated polypropylene, which is first-rate, but my hand twisting loom is far from the precision of real planetary machinery. A technical description of the cable will have to wait for decisions by the working group as to IP concerns. Back to Max's room near Charlotte - we had various iterations of the SCS4 from stock Thiel to fairly hot-rodded - TRX internal wire to outboard XO with serpentine layout honoring waveguide principles with elements arranged for optimized field interaction, upgraded cabinet edge treatment, custom proprietary multi-segment caps from Reliable, and fluid dynamic wavelaunch technologies from Douglas Pauley. This wavelaunch tech is the most surprising and exciting aspect of this redevelopment work. I would have never thought that Thiel's already excellent anti diffraction wavelaunch could be qualitatively improved. The improvement allows the soundfield to hang in space. Max's first response after demonstration regarded 'projection'. Among the multiple causes of that 3-D spatial projection, Doug's wavelaunch tech leads the pack. I believe that we have developed synergistic, meaningful, cost-effective methods to take my brother's designs to a higher performance plateau without modifying any of his work and achievements. I am encouraged. Back to music. Max had a variety of big, bold, well-made recordings. I used two for orientation: Patty Larkin's 'A-Go-Go' which is a composite of live, on-stage recordings / one woman with her guitar with minimal artifacts. Straight-forward, well-done music making by a master whom I know, who's guitar and maker I know well, and that I have heard live in my small village venue. I believe I know her musical intentions. The other was Dana Cunningham's premiere 'Dancing at the Gate' which I produced from a simple music-school stereo recording to DAT and mastered with no compression, EQ or other artifacts. Contemplative piano on the half shell. My post-Thiel life includes lots of piano involvement including an innovative bridge and soundboard bracing system. These artists are interesting, involving and careful with their presentation. Subtle playback system mods track better when we care about the music. Last weekend was a wonderful musical experience for me. |
jafant, This really wasn’t about gear. It was about testing the room and proving concept. it wasn’t until the third day (Sunday) that we really listened to music. Even then it wasn’t ideal as my tube pre amp left channel wasn’t firing so we worked around it. Our next visit I’m hoping to have a BAT VK-90 pre amp. I’m also working on some Bricasti M32 mono as well.We will have a little variety to test a few amps and pre amps. I also have the Esoteric K-01XD on hand as well as highly modified Wadia DAC from their glory days. Above I mentioned gear used which was Pass Labs XA 200.5 amps and Bricasti M1 SII DAC and M19 SACD spinner. We used Tom's Benchmark gear as well. |
@duramax…during the short transport from the car into my house one of the speakers suffered a fairly noticeable surface scratch on its back, otherwise both were in excellent condition. The scratch didn’t pierce the veneer but it is there if you listen from the rear. Doh! As someone who has previously owned a few models on the past, I will say that my immediate impression is that these are the closest to what I loved most about the 3.5’s - that at low and moderate volume level they leave nothing to be desired. I played a couple of tunes that I like to use when seeing what a speaker is capable of doing. “Crocus” by Ani DiFranco and “ Down To The Well” by Kevin Gordon. (With more than a helping hand from Lucinda Williams.) The former for the bass and the latter for overall timbre. The CS’s didn’t let me down. The only thing I can say about the treble is that it strikes me as being a little less resolute than what I got from 2.4’s and 3.6’s, but this is quibbling. I am cussing respectfully the legacy of Thiel with these only because I find that placing the connections on the bottom of a 170 pound Easter Island sculpture is just…. I won’t be cable swapping on these any time soon. Updated pics in virtual systems. Thanks to everyone. |
oblong, Great choice of speaker in Thiel line. I have a pair in zebra wood. Unfortunately mine has some cosmetic issues from shipping. I discussed this with Tom and my plan is to refinish them with a beautiful automotive finish. I have new grill cloths and drivers so it will look like a new speaker when I'm done. I'll get photos when I get her make-up on. |
