Beetlemania,
John Potis did the review. I have the boxes with the shipping label stating that. I looked and cannot find this review. He did the CS 2.4 then the CS 2.4SE as he compared the two.
Ive read it so I know its there but now cannot find it.
They were a Bloodwood pair with the SN# I mentioned. |
@duramax747
what article? Neither enjoythemusic or ultraaudio reviews mentions the SNs. I am really curious to know what boards are in those early units! Those reviews were raves. Did the reviewer’s DUTs have Lexington or FST boards? |
gwgjr31
Good to read that you own a pair of Gen 2 amps as well.
Happy Listening! |
brettmcee
Excellent Amp selection. The Ampzilla models are certainly capable in driving any Thiel loudspeaker. I believe that there is 1 other member on the Panel.
Happy Listening! |
Brettmcee,
Are you Ampzilla 2000s gen 1 or 2? I have a pair of Gen 2 which drive my CS5 and CS7.2 nicely. I don't always listen at high volumes, but I have certainly pushed them hard with no problems. So far, I find them to be in the same league as my Levinson 436s with the Thiels. Granted, I haven't had them long and need to do more A/B. |
rozd
Excellent! Always good to read about a Conrad Johnson fan and owner.
Agreed- depending on model, room dimensions count regarding Thiel Audio loudspeakers.
Happy Listening! |
duramax747
Thank You. I do recall reading that review. Were you the reviewer?
Did you purchase the review sample from an Audio critic?
Happy Listening! |
I had no problem getting the Thiel CS6 to sound stupendous in a room only 13’ X 15’ (though with a wide opening to the hall) and CJ premier 12 tube monoblocks.
|
Jafant
Thanks for the welcome. My system includes a Clearaudio Performance turntable with Grado Reference cartridge, Conrad Johnson Premier 17LS preamp as well as the McCormack DNA 500 and Thiel CS6. In a future home won’t have space in the family room for the Thiel’s so just purchased Dynaudio Heritage Special bookshelf speakers which will be used with a Thiel SS2 subwoofer. So far, very happy with these new speakers! |
jayant,
If you search the reviews for Thiel CS 2.4SE you will find sn# 005/006 as they were mentioned in the article. |
rozd1
Welcome! Good to see you here. McCormack/Thiel combination is well-represented in this thread. This pairing is well reviewed amongst the Panel.
What other gear rounds out your system?
Happy Listening! |
nagirrocpt
Welcome! Good to see you here.
Krell/Thiel is a sonic match. Nice to read about owning a KAV-400xi.
I have spent time with Nordost Blue Heaven and Red Dawn, not in a Thiel-based system, though. What other gear rounds out your system?
Happy Listening! |
duramax747
Thank You for citing those S/N on CS 2.4SE. That is incredible!
When/where did you find this wonderful loudspeaker?
Happy Listening! |
Same with cs5 and the 7.2 |
What are the low ohms on the cs6z feasible for a classe model 25? Or we talking krell realm |
Brettmcee. If you don't have a way to take measurements, send your speakers a mono signal and compare your left and right channel. Make sure they get the same source signal strength. Listen carefully if you can detect any differences between left and right channel. If there is a difference, determine the cause. |
I have used a McCormack DNA 500 with my pair of CS6 and have been completely satisfied. |
|
Hi All,
I mentioned earlier that I managed to get a hold of two mono block Ampzilla 2000’s to power my CS6’s. I read a few places that both Thiel and James Bongiorno liked the pairing. So far I am not.
Vocals seem buried in the mix, upper and mid-bass seems wooly. And there seems to be a hollow forward leaning to the 2khz-10kHz range.
The amps do provide a rich midrange texturing and throw a larger image than previous amps.
What can I do? What amps totally work with the CS6’s? So I need a better speaker cable?
The left speaker which has received some damage over the years—both drivers—constantly lights up the peak light on the corresponding amp.
The one amp in my collection I have yet to try with the CS6’s is my refurbished Carver Signature 600. Should I give it a shot?
Suggestions are appreciated!
|
New member .... just found this post, Owned 2.4's in Morado finish. driven by a Krell KAV-400xi with Nordost Red Dawn II. All from about the early 2000's. I have always enjoyed the music that this combination produces |
I will remove this weekend and confirm.
