yyz - Bill didn't actually make a very firm recommendation. He said that this unit, the SCD-1 has a thermal dissipation problem, which he elevated to a design flaw that shortens its life. He acknowledged that most audiophiles leave their gear up 24/7, and that is generally best because thermal cycling is what does the damage. When I probed, he said that knowing what he has seen over the years, he would probably take a hybrid approach, leaving it up when in steady use, but shutting it down when it would be unused for awhile. He didn't specify how long awhile is. I would conjecture that a couple to a few days might be awhile.
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!
13,501 responses Add your response
"
cascadesphil which modded 83 do you own? I know that Oppo built a Special Edition 83." I have the regular 83 with the Modwright solid state mod (to all channels - in my old house at the time I had a Bryston SP1.7 as a pre/pro for my integrated AV system which was used via the multi-channel analog inputs). At the time I decided to do the mod, I was using a Marantz DV9600 (https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/marantz-dv9600.72633/) as a universal player and after the mod the BDP-83 was better than the Marantz. Since I'm 100% file playback now (unless someone brings discs over and that less than once/year - and, before I took hi-rez audio files from the few concert Blu-Rays I have, I used it once in a bit to listen to the hi-rez PCM mixes), the player is connected via the coax digital to my DAC (EMM Labs DAC 2X) and therefore I don't use most of the mods done to it. |
jafant - Bill says it’s an endemic problem, they all succomb sooner or later depending on how much uptime they’ve had. He says mine looks like it may have been powered-up for long spells which develops more heat. Some of the surface-mount components are discolored and/or wave solder joints may be intermittent. The problems are isolated to the SACD section. It played SACDs when I got it from the Thiel auction, but after a day, the bay door stopped working. I took it to a local repair shop who couldn’t really deal with it, and then sent it to Bill many months ago. The CD section played fine for me and for Bill; he aligned and lubricated the tray mechanisms and fixed a ground for the door circuit. Since I am not a hobbyist or collector, and my studio / life is presently disrupted, I just want it gone. If anyone wants it, I’d be pleased to get reimbursed for Bill’s bench fee (unknown as yet, but nominal.) I see that SCD-1 player as possibly the most iconic piece of industrial design in our arena. Any takers? |
I gave up disc spinners some time ago. Yes I still have them for video and extras (like a modded Oppo BDP-83 which gets little use but is there if someone brings a disc over - it is set-up to convert SACD discs to 88.2kHz and send it to my EMM Labs DAC 2X via a coax digital cable). I've been ripping SACDs for many years and also ripping them for others (and happy to do it) when they wanted to convert to file playback. My SACDs are in a closet. Yes with file playback you need to keep back-ups but a disc spinner will at some point will no longer be usuable. Before file playback, I used an HDMI audio de-embedder (with an an upgraded power supply) and took the 88.2kHz files directly to a good DAC. |
@tomthiel Some considerations when looking to use a disc spinner as a SACD transport: The PS Audio solution is pretty much limited to coupling their Perfectwave Transport to one of their own DACs via a fairly proprietary I2S connection. It’s an elegant solution, although rather expensive. I have a friend who has this setup. Otherwise, the approach I would consider would be to employ the Geerfab D.BOB (Digital Breakout Box) which is a $1000 item that sits between an SACD spinner with HDMI out (like an OPPO) and a DAC supporting DOP (DSD over PCM) via its COAX or Toslink input. The Benchmark DAC3B is a compatible DAC. Note if connecting a spinner directly to a DAC via COAX or Toslink, you will not be able to access an SACD’s DSD layer (only the CD layer of a hybrid SACD). An alternative solution, and the one that I employ, is to rip SACDs to my music server, and then use Roon to play them (you could do this with JRiver or some such as well) using a DAC that supports DOP (in my case a Chord Qutest). The ripping process is somewhat involved, so won’t get into that here ... but if interested, can provide guidance. Hope this helps. Feel free to PM me directly. |
tomthiel Thank You for the SCD-1 update. What a shame? Did Bill expound upon the aspect(s) that are non(un)- repairable? On the other hand (OTOH), there has never been a better time to purchase a CD/SACD spinner. Of course, I will suggest Accuphase, Ayre or Marantz, for openers. Regarding OPPO, I found the 105 too smooth for my taste. Most of these players will playback discs and files. Something for all Audiophiles. I have not heard a PS Audio disc spinner to date. The newest one is advertised as their best technology to date. Paul offers beta-testing, this could make for a gateway to ownership. Keep me posted as this talk is right up my alley. Happy Listening! |
I own the DAC3B and sold the HPA4 recently. I made money on the sale and no longer needed a headphone amp. I also bought the Benchmark LA4 preamp a few days ago. The DAC3B and HPA4 work great with the AHB2. Nothing I have had is as silent. However, if your system is a little on the bright side of things (sources, speakers, cables). Then the DAC3B and HPA4 may not be a great fit. Check out a Gustard X26 Pro at $1500 which is a little warmer and also works nicely with the HPA4. Saying all of this I do like the DAC3B, especially with hard rock. |