Tom, I’ll get some images of the room soon. Meanwhile I have my list of "To Do’s" that needs to be accomplish before your second visit. I had a customer stop by the other day to pick up some parts we made for his Clearaudiio turntable. He wanted to see the room and was like a kid in a candy store. The custom bass traps you designed Tom was one of the design elements in the room he was intrigued with. The floor was another as well as the overall design and vibe of the room. Next visit I hope we can give the CS 7.2 & CS 2.4SE the mic and let them sing. Exciting stuff. |
Hello all - it was quite a trip with driving nearly 3000 miles and Thiel Renaissance business in PA, Lexington, Charlottesville, Bluemont VA and the storm of a lifetime in Northern MA after dark yesterday. Three days with Max near Charlottesville were to tune our mutually designed and constructed room and to demonstrate my new tech to Max. The prongs of the work interact, and we got enough accomplished with the room to move ahead with the SCS4 demo. I haven't been exposed to the level of equipment I heard here. The last Pass amp I heard was the Aleph 0 in the mid 90s when Nelson used our CS3.6 as his design load. These XA200.5s are a huge leap forward (at $38K/ pair new). I am also unfamiliar with Max's cables - perhaps you can tell us about them. I took my reference Benchmark stack and Morrow cable. We used the BM HPA3 after Max's tube preamp going down. But what we heard was glorious. We can answer questions about the room and perhaps Max might publish some photos. It is special. Because the SCS4 is way down the performance chain from Max's CS5i pair, it was a challenge to set the stage for demonstrating my tech with them. But, piece by piece the picture came into focus and both our eyes and ears were really opened when we heard the upgraded SCS4s driven by the Pass 200.5s. What we do for the Love of Music!
|
jafant, The cabling for final listening test was Tom's which is what will be the internal cabinet wiring as well. I'll let Tom speak to the specifics regarding that. We were not focused on gear as much as sweeping the room and getting the room correct. This room was a tremendous undertaking and we had to tune the room accordingly. Being in an attic in the south in July will question ones dedication to our beloved hobby that's for sure. Again I will let Tom speak on the room but this was a custom designed room from Tom to create a space that would be ideal to listen to the entire line on Thiel speakers. I will say, the room was designed so at the listening chairs only the first wave from speakers was heard and not second/third reflection off floor/ceiling/walls. Minimal dampening was implemented to keep the room right at the edge of lively. Who wants dead harmonics? I had a tube socket go bad at the very beginning of our testing so we were without this tube preamp the remainder of our testing which was a shame as it was very promising the little we heard. Digital was Bricasti M1 SII Dac mated with Bricasti M19 SACD. Amps used were a set of monos Tom brought and a set of Pass Labs XA 200.5. I also had other amps and digital on hand but we ran out of time to even consider them. To be honest, the final listening session there was no need in our minds to do anything else regarding gear. Tom can verify that we set ourselves up at a complete disadvantage. I did not want any placebo effects. If what we were doing was real it had to earn it. And it did not disappoint The room still needs revisions, as we knew it would when it was designed. We ran out of time. Three days we were at it. Freon went out on AC and room was getting quite toasty with massive Class A amps that were throwing some heat, as I wanted to push the amps/speakers to clear here throat and see the limitations of the room. This was intentional so we could address/devise a plan while Tom was there. My homework assignment is to go through our list for the room methodically and have it ready for a second visit. Tom will bring a market ready version of the SCS4, my pair, with newly designed stands that will house the external covers and his new cap technology. There will be You Tube links to demonstrate the room and the speakers when that second visit occurs. We also hope to have a Thiel Renaissance equipment rack in the listening room as well. Lots of behind the scene stuff. Christmas is one day. The remaining 364 days the elves are behind the scenes. It looks like the clouds are parting and a new sunny day will soon be upon Thiel's. horizon and a bright horizon I imagine that will be.
