@woodysticks May I ask what the cost of the 3.5 midrange replacement alternatives are per pair? |
To expand on unsound’s answer - the 3 woofers include the upper woofer centered between the two subwoofers. The subwoofer cones of the CS5 were mass-loaded and damped with rubber. Those drivers were modifications of stock ScanSpeak woofers. In his usual fashion, Jim improved the motors of those woofers as well as replaced the cones. The new subwoofers are mass-loaded with a center MDF puck. The upgrade was expensive and popular. Rob says practically all CS5 owners upgraded to the 5i (improved). I don’t think there were any crossover changes, and I don’t think think the improved woofers are available. I am presently conversing with ScanSpeak about replacement drivers for classic models including the CS5, but the fruit of these discussions is in the future.
|
@esprits4s The CS 5i’s had different woofers than the original CS 5’s , a nice upgrade. |
esprits4s
Good to see you again. Tom will chime in on the differences bewteen a CS5 and CS5i loudspeaker. Stay tuned.
I believe that there are a few CS5/CS5i owners here on the Panel.
Happy Listening! |
Hi, Could anyone give the differences between the CS5 speakers and the CS5i? I currently own the CS5's (GREAT speakers) and am wondering if I should be on the lookout for a pair of CS5i's to upgrade.
BR,Gary
|
mdosmar
Welcome! Good to see you here. What other gear rounds out current system? I look forward in reading more about your musical tastes.
Happy Listening!
|
I have a pair powered by Quicksilver 120s. Great powerful bass, good imaging. I like them and am not likely to change.
sorry the company died with Jim |
tomthiel
A special "Thank You" for being such an encyclopedia on all things Thiel Audio, specifically, our vintage fans and owners on the Panel.
Enjoy Summer.
Happy Listening! |
|
As a quirk of history, the lower midrange boost referenced by unsound caused a bit of weirdness that lasted the life of the company. In order for the woofer/midrange to retain their coherence both drivers had to be fed the same equalized/boosted signal. In other words the EQ couldn't simply boost the woofer because then the crossover slopes would be incorrect and not add properly. (Point of subtlety: the lower ranges of the tweeter also got boosted - it was still contributing below 200 Hz.) Note that the CS3 was bi-wireable with the woofer and midrange on one set of terminals and the tweeter on the other. The ramifications were quite complex depending on what different wire and/or amps, EQ or no EQ, etc. Jim didn't like cans of worms and decided that the dealer / customer / marketplace had too many opportunities to screw up his design intent, which led to banning double inputs on future products.
The decision was people / marketplace driven rather than performance driven, even though I often hear that Jim was against bi-wiring for performance reasons. (But only if the customer screwed it up.) Our development prototypes were often bi-wired to remove the intermodulation and other cable distortions from the speaker development decisions. It's always a can of worms.
|
If I might add to @tomthiels ‘ comments; though both the 3.5’s and 2 2’s had power amp recommendations of between 50 and 250 Watts ( using standard 8 Ohm power ratings, rather than actual specific load recommendations ), as well as the lower lower crossover point of the 3.5’s, the 3.5’s eq was boosting the bass response by up to 12 dB. Though the boost was targeted for the woofers, as Tom points out the shallow 6 dB 1st order crossover would extend the boost beyond the targeted woofers. |
Woody - the problem is that first order rolloffs engage the driver for 7+ octaves and Jim's designs control any anomalies via circuitry within that broad range. So, you can find many similar drivers, but re-engineered crossover circuits are required to replicate the original close-tolerance performance.
|
Anyone heard of a fostex driver thats similar? |
JA - the upper crosspoint is the same 3kHz with very similar tweeter low rolloffs. The principal problem comes from the lower crosspoints: CS2.2 @ 800Hz, and the CS3.5 a full octive lower at 400Hz. The driver is asked to move a lot more air with longer excursions at lower frequencies. But, as I said, there have been no failures and it works well until we get an optimized solution.
|
tomthiel
Thank You for the follow up to woodysticks' query. Very interesting about the correlation between a 3.5 vs. 2.2 mid-driver.
Happy Listening! |
I did a new upgrade for my Qobuz and Tidal streaming.I took my fanless Intel NUC from my headphone rig and installed Roon Rock on it and added an Sbooster MKll power supply to power the NUC and some audiophile grade ethernet cables.The result is absolutely phenomenal, before i used to run Roon from my desktop PC and the sound was not so great.This streaming upgrade is not very costly and will make you very happy.
|
@thoft’s suggestion has merit.
At low volume levels in a small room one can get away with 100 Watts @ 4 Ohms, but one should keep in mind that even with an accommodating impedance rise in the range at which the equalizer does it’s thing, the eq still adds extra demands on the amplification. Personally. I would at least double that previously suggested 100 Watt @ 4 Ohms minimum for my own use.
|
And regarding your replacement midrange drivers. Rob's replacement is a CS2.2 mid replacement and it will work. And none have failed in the field. However, be aware that its power handling spec is far less than the 3.5 mid. High power levels will damage it.