As far as disc spinners go (I'm into file playback), Oppo has an excellent track record (and I have a bunch of Oppo players still) but they the 105 will be 5 years old in a few months and who knows how much longer it will be supported. Besides the used market, there's stuff like - https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/category/cdplayer/home-audio/audio-components/cd-sacd-... I'd think among the best transports today (depends on budget of course) are these - https://www.esoteric.jp/en/category/sacd_cd_player |
All - I just got word from Bill Thalmann at Music Technology that the SACD section of Thiel's SCD-1 is not economically repairable. I am abandoning the machine at Bill's place in Virginia. Anyone interested in it for any use may contact him. Now, I'm exploring solutions for CD/SACD spinning. He soups up the Oppo 105 and 205, or PS Audio's entry sounds interesting. Any thoughts or recommendations? |
sdl4 - Thank you for your comparative brief. I doubt that I'm alone in not finding many opportunities to compare cables or much other equipment first hand. Your listening notes are helpful in forming a reference as to how these outlier brands compare to the better-known and more-discussed audiophile offerings. I pay close attention to others who do their careful listening and share those results without an accompanying agenda. I came upon Vovox via recommendations from pro recordists whom I respected. Similarly, Morrow came recommended by someone whose ears I trust. Both brands stand up to my own comparisons, but I use Vovox as mic cables and I lack the opportunity to compare against Cardas or other high-end, well known offerings. High-performance, low-cost cables fit the Thiel ethos - that's what we worked to offer, and I would like cables with that same value orientation. Thanks again for your comparisons. I look forward to your further listening notes. Long interconnect runs carry their own hazards. Your experience helps us when deliberating that configuration. |
jafant, I don't know whether I will try a full loom of Vovox at this point. If I do decide to get a 5-meter pair of Vovox Sonorus interconnects to make the change to a "longer XLR - shorter speaker cable" set-up, I will then have my current 1m Vovox XLRs to try between DAC and preamp, combined with new 5m Vovox XLRs between preamp and amps. If that arrangement sounds better than the Cardas-Vovox combination I'm using now, I will eventually go that route. For now, I'm going to live with the combo XLRs for a while to be sure that works for me long-term. I have heard that the Vovox XLRs don't change in sound much between shorter and longer lengths, so I'm assuming the 1m Vovox will have the same sound signature as a 5m Vovox. I haven't tried any other Vovox wire so I don't know how their power cables, speaker cables, etc. would sound in my system. In my reading of pro audio forums, I have seen a few comments that support the use of Vovox Sonorus interconnects selectively rather than at all stages of the recording/mastering process. I guess some users think that the clarity and openness of the Vovox can be "too much of a good thing" when used throughout the process. On the other hand, some users have wired their entire studios with Vovox and rave about how "live" it sounds. I know that Tom Thiel really likes Vovox Sonorus as a mic cable in recordings he has made. I mentioned earlier that Vovox has a more expensive cable line (called Excelsus). They also have a less expensive line called Link. All three lines (Link, Sonorus, and Excelsus) include both shielded and unshielded cables. The unshielded cables tend to sound better as long as extensive noise rejection is not needed. |
jafant, I got my Vovox cables from ProAudioLA. They typically deal with online orders, but they do have people who answer the phone if you have questions. I think they do have an actual store in California, but I don't live in that part of the country. For most cables, they buy the wire in bulk and terminate the cables themselves (with a lifetime guaranty). For Vovox cables, all the terminations are done in Switzerland by Vovox, and the finished cables are shipped to U.S. dealers for sale over here. By the way, I've read a lot of pro audio engineers who post online saying that the Vovox Sonorus is the cable to demo for sound engineers who don't think that cables make a difference. Vovox also makes a more expensive line of cables that I have not heard, and I don't know who carries them. |
am confident that I am not alone in thinking that there are instances where the CS 2.7 and/or the CS 3.7 would require subwoofers. That's a timely comment for me, as I just spent the last couple days checking out my new CJ amplifiers. I've used the CJ Premier 12s for 20 years and just grabbed a pair of Premier 12s that had been upgraded with lots of the CJ "Art" series upgrades, Teflon caps, works better with KT120 tubes etc. Wow, it's literally sounds like my speakers got bigger! The bass depth and soundstage are just huge, and seem to give up little to nothing to what I remember from my Thiel 3.7s. And it sounds better to me than with the subwoofers I had (which I just sold). In no way would I dissuade anyone from adding subwoofers to their speakers, Thiel or otherwise, as there are plenty of happy listeners who have done so. But having had the 3.7s, and the 2.7s with subs, I'd take the sound I'm getting now any day. |