I've been out of the loop concerning audio for a bit so is this SE further crossover/cap upgrade in this thread? |
I’m assuming your curiosity is the early numbers were made here in US and later runs were sourced elsewhere? (partly speculative but also based on information from Tom Thiel and my own SEs) The 2.4SE debuted circa 2008. By this time, 2.4 crossovers were outsourced to China. An easy check is to pop out a passive radiator and look for Masonite point-to-point (Lexington built) or fiberglass printed circuit boards (China). Other than the SE prototype(s), it seems all SEs have Chinese crossovers with metalized polyester caps rather than polypropylene. Of course, the coax feed caps are those Clarity SAs which are the real deal (albeit surpassed by ESA, then CSA, and now Tom has announced an even further refined version). Important to note that driver fabrication (and final assembly) for the SEs continued in Lexington. Jim Thiel, IMO, designed some of the very best drivers out there. Surpassed appreciably only by modern stuff like the Vandersteen carbon diaphragms and various “diamond” tweeters. |
jafant
I'll check the CS 2.4SE for numbers. I'm assuming your curiosity is the early numbers were made here in US and later runs were sourced elsewhere?
The white CS 2.7 in piano white are by far my favorite in terms of aesthetics. They are beautiful.
So much so I bought brand new drivers and grill screens for my CS6 from Rob as I'm planning on breaking the speaker down and sand cabinets.
Once sanded, including the baffles, I'll have the cabinets painted a Lamborghini Reventon Grey and baffles done in matte black.
I'm in professional motorsports so getting automotive paint and highly skilled professionals to do the work is pick of the litter.
Send me your email and Ill send photos of the piano white CS2.7 if you'd like.
|
2nd Note;
a pair of CS 2.7 loudspeakers in Piano White are very rare. Nice score!
Happy Listening! |
duramax747
Very nice! Quite a speaker collection. Always good to see a fellow 2.4SE owner. What are the Serial Numbers (S/N) ?
Equally nice is to read about Disc spinners -Wadia and Esoteric.
Which models? There is no such thing as being "behind". Certain vintage gear still stands up very well in 2021.
I am a disc-spinner Owner for life !
Happy Listening! |
The ScanSpeak spec on those woofers and subwoofer is 4 ohms.
|
Unsound, before you dismiss the multiamp option for the cs5i, I would be surprised if the impedance of each woofer would be lower then 3 ohm. In parallel the impedance of 3 woofers of course drops to the low level but if each woofer is powered separately, the need for high current amps disappear. The specs on the hypex ncore 252mp are easily available and have been confirmed by independent measurements. These opinions about multi amp vs Krell could be empirically tested if the goal is to improve the sound quality of the cs5i.
|
jayant,
I appreciate that. at this point I really don't have a system but gear laying around.
Life has been very busy with multiple businesses and different houses in multiple states so setting up a system took a back seat.
Staying on point with this thread I currently have Thiel CS 7.2 in cherry, CS 6 in Zebrawood, CS 2.4SE original in Bloodwood, CS 2.7 in piano white, and bringing up the rear CS 2.4 in maple with upgrade kit to convert if I choose.
Pass XA 200.5, Pass X 600.5, and Krell FPB 450 Mcx round out the amps.
To show how far behind on the source, I have disc spinning Wadia and Esoteric. |
unsound - thank you as always for your comments on multi-amping the CS5. You are correct that this cure might be worse than the disease. I'll note that your "simple" solution of using a suitable amplifier is also Jim's solution. And it works well and beautifully. I wish that John Atkinson and Larry Archibald had applied your solution. They got best results with the Krells of the day, but left the (deserved) impression that most amps couldn't successfully drive the load.To my multi-AHB-2 solution: I suppose that's a personal proposition. I agree with you noting all those associated expenses and complications. And I admit that my intrigue may be closer to a lab experiment than a market solution. I have 2: AHB-2s and want 2 more for live site work . . . (creeping justification strikes insidiously.)I don't know how the amp might drive that low end, since it is so nicely resistive. The clipping LEDs are sensitive enough to use as lab tools.
To your comment about re-sculpting the baffles: What if? The MB upper midrange dome presents the problem of being 3/4" too far forward. A driver built on the radial wave / star-plane diaphragm constructs might outperform the MB, plus place its acoustic center closer to proper placement.