|
| Post removed |
Reporting in as to the progress made regarding Thiel Renaissance. I had the pleasure of having the man himself, Tom Thiel, come for a visit to evaluate what he has been working on the last few years. This was a planned visit for almost a year but delays postponed our meeting. A room was designed and built with the intent that this room would be the stable for Thiel CS 5i. Room dimensions 20' w x 16' x 10'. We listened to the CS 5i Thurs.-Sunday. Both of us had a very good baseline as to how this speaker was behaving in this room. The point of this visit was to listen to the work Tom performed and see if it had merit. The truth being told I didn't want to swap out the CS 5i for the SCS4 monitors. Reluctantly we moved the monitors in and set them up in one channel. We went through 3 iterations of Toms upgrades. Each one was a very clear/audible improvement. When we arrived at the finally version it had my interests. I asked Tom can we listen in stereo. He set up speakers and we went through the play list we had been using. Our evaluation was on the mids and highs as you cannot compare the CS 5i bottom end to a monitor nor most speakers as it delivers the goods. We listened to 5-6 tracks and I refused to believe what I was hearing. These little monitors with all the upgrades out performed my beloved CS 5i hands down. It wasn't even close. The pure musicality of this speaker could not be denied. It had crystal clear clarity, notes had the right amount of weight to them, they were fast, presented an intimacy I don't think I've heard, soundstage was wide and layered with all the images outlined. This was all from a 6" mid woofer. The bass was very good. It had plenty of punch and projection. It made its older bother sound lethargic in comparison. When the last track finished playing, Tom clapped in applause as to the performance we witnessed. It was memorable for sure. We had to start packing Tom up and we had the conversation that these improvements can be performed on "all" existing Thiel speakers in the market place. My thoughts started turning in my head, about seeking vindication, that this small monitor came into my barn taking the title of stud away from the CS 5i. Immediately after I asked Tom "So when can my CS 5i get done with all these upgrades and outriggers"? Come to think of it my CS 2.4SE, CS 2.7, CS 6, and CS 7.2 as well.
|
| Post removed |
JA asked me to share my thoughts on the new preamp i got a few weeks ago. so here goes: I also posted it as a separate thread. That Transformational piece of Gear We All Wish For I suspect most of the music/audio lovers on this web site have wished for that piece of gear that literally transforms their system? I know i have. I have been going down this audio rabbit hole since the mid 70’s, and there have been a few pieces that made a really nice improvement to my system (the PS Audio P20 Power plant being one of them). However (and this comment only applies to pre-amps and amps and no other category), nothing that I can ever recall has so energized and improved my system in so many ways as my new pre-amp. I have owned some really fine brands in the past including Pass, Coda, ARC, PS Audio, Rowland, and more, but now I am a BAT Man for sure. The new pre-amp is the BAT VK-80 and I love that beast. I hope everyone reading this will get a chance someday to try one in their system. I know he is a controversial figure, but Kevin Deal’s review of this piece is so right on. He really loves it too and rightfully so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv2swa55JXo
My system consists of: Thiel 3.7 speakers Coda 16 power amp PS Audio DSD DAC MK II PS Audio Perfect Wave transport PS Audio P20 power plant BAT VK 80 preamp |
vair68robert - Good for you.What you call 'smooth with the 400uF cap, some have also called 'refined'. My word is 'homogenized'. The smoothness is definitely a loss of information, notably in the time domain. You do want the 550uF value. That's a tuned circuit which is no longer properly tuned if the component values are wrong. The de-tuning would be more apparent with loud and/or complex music. |
Yes the difference was definitely an improvement , the definition improved with the speed of the 100uf vs a 400uf which makes for a smoother sound . The original 220uf and 330uf caps and the two sets of replacement electrolytics that were supposed to be +/- 5% were all about 10% over so I replaced the 330 with a 300 to get closer to 550uf , I didn't hear any difference but I wanted as close to schematic values as possible .