The good things about that driver include its physical drop-in aspect and its suitable performance. At moderate levels it will sound good.
|
Woody - something that hasn't been mentioned is that Thiel, especially pre-coax models) require a listening ear height of 3' in order for time alignment. That's a baked in constraint. You can tilt the speakers to compensate for other ear heights, but do pay attention or you are likely to be disappointed.
|
As far as power I would ideally go 250 minimum at 4 ohms. |
@woodysticks
Ideally;
100 to 500 Watts into 4 Ohms depending on desired volume levels and room.
8 to 10 feet apart from tweeters.
3 feet or preferably more from wall behind speaker backs.*
3 feet or preferably more from side walls.
Ideally 10 feet (+/- 2’) from tweeters to listeners.*
Jim Thiel originally used Straightwire and later Goertz Alpha-Core cables.
*important
|
Also , how much power do I need? Length of placement apart ,cables ect . Im trying to be very budget friendly. I listen to all genres of music. |
I know I've talked to Rob and maddiesound alsohas some available. |
@woodysticks Before pulling the 3.5 midrange out, know that there aren’t oem replacements currently available. |
Woodysticks
to get the midrange out of kind of a hassle. Iirc there was sort of a putty gasket along with the fact that the midrange cutout is fit pretty tight. I removed all screws, then used a needle nose pliers to nudge it out. Putting the new midrange in will be a struggle cause the plate is exactly the size so it’ll have to be shaved down very slightly. Like nanometer slightly |
woodysticks
Welcome! Good to see you here. Stand by until one of our 3.5 experts chime in to address your query. Model 3.5 is quite popular here among the Panel.
I look forward in reading more about your musical taste and system.
Happy Listening! |
I'm new to the world of thiel speakers but so far I think they are fantastic. Can any one tell me how to remove the mid-range driver on the CS 3.5 ? I picked up a pair with the mid -drivers shot.Thanks in advance . I'm still learning |
Jazzman7 - sounds good to me. Shipping is problematic. I got a pair of CS3s shipped from Minneapolis to New Hampshire. Crating and freight cost around $700 combined, without insurance which would have added another $200.
Let's envision a gypsy caravan that covers the country by degrees doing rebuilds, offering advice, providing seminars and (why not) recording live music for distribution to our fans. I love it! I'll leave the details to you to work out.
Dreams are what the future is made of.
|
Thank you Tom and beetle. I will do a update with that information in mind, and keep this thread up to date on it. Thanks again very much. |
@tomthiel
With respect to services ... what I’d love to see is a barnstorming tour that would allow you, Rob, or your qualified representatives to service, repair and upgrade Thiel speakers in the field. Could be a potential win win for everybody. Would certainly save on shipping costs as well as wear and tear related to shipping. Those saves could then help cover the costs associated with taking the show on the road. Would certainly be much appreciated by folks like myself who are very circumspect by the prospect of packing up and shipping those speakers, let alone wielding a soldering iron myself. Tom ... your thoughts. |
I'll make some general comments from my study over these past few years. I wasn't at Thiel during the transition to China, but have learned some from first hand operatives. Here on this form there was surprise and disappointment that their Thiels weren't wholly "made in USA". I shared that surprise. In my time we made everything - unusually vertically integrated for a small company, using best of form american and european parts. We also valued affordability - we wanted our products to be affordable to folks like us. Those elements contain conflict, especially as the world marketplace gravitated toward lower cost elements from far-away places. As time went on, increasingly greater part count could no longer be sourced in the USA. Add to that fact, Jim had cancer for at least 5 years before his 2009 death. During that period the company outsourced more and more to simplify its operations to attract a potential buyer to carry on the company.
Evidence shows that during that time outsourcing crossovers went to China, and it also went to lower-spec components. Rob says that Jim tested and approved all changes and Kathy's marketing opinion was that performance wasn't degraded to affect the market niche. But nonetheless downgrades were brought into the mix.
For example, the 2.4 original specs include all polypropylene caps with polystyrene bypasses, built on point to point masonite boards. Beetlemania's SEs were late production FST/China with sloppy coils, polyester caps, PP bypasses on glass boards - definitely a notch or two down. He has shared in these pages the summary of his detailed, painstaking and thorough upgrade and the sonic outcomes. I have evaluated his FST boards and judge them to be inferior to classic Thiel. They include solutions we superseded in the late 70s with the model 03. It looks like Marqmike's boards are transitional between Lex and FST. MM's caps are Chinese production when Solen (France/Canada) took their bulk production to China. The coils are decent, probably from ERSE production moved to China. Audiophiles consider masonite point to point superior to 'glass. Note these glass boards are a hybrid with point to point layout but with copper solder pads for terminals. That's a step down from Thiel's physical twist joint stabilized with solder. The coil and hookup wire are CDA102, a step down from best of form CDA101, but still above the normal CDA110. I judge that these downgrades taken collectively, audibly reduce transparency and precision, but not by a lot.