Gotta go now.
|
thoft - I’ll pick up this SCS4t query. It is a regular SCS4 on a built-in stand which is acoustically non-functional. The stand provides no bass boost or any other function than to elevate the speaker. I have an SCS4 here - the final iteration of the 02-SCS series. It uses the coax PowerDriver that inhabits all the 6.5" HT models. It is a well developed driver with all the Thiel special sauces. The twin ports seem to be some sort of tractrix or similar advanced room coupling form, but they present a rather convoluted baffle plane for the waveform launch. Perhaps the unbraced cabinet might have some resonances. All that said, I don’t warm up to the SCS4; it presents a somewhat hollow and edgy sound compared to many other Thiel speakers. In my experience (far from all Thiel speakers) I would place it as the weakest entry for dedicated music listening; but it's probably a pretty good Home Theater contender.
As an aside, I use one (or two) SCS4s on stands for live sound reinforcement in a small venue where it shreds the regular contenders. Try to get an audition against some known speaker of your choice.
|
duramax747
Welcome! Good to see you here. What other gear rounds out your system? I look forward in reading more about musical tastes.
Happy Listening! |
Has anyone heard the scs4t? |
|
Hello brettmcee, I will chime in. I have had my CS6 speakers for 16 years now. I know them pretty well. As far as amplification they need lots of current. The impedance drops to 1 ohm at some frequencies. As a rule if your amp can double wattage from 8 to 4 and then from 4 to 2 ohms then it should handle the Thiels. But another important consideration is a dedicated power line to your amp. That also helps the sound quite a bit. Next, placement: I find the Thiels sound best when at least 8 ft apart on centers to get a good large sound stage. I also find that the bass sounds best when the center of the tweeters are 4.5 to 5 feet from the side walls and 5 feet from the back walls. Yes, they take a large room, in my experience to sound their best. At those dimensions, I toe the speakers in just a bit, like 1/4 to 1/2" front to back to bring the imaging into sharp focus. Too much toe in and the imaging gets too much in your face and the large holographic sound stage starts to collapse. I also find tilting the speakers back slightly affects the sound. Try tilting the speakers back such that a level on top of the speaker front to back is off by 1/3 bubble. That should help with the hollow sound.
Now, about the floor. The CS6 speakers will interact with the floor even when using spikes. Without spikes you do not stand a chance. The speakers must be decoupled from the floor to clean up the bass. Carpeting seems to suck the life out of the music. I have my CS6 speakers in a carpeted room too (but I am getting hardwood installed any day now) so I have the speakers sitting on stone tiles. I tried wood boards and stone. I preferred their sound standing on their spikes on stone tiles on the carpeted floor. In my last house, I had the Thiels on carpet and then changed the flooring to hardwood. It made a big improvement in sound. Decoupling the speakers from the floor is crucial.
I added subwoofers to get that last 1/2 octave. I feel I have successfully integrated the subs with my Thiels by having them roll off at 34 Hz and I phased them based on their relative position to the Thiel's woofers.
I have auditioned the Wilson Alexia 2's a couple of times now. The Wilsons have incredible bass. They are a little faster than the Thiels and the bass is a bit cleaner. The problem is that it is not a hands down massive difference. The Thiels do some things better actually. So I'm struggling with the idea of changing speakers because I'm asking myself if I will really move up or am I just looking to change for the sake of change.
The Thiels can be very rewarding. Even after 16 years they still give me goosebumps and can move me to tears. These things are very nearly timeless. |
Hi Y’all!
so finally got to give my C6’s a good listen with the Ampzilla 2000 mono blocks. Spatially it’s very layered and textured. But I’d say overall the sound is now ‘wooly’ and a bit hollow sounding in the 1kHz-6khz range. There’s definitely too much upper bass. Vocals feel recessed.
I have been using as my amps of choice two mono blocked Yamaha p2250s. Yes I know I’m crazy but they are great! These are very clean amps—no junk—but not as luscious, textured or spatial. With these I still have a bit too much bass but frequency wise they are near perfect.
Any thoughts? The speakers are on a carpet that’s on a plywood floor which is on a concrete slab—no spikes or decoupling of any kind. Should I give that a shot? Right now I am using two infinity Kappa 7s as ‘bass absorbers’ and it’s working pretty well.
