Unsound - thanks for all the info. Interesting stuff. I have a lot to learn and appreciate the assistance.
Thanks again.
John H
Thanks again.
John H
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!
13,504 responses Add your response
@johnhh, Please note the following: Thiel CS1.5 Owner's Information (Page 5 of 6) | ManualsLib CAP-101 - Integrated Amplifier - Classé Audio Support (classeaudio.com) Classé CAP-100 integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com The CS 1.5's is a honey of a speaker for a small room. They still need to be, like the bigger models in the line up, placed somewhat out from surrounding walls and still be at least 8' from the listening position. As a design decision, that makes some academic sense, but I question the practicality of such placement requirements in the typical small spaces in which they will be used. In any event, they should work quite nicely indeed in your smaller 12 X 15 room, but for the 24 X 24 room, a larger, even if older model Thiel might be more appropriate. In addition the power requirements might be quite different. Note that the CS 1.5's drop to about 3 Ohms, while not brutal, still demanding. Not typically where intergrateds thrive. While there are a few very expensive exceptions, many intergrateds are not capable of doubling down with impedance like their separates counterparts. Additionally, intergrateds tend to drop their more linear Class A output bias into lower impedance loads at a faster rate than their separates counterparts. It is a mistake to assume that intergrateds are just compacted versions of their separates counterparts. Thiel recommended quality amps rated between 50 and 150 Watts per channel into 8 Ohms for the CS 1.5's, with the understanding that these quality amps could double down into impedances. That would be about 150 to 450 Watts into the minimum 3 Ohm load of the Thiel CS 1.5's. It's not likely one will find a 3 Ohm ratings, but the amplifiers capable of doubling down into 2 Ohms will most likely make claim to it in their specs. If it's not there, they're probably not capable of it. To be safe; look for amps that have ratings of between 200 and 600 Watts into 2 Ohms. Room size and sound volume will ultimately determine power requirements. For the your small 12 X 15 room the lower power figures will probably suffice, but for your larger 24 X 24 room consideration, more power will probably be desired. Though often promoted by dealers as a good match, the Classe' Cap 101 and Thiel CS 1.5's combination was probably more of a marketing match. After all, the more capable Classe' separates worked well with many of the larger Thiels. While the Classe' Cap 101 is within spitting distance of the minimum suggested power at close to the actual impedance load, we can see from the specs that it appears