|
Two questions: 1 - Could you tell any difference between the single 400uF vs the 4 x 100uF midrange feed caps? 2 - Are you saying that you had to use a different cap value to attain the 550uF target? If so, that's odd because electrolytics generally decrease in value with time. Your thoughts, please. BTW, the parasitics of the large caps don't hurt much in the shunt resonance circuit. |
Tom As always your knowledge continues to educate and guide us in our appreciation for the work that Jim and the Thiel staff created . As for the higher than 100uf capacitors used on the 2.7s crossovers , I have been able to fit 4 x 100uf caps replacing the 0ne 400uf on the mid positive side but there was no room to replace the 330 and 220uf caps on the negative side , although I did end up with a 300 and 220 cap to dial in the exact designed value within 1%. Thank You |
Hello folks - I can't speak to why, how and who prefers what balance in their setup. I am glad that Robert preferred the 2.7 as designed. I can speak to what goes into the stock balance. Two+ years of Thiel home team, knowing very well Jim's goals, design approaches and musical outcomes were invested in the speaker as-is. As background, note that those resistor values under question are complemented by the resistances of the shunt-to-common resonant filters. Changing the feed resistance should be balanced by addressing those shunt values. Note also that those balanced circuits form a mirror of the Thiele/Small parameters of the drivers being filtered. Changing the net values will unbalance the filter with its driver load characteristics. These imbalances are heard as what one of my listening partners has called 'slow jitter' - a kind of instability in the music. Note also the make-up of those midrange and tweeter resistances. Note that there is a coil in series with the resistors. That small-gauge winding wire is used as a trimming element in that circuit. Ever wonder why Thiel coils are gauged? (14, 16, 18, 20, 22.) Not an accident and not cost-saving. Now, look at the resistors in question. Notice that they are not single-value resistors, but a pair to trim to some non-standard value. The midrange has a 20awg coil (with its resistance) plus a pair @ 8.5 and 2 ohm for a net of 1.62 ohms. Similarly for the tweeter. Probably obvious that I'm highlighting that these values are tweaked, and tweaked, and re-tweaked after the finalized product logs some use-history. In this case, Hometeam Thiel worked with Warkwyn/Canada and the Canadian Research Laboratory to trim to neutrality. All this is to say that someone's preference for some other tweak is their business, but getting it right is far beyond the abilities of most. My personal experience of the 2.7 includes evaluating the final prototypes on their return from Canada - in direct comparison with their reference CS3.7 in Thiel's music room using (among others) Jennifer Warnes singing Leonard Cohen's 'The Ballad of the Runaway Horse' in duet with Rob Wassermann on bass in pure mic-feed presentation. The presentation of the 3.7 and 2.7 was extremely similar / undistinguishable in tonal balance. Relative shortcomings of the 2.7 were in the areas of textural and harmonic detail which I attribute to big electrolytic caps which were out of bounds in Jim's approach. Let's look at why those caps are there - it's not just cost, it's that the fundamental design requires them and this fundamental design would not have been considered by Jim. But, Thiel Audio needed to prove its ability to produce a follow-on product after Jim's death, and this model 2 was their best shot. I say they pulled it off. But looking with a long lens, the niche of the model 2 has always been that smaller rooms and lower SPL allow a smaller midrange and woofer, both allowing intrinsically lower distortion mechanisms. The 2s behave better with their easier demands. But this product borrows the 3.7 midrange which was designed to cross an octave lower than the 2.7 into the model 3's larger 10" woofer. The 2.4 (and 2.7) woofer was optimized for rolling off nicely an octave higher than the model 3. So, shoe-horning that midrange into a box it was not designed to fit requires some brute force. BTW, the woofer circuit doesn't have the same problem because it is the 2.4 woofer designed to cross where the 2.7 crosses. Let's take a little trip. What midrange should the CS2.7 (2.8?) have. It would be the coax Jim was developing for the CS7.3 which would have smaller diaphragms than the 3.7 version. The model 7 low-cut is much higher than the model 3 and would work well with the mythical 2.7/8. Note also, the tweeter diaphragm could be and might have been smaller for considerably greater integrity, and with higher frequency breakup. In Thiel-land the tweeter design must accommodate high excursions in 3-digit frequencies due to the 6dB net rolloff. Jim wanted a 2.4-like mechanical crossover for that coax. New thought could have produced a next-generation passively coupled mid-high coax eliminating the electronic XO circuit between the midrange and tweeter. Now, pair that with an improved 8" woofer. Can you smell magic? |
Awhile back there was discussions about adding a resistor in series with both the tweeter and mid-range speakers on the 2.7 coax speaker . I was communicating with Rob and he suggested using a 2.5 ohm resistor and had heard that 2.7 ohm sounded good , another Thiel owner said he used a 3 ohm resistor and like the sound . I listened for weeks and then took them out and my opinion is without the resistors in sounds better. or even a lot better . While with them there were songs songs and a few early 60's the benefited from the damping of the higher frequencies but when listening to all music it sounded more 2 D or a flatter and narrower sound stage . I curious what using a lower value resistor would sound like . |