tomthiel, I wanted to follow up with you based our July discussion of pro audio mic cables used as interconnects for home audio use. You asked me to share any new info from my in-home demo of a few popular balanced cables from the pro audio world. So here's where I'm at: As I've mentioned before, I currently use Cardas Clear Reflection balanced XLRs (in 1m lengths) between my PS Audio DirectStream DAC and a BHK preamp and then between the preamp and my M700 monoblock amps. The Cardas CR cables sound great, but I'm planning to switch to using longer interconnects (at least 5m) so that I can significantly shorten my runs of speaker wire. Ideally, I'd like to find an XLR cable that sounds great but isn't too expensive in a 5-meter length. After reading about several highly regarded balanced interconnect/mic cables on a major pro audio forum, I bought 1m lengths of Grimm TPR and Vovox Sonorus Direct S (unshielded) to compare in my home system. Although these cables are considered a bit expensive within the pro audio world, they are substantially cheaper than balanced XLRs in the audiophile market. I've listed my impressions of these cables below, with the caveat that this is how they sound to me in my own system with each cable connected between the preamp and amp (with a Cardas CR upstream between the DAC and preamp). Listening was preceded by 48 hours of initial break-in, but I can't rule out the possibility of changes in sound after further break-in. Music sources were WAV files played back via USB from an Innuos Zen Mk3 server or streamed tracks from Qobuz also played back through the Zen. An Innuos Phoenix was used between the Zen and the DAC, with USB cables from Shunyata and DH Labs. Maybe my expectations about the Grimm TPR were too high, but I was somewhat disappointed by what I heard. It's not that the cable sounded bad, it's just that it sounded a bit veiled as if it was softening any exaggerated transients or edginess to produce a pleasant sound. This effect tended to suck the life out of the music. In contrast, my usual Cardas CR was smooth and musical while still allowing a lot of detail and "life" to come through. The Grimm did create a solid center image for voices, but the width of the soundstage was narrowed a bit compared to other XLRs I've heard. The sound of the Vovox Sonorus was markedly different! The Vovox was much more open, lively, and "real" sounding in my system. More detail was reproduced, but the sound was not harsh or etched. In some systems, I suspect the Vovox could become a little bright on poor recordings, but on my system this was not a problem (possibly due to the Phoenix USB reclocker and the Cardas CR in the upstream path). For me, the Vovox always seemed very musical, and live recordings seemed especially "alive." Voices and individual instruments stood out in their own spaces while still blending together naturally. Compared to the Cardas, the Vovox was a bit brighter while the CR was smoother, sweeter, and a bit more refined. Listening fatigue was not a problem with either the Vovox or the Cardas in my system. Given that a 5-meter XLR pair of the Cardas CR would cost nearly 10x the cost of the Vovox, I'm seriously considering adding a 5m Vovox pair to my system in place of the CR cables between the preamp and amps. This change would add a bit of Vovox's liveliness to my existing system and would set me up well to upgrade to shorter (and possibly more expensive) speaker cables. And after all, my Thiel 2.2 speakers deserve the best cables I can afford. @jafant I also wanted to urge you to take a look/listen at the Vovox Sonorus as part of your cable quest. I know you've been able to demo some Swisscables already, but here's another Swiss cable (from a different company) you shouldn't miss. |
Ok, I’m not getting the excitement for Thiel speakers. I’m listening to some CS1.2’s and find them to be extremely light sounding. Absolutely no bass whatsoever... I do recognize the sounstaging is very good; however, they have no meat on the bones. I’m not looking for deep bass, just looking for something... Right now, I’m driving them with a Rega Brio... What am I missing? |
@Jafant, am confident that I am not alone in thinking that there are instances where the CS 2.7 and/or the CS 3.7 would require subwoofers. Utilizing a proper power amp will not unto itself act as an equalizer to yield aural results across the frequency spectrum beyond the scope of a loudspeakers limitations. There was a reason that Jim Thiel made other models besides the 2 and later 3 series that had a broader aural frequency spectrum range, as well as a range of subwoofers to facilitate a broader aural frequency range. |