Lemmeknow!
Thanks. |
I agree with unsound. The large Krells drive the CS5i as well as the CS 7.2 with ease. Ive owned FPB 750cmx and they didn't sweat one bit driving them.
I have Pass X600.5 and they deliver as well. |
@tomthiel, re: your earlier post re: bi- or tri- amping the CS 5's; this would require modifications, 2 to 3 more outlets, 2 to 3 more shelves, 2 to 3 more power cords, 2 to 3 more pairs of interconnects, 2 to 3 more pairs of speaker cables. The extra Benchmark's would still be limited to the Thiel minimum recommended 100 Watts per section.
With all due respect, I really don't put much stock on what a manufacturer claims off the record; let them put the specs in writing or provide third party measurements (interesting that Stereophile excused the Benchmark from full 2 Ohm testing, either in stereo mode single channel, simultaneous dual channel stereo mode, or mono configuration measurements). While I do respect the Benchmark's low distortion specs, and especially the adjustable gain options, their amps don't read as suitable candidates for sub 3 Ohm loads, and are not exactly power houses above 3 Ohms. In that the Thiel's shallow 1st order cross-overs have so much more overlap than other networks, using identical amps for multi-amp use is of even greater importance.
One used Krell FPB 600 costs about the same (actually a bit less) as two used Benchmarks and can provide substantially more power to each and every driver, without compromising frequency linearity into a speaker thirsting for power, and do so maintaining Class A operation the whole while. One Krell seems like a much better match for the CS 5's.
While with appropriate amplification ( the Krell KMA 400's are the best I've heard them with) I think the CS 5i's are on absolute terms the best sounding Thiel's ever made, and amongst the best speakers I've ever heard, including much more expensive alternatives. Without appropriate amplification they can be disappointing.
I found your earlier posts suggesting reshaping the CS 5's baffles in order to simplify the cross-over as a more interesting/promising proposal.
P.S. I started this post some time ago. I've been a bit busy, but I hope to respond to your other inquires in the near future.
|
thoft - among your short list, the Dunlavy is phase/time coherent like Vandersteens and Thiels. The others are not.
brett - I don't know how many of 'us' have ventured into DSP / active, etc.
"That bass affect" is present in all reflex bass alignments. The 3.6 passive is in proper polarity, pumping out when the woofer pumps out, but it is a whole cycle out of phase - 360° phase shift, just like other reflex systems. That same 360° phase shift is present in most "modern" crossovers which use 4th order filters on all drivers. The ear-brain compensates or learns the phase lag. But Thiel fans tend to appreciate the lack of that phase shift and resulting naturalness of zero phase shift through the crossovers.
Among Thiel speakers, those with sealed bass (like your Kappa 8s) include the model 01, 03, 03a, CS3, CS3.5, and CS5 plus the PowerPoint / PowerPlane with the 6.5" PowerDriver. The others have either ports or passive radiators.
|
@jafant @jafant I’m not sure yet. Im looking at the ar9, kef 107 or 207, thiel cs 5 or 7, b&w 800 series, dunlavy audio, smaller apogee, sonus faber. Among others |
So you guys are literally going around the internal crossovers?
I don’t think I want to break into the speakers to set this up. But really could be amazing as long as you don’t overdrive one of the drivers by mistake. |
If we had a sticky option, I would elevate Tom's description of thiel speakers to that status. It is fully consistent with my experience.
The 3.7 with sub woofers is an excellent system.
Tri-amping with eq for system and room effects has done wonders for my 3.5, coming very close to the 3.7 system. I can only imagine that 4-amping with eq the 5i would easily match the 3.7 with sub woofers.
By the way, I think that going with multi channel amp and DAC plus eq is essential to mitigate room effects, affordable compared to high end amp and solves most technical short comings of high end thiel speakers. It's fun too.
I have settled on a 8 channel hypex ncore252mp amp, a laptop with Adobe audition software and a motu interface to conduct my experiments. |
tomthiel,
Just as you are happy with your Morrow interconnects, I'm very happy with my Cardas Clear Refection XLRs. I'm running one Cardas XLR between my DAC and preamp and another between my preamp and amp. Both XLRs are short (.75-1.0 meter). As I mentioned before, my problem is that I would need an 18-foot XLR pair (for the pre to amp run) if I change my set-up from "short XLR - long speaker cable" to a "long XLR - short speaker cable" arrangement. I either need to spend thousands on a long Clear Reflection XLR or a few hundred on a high-quality pro cable of the same length.