I now have a pair of 2.4s of similar vintage and style as Marqmike's. I can't afford the time, but would be interested to hear a comparison of this execution vs original blueprinted Thiel execution. I clearly project the winner, but I don't know the particulars.
Beetle's execution takes original performance to another league. I have since gained access to a yet further refinement of the ClarityCap CSAs. The CSA is a game-changer to me, using foamed copper rather than zinc for the capacitor end caps. The subsequent Purity Cap increases the CSA copper cap thickness from 1mm to 10mm for significantly further enhancement, especially in high power usage. Presently I'm coaching a 2.4 upgrade which is likely to include CSA vs Purity comparisons for your and my edification.
My hotrod garage is presently closed, looking for a new location; but the project is alive and well with advancements being made on multiple fronts. One of these days we hope to offer various plans or kits or services to upgrade your 2.4s etc. to the limits of your budgetary courage. Meanwhile there are available known upgrades with no down-side risk.
|
@marqmike It looks like you have an earlier iteration, relative to my SEs, of the FST boards. Your coils are more tightly wound than mine were but otherwise parts quality looks equivalent save the Clarity SAs on the SE coax feeds.
If you are serious about an upgrade, I suggest at a minimum:
1) replace the sandcast resistors with Mills MRA-12s;
2) refresh the 100 uF electrolytics as those caps drift with age (best to replace those outright with metalized polypropylene film caps but 100 uF film caps are expensive and considerably larger than electrolytics to point of likely needing new boards);
3) replace all the polyester caps with polypropylene.
If it was me, I would replace everything including the printed circuit boards except, maybe, 3 of the coils. But I am a crazy person. PM me if you want specific suggestions.
|
marqmike - thanks for the photo. I'll chip in later.
|
Friends
I put up a picture on my systems page. I hope it shows the crossover good enough. If I need to get a better picture let me know. Thanks for helping with what you think would be the best items to upgrade on it. My speakers are 2.4's and the serial numbers are not there anymore. I don't know why though. Thanks again. |
Yes - all Lexington boards are masonite, including all the CS2.7s. I speculate that the masonite board contributes to the reported sonic advantages of the 2.7. There is a bit of mystery regarding how the 2.7 can sound so good with that huge 400uF electrolytic cap (albeit bypassed) in the midrange series feed.
Beetle - good memory. Those 1uF bypasses had been styrene / tin foil. Some sleuthing would be required to find out if, when and why they became PP - and on which models.
|
That will be interesting, Tom. The markings on that bypass are “PPT” which I misremembered as polystyrene rather than polypropylene.
At this point, I’m inclined to think @marqmike has FST boards rather than Lexington. |
Beetle - one of these days I'll open up a CYC 1uF bypass on your old board to see if I can tell what it's actually made of.
|
Perhaps someone on this forum knows the subtleties of polyester capacitor markings. MPT and MKT show up on lists as metalized polyester. I don't know anymore about it.
|
|
beetlemania
Good to see you as always. Thank You for cross referencing marqmike's query.
I hope that you are well and enjoying Summer.
Happy Listening! |
marqmike
I am looking forward to those pics as well. Good to see you here again.
Happy Listening! |
tomthiel
I am looking forward to the report via Virginia.
Happy Listening! |
Thanks beetle. I am trying to get pics posted, just haven't yet. I sent the pics from my phone to my email account and they haven't arrived yet. It can take a day or 3. Thank you for your help. When they do I will get them on my system page. Yes, and they do say MPT on all the black caps. Thanks again. |
Agreed - except Thiel's custom 1uF bypasses were beyond polypropylene. They were tin foil x styrene film, which is close to teflon in performance. All the CYC clones were a level or two down from classic Thiel standards.
|
They have black MPT capacitors As Tom Thiel wrote, you should post a pic if you want a good answer. Did you mean “MKT”? Those are polyester caps and are likely lower quality than MKP (polypropylene). My FST-sourced OEM boards (China) had CYC brand MKT caps other than a polystyrene 1 uF bypass on the coax shunt (also CYC but, presumably, similar construction to Thiel’s custom polystyrene bypasses). |
JA - I'll post a report after my visit there late August.
|
tomthiel
Excellent! It would be a fine thing to have an upgraded CD/SACD spinner plus Amps. Bill has been on his own (away from Conrad Johnson) for decades now. I can only imagine his Operation and Supply chain...
Happy Listening! |
markmike - please post the pix and state your model and serial numbers. I might provide some clues.
|
JA - it seems that the SCD-1 is old business and I allowed him to back-burner it since I'm not in urgent need. He is also going to look at possible upgrades for my classic Classé DR6 and DR9s. I hope to pick up the Sony later this summer, if he can fix it.
|
tomthiel
Thank you for the update. I did not know if Bill provided a turn-around timeline for the SCD-1.
Happy Listening! |