Many pages back - in fact several years ago now! - I was writing about how I'd purchased some JL Audio Subwoofers and a JL Audio CR-1 crossover to finally try adding subs to the system. At the time the main motivation was seeing how close I could get the slightly smaller 2.7s to sound like the 3.7s I sold. But then generally I also just wanted to finally give subs a good go since so many people rave about them (though I've never had a great experience). It certainly says something about my level of enthusiasm that I only got around to really checking them out a couple weeks ago! The stuff just sat around forever because I never felt compelled, because subwoofer stuff is a hassle, and in my case an even bigger hassle since my source equipment/amplification is way down the hallway from my listening room. This necessitates having lots of really long interconnects to even do testing, and if I wanted the subs to stay I'd have to run the wires through my wall, along my basement ceiling etc. So I kept putting it off. Also, I was fairly limited in where I could..or would...place subs in my room. I had one placed near the wall a few feet behind the Thiels, and another behind the listening sofa hidden. I hate...HATE....the look of subwoofers and never cared for even seeing one of them in the room. I go for as clean an aesthetic as possible. But...was willing to try. To report on how it went: I had first tried the subs using the high level input of the subwoofers only, running them "REL style" with the Thiels run full range. It added a bit of richness to the sound, but also took away the more open, incisive tone I liked. Also sounded a bit dynamically limp. I finally got around to using the CR-1 crossover which was an amazing piece of gear. All analog high quality crossover - as far as I could tell transparent and not taking away or adding from the signal. The controls for setting the crossover points and the other controls are so simple, intuitive and effective. I started out only with the sub behind my sofa. That was a "hail mary" attempt, the one I'd be most likely to keep if it worked, since at least it was out of sight. But, a challenging location. (I did level and phase dialing in using the sound doctor instructions/signals). Frankly I was amazed how easy it was to dial in a pretty satisfactory blend of sub and sat, even with the subwoofer nearby behind me.It was mostly invisible, only occasionally making itself known in some low bass tracks. The challenge was dialing it in to the system without altering the tone that I like so much with the 2.7s. It was much easier to do so with the CR1 vs the subwoofer only. (I tried various crossover points, 24db curve, from 30hz up to 80 or 90hz). I should mention that the CR1 crossover has a button that can switch the subs in and out of the system, so I could immediately switch between my speakers run full range, or crossed over to the subs. Also, after a while I also put the subwoofer signal through my DSpeaker Anti-Mode dual core 2, which does room DSP for subwoofers. I like the unit a lot as it's super simple to use. It did flatten out the subwoofer/bass in the room a bit more, making the subs a bit more invisible sonically. Ultimately, the bass sounded maybe a little more even with the sub dialed in, the sound a little bit richer. Just a touch darker too. There was an emphasis of hearing the reverb in the recordings. It was very easy on the ears, almost sounding a bit rolled off, still a little darker than without the subs. And it was dynamically a bit more reticent, still. On tracks like Herbie Hancock's Chameleon, or Talk Talk's Happiness Is Easy, the drums "sat back" in the mix sounding less punchy. Disengaging the subs made the kick drums have that more realistic attack and "punch the air" sensation.Even instruments in the midrange and higher just seemed a bit less dense and present, like xylophones, synth tracks, bongos etc. Dynamically everything was just a bit too polite. No matter how I dialed the subs, and whatever the crossover. While I thought the sound with the subs was really good, every single time I listened without the subs I preferred what I heard: it was more alive and beautiful and open sounding, more dynamic, present, punchy...all the things I've been pushing my system toward. The same happened when I tried the other sub behind the speakers, and with the subs together. A telling track was Talos from the Jason And The Argonauts soundtrack, which has huge kettle drums doing "giant walking" beats. They sounded massive with the subwoofers in, but to my surprise with the subwoofers out, they sounded just as big and deep, but more dynamic and more "real, like they could be playing in front of me" as the upper midrange and treble seemed to open up. I thought that subs would at least be preferable for those tracks, but no. Ultimately, I decided I just didn't need the subs. I just sold the subs and the crossover, and since I don't need the Anti-mode I'll sell that too. And frankly it's all a relief. I'm happy to be shedding that extra gear, the extra wires, the extra AC cables, the extra hassle and complexity, getting better aesthetics in the room. The money will go to my "audio bank account" for sold gear. If I build up enough I may finally scratch my Devore itch and grab a pair of O/96 speakers second hand if I can find them. But I still don't envision selling the Thiel 2.7s. They are just too good, too even and competent across the board. |
jhouse55, The models you have will be very comparable in size to the pair in that review. The CS 5, CS 5i, C6 CS7, CS7.2 are a different story. The smaller models .375" thickness will be fine or even .500". For the larger models .625" thickness would be desirable. As mentioned I'm keeping a tally of members emailing me and when I get to a quantity that I feel we can proceed then I will. |
@duramax747 - Wow those look nice. I guess my top choice out of the three models I have would be the 2.2, then 1.2, then 3.5. I’ll keep a eye on this forum like I usually do to see updates from your posts. For now, count me in for a 2.2 set if you get other interests for that model. I’m not sure if you’ll get many more for the 1.2 or 3.5. Thanks! |