My best bet may be to buy 2-3 short pro cables (e.g.,Vovox, Grimm, and/or Ghost) to compare to my Clear Reflections and decide which one to order in a longer length. If I go that route, I'll post my impressions here.
Thanks again for your comments! |
sdl4 - I have not used the Vovox for interconnects - just because I never felt the need. I'm happy with my Morrows. My opinion is that unshielded sounds better than shielded; so only use shielded when there is a need (evidenced by shielded sounding better.) I'm very interested in what you learn about Vovox as interconnects.
|
tomthiel,
Your comments on the Vovox cable are very interesting. Have you ever tried using unshielded Vovox as an interconnect between preamp and amp? |
@tomthiel
“Jim set about executing reflex bass very well indeed; but the lagging time alignment is baked into the physics of the beast.”
I noticed this first time I played my CS6’s. And by reason of being pushed out as the woofer settles, the passive radiator is in a sense out of phase with the woofer.
I could only sense this because the CS6’s immediately followed Infinity Kappa 8’s, that just knock you over with near physics-defying bass. Also why they eat up so many amplifiers…like two of mine.
Great post Sir!
So which Thiel do I step up to after the CS6’s? The 5? The 3.7? I love the sound but that bass affect is unwanted. |
thoft
by selling your 3.5 loudspeakers, what is the replacement ?
Happy Listening! |
Thiel scs4t popped up nearby. Anyone heard these? Are these post Jim thiel or Jim thiels creation directly?
|
Brettmcee - it seems we probably won’t get anyone’s list of top Thiels, in great part because that conversation already peppers these two hundred plus pages. Preference ranking is also a very personal thing and includes personal values and constraints. I can, however, supply some relevant history and perspective that may interest you.
Point one is that each revision of each model represents a step ahead in Jim’s pursuit of the same goals stated for that model at its inception. New drivers are a core element of each iteration. The 5i is merely "improved" because the top 3 drivers remained the same and the woofers are modifications, not ground-up designs. But in Jim’s lexicon a later model is always better.
Point two is that model progressions developed over time rather than some foreshadowed master-plan. The original series 1,2,3,4 displayed Jim’s linearity. The next model would get the next number, not necessarily bigger or more expensive, just chronology. (I tried to make the leading "O" stand for Original, but to Jim it was merely a leading zero to note he planned on more than 9 products. The CS designation changed that. The CS3 would have been the 03b but for Peter Moncrief of the International Audio Review who dubbed it a "Coherent Source" (which of course the 03 and 04 had already been.) So the floor-standing Coherent Sources developed their decimal iterations, the higher the number after the decimal, the more recent and more well developed. Some listeners prefer some older models due to more forgiving attributes in those older models. Note that impedances began around 6 ohms and fell consistently over time to more like half that value.
Point three is that market realities intruded into Jim’s natural rhythm and wishes.
We had developed a fairly recognizable lineup with the CS3 as the rather bold 10" 3-way, the CS2 as its little sister for smaller rooms and lower price, and the CS1 as the little two-way that could hold its own at half the price. The next product in the works was the CS4, which would have been a 4-way, and in hindsight possibly another breakout product like the CS3 had been. Jim was working on the 12" woofer which eventually found its way into the CS7, crossed to a 6-7" lower midrange and a CS2-type small upper midrange, and the 1" ultratweeter that landed in the CS5. The late 80s were high times and many companies were unveiling statement products at 5-figure prices. Add to that, our most enthusiastic high-end market was Japan and the Asians who followed its lead. Japan (and others) wanted more speaker than the CS4, plus in Japanese culture the number 4 is associated with death and myriad superstitious troubles - a model 4 would not fly in Japan. So the 5-way CS5 was developed, leaving the door open for the CS4, which never materialized. In my opinion the CS5's technical difficulties could have been left behind by a CS5.2; but that never materialized.
The 5 was followed by the 2.2 which I consider an in-character small masterwork. Then the SCS introduced the coax to greatly solve the ear-position problem of a portable speaker. It retains its port and its second order crossover from the 02. Fair enough. But the following CS3.6 changes the core DNA of the model 3 to reflex bass and the model 6 and 7 follow suit while side-stepping both bass equalization and sealed bass. They don’t fit quite as neatly into the tacit philosophical matrix. There are many factors involved in my take on the subject. One of those is my departure in 1995, having established our production capability and needing to leave a very hot hotseat of directing manufacturing operations for a production-limited company growing at a self-defined 30%/ year with marketing pressure for greater growth. Add also, Thiel’s entry into "home theater" requiring the development of the feature-laden subwoofers, and the necessary transfer of much of that HT manufacturing to China. The company’s evolving DNA no longer fit my personal sensibilities strongly enough to ride the wild beast.
Let’s address that pesky model 3 bass alignment. Believe it or not, a major component of Thiel’s musical reproduction philosophy rested on solid bass execution from which the harmonic structure of the music arises meaningfully. A sealed bass system pulls off that feat far more deftly than a reflex system in which the 4th order bass alignment places the lowest bass harmonics a full cycle behind the higher harmonics - effectively putting the deep bass 10 or more feet behind the rest of the music. In the day it was called "slow bass". Jim’s equalized bass solved the problem elegantly, but faced significant market resistance. His CS5 non EQ solution required progressively dropping impedance in the deep bass. However, I believe the problems of driving that load could have been mitigated via higher impedance across the board. Jim was insistent that higher impedances "wasted amplifier power". And his word was gospel. A very interesting aspect of Jim’s thinking is his reduction to simplicity. He reasoned that if "some" amplifier(s) could drive the CS5, then any that couldn’t were defective." He always reverted to some version of: "they have an amp problem, not a speaker problem" when addressing difficulties driving the punishing load.
Cutting to the chase, the CS5 failed to meet our market expectations and the CS3.5 EQ was similarly problematic. I believed that we could improve both to surmount their limitations and carve a clear market niche. That wasn’t my call to make, as Kathy as Marketing Director decided that those considerations were too esoteric for a meaningfully large market and that reflex bass was "good enough". Jim set about executing reflex bass very well indeed; but the lagging time alignment is baked into the physics of the beast.
I detect a more avid fan base for the early Thiels where sealed bass is part of the DNA of the upper models and reflex bass is a necessary accommodation for cost-reduction in the lower models. I recognize that my perspective is colored by my own lived experience, and that there are many brands priced up to $Six Figures that rely on reflex bass. Just my take reflects my values.
So, my list of favorites would include the older models, even though their execution is not up to the standards that evolved as Jim learned more about driver improvements and other elements of his art. I have heard that the 7.2 was his favorite all-in (although other stories are out there.) The breakthroughs of the radial wave and star plane drivers of the 3.7 would have opened a doors into a new level of performance and possibilities. But the story doesn’t necessarily unfold as we might wish.
|
ydjames - regarding your 2.2s. They will be viable for a long time. The Thiel ultratweeter has a drop in moving system that is fiber rather than aluminum. I'll be evaluating any XO changes that might be needed. The midrange has a modern ScanSpeak drop in replacement. I'll be tweaking that also. The woofer is all-Thiel, being the first Thiel driver after the CS5i woofers to utilize the decked out motor, plus the double cone geometry. Those are bomb-proof, plus Rob has hundreds on hand and lots of moving system rebuild kits.
The 2.2 has been my professional monitor since 1990 for artist evaluations of mixes and mastes. I know it and love it. I have developed a simple cabinet brace between the woofer and passive radiator to quiet that 300Hz resonance, for a more solid upper bass / lower midrange. And the same ClarityCap x Mills upgrades that Beetlemania did on his 2.4s all apply to the 2.2s. And there's more. I've done more work on the 2.2 than all other models combined. When you're ready to hotrod them, I hope to be ready to make you happy. Meanwhile, Rob can handle any maintenance issues.
|
sdl4 - thanks for your cable feedback. Indeed star quad's major claim to fame is rejection of incoming noise - and that is not as big a concern for hi fi as for pro environments. BTW: I use Vovox unshielded for my recording mic feeds and love it. Please keep us apprised of your studies. I among many want to know a cost-effective wire solution.
|