TomTweak - yes we are working on the same problem When I heard my first demonstration of the technology about 3 years ago, I and all dozen of us, were dumbfounded. It took about a year with inputs from physicists, recording experts and our own experimentation to get a small grasp of what's going on. Unlike your approach, mine is to organize the shear propagation "waves" along the surface such that their launch is clean. The resulting sound is pristine. My felt need came from that "sound" on the 3.6 baffle which we discussed here awhile back. But "it" is everywhere in various degrees and manifistations. My collaborator first approached "the problem" for known "sounds" in clarinet bells and key caps. I am presently developing skins for the Renaissance 02s under development. This effect is different from edge diffraction, which primarily affects specific frequency(s). This chaotic to sublime surface flow affects all frequencies - uncannily. Keep up your good work. TT |
Tom Thiel, In my work in designing endpins for cello and endbuttons for violins I met a geophysicist who showed me and explained to me how my devices actually work. I knew they sounded better but was uncertain as to why. She has a patent as how to remove a polarity of shear the mechanical wave motion that causes the air to vibrate. One polarity of shear can create interference in the other polarity, only one is needed to create vibration of air. Not sure if it is in the vertical or horizontal plane. With the removal of this single polarity you can see in the amplitude response a net gain of over 1 db. This was shown on all the harmonics of an 85 hz note out to 18khz. This interference is like a parasite that travels the surfaces and at some point becomes part of the music. There is a transition or handoff between a mechanical surface shear wave and the air that lays on them and becomes the sounds we hear. In the case of speakers I feel I have a large understanding of how to remove interfering energy from the speaker cabinet because there are devices that can help direct interference out and off the box and into the the floor. What I am trying to understand and you are working with I think, is the transition of the mechanical wave portion and how the now moving air is launched off the solid vibrating surface. How to make that air less turbulent at takeoff? Tom |
jhouse55, Go on line and search Thiel outriggers. There is a review from Tom Lyle from Enjoy the Music that shows copious photos of the outrigger for the 2.4SE. There was never outriggers designed for the models I mentioned and the ones you mentioned hence my willingness to offer these to the Thiel community. Rob at Coherent does not have outriggers for the models Thiel never designed them to go with as they came about towards the end of JT life. They will be very similar in design to the one Thiel made but the screw taps, length/width, and thickness for outrigger will vary slightly for each model. I'm not making one CAD file. I have to make a CAD file for each model then program, then initial set up of tooling before one part is even made. To keep cost down to end user I cannot make one as all the cost associated with making one, stated above, is absorbed into one unit. I'm keeping a list and when I get 2-3 orders of the same Thiel model from members I'll provide a price. Doing only one, I will not put all that effort into when I know the cost will be too high per unit. |
Tom - highly congested territory with more questions than answers. I have been working with turbulent / laminar flow for a couple of years now. I suggest you experiment with an open mind, since there is much more to the area than first appears. As a point of Thiel history, these multi-faceted problems of ports led Jim to migrate to passive radiators rather than ports. Note the model 1 which leap-frogged from ports to radiators, landing on that long, slotted low-turbulence port on the 1.6. There are too many issues to address here, but note that taking the port outboard exacerbates the problems of coupling the port’s output to the surrounding air. The baffle flush with the port end serves to support that transition. Moving your port outboard may reduce some internal turbulence, but at the expense of increased outboard turbulence. One thing I’ve learned is that the surface turbulences are audible, that they affect the full-range sound, not just the bass tuning frequencies, and that the particulars of the baffle surfaces surrounding the port have audible effects. I don’t know how that coin-toss of internal vs external would land. Please keep us posted about anything you learn. |
I received almost enough f10 wool felt to line 1 of my speakers. Really nice product thru Zorro. Took a couple of hours to cut amd fashion the wool around driver openings and the internal port tube. Used spray adhesive to secure all the pieces. Tom Thiel if your watching. I could remove the internal 6.5 in long port tube as it by placement must generate a negative influence on air pressure and and increase internal turbulence. I could extend the port length out the back of this design for my room only.Be pretty much a straight shot out the back behind the tweeter location. Your experience on this idea? Might be to ugly for even me and my dedicated room. But sound comes first..Tom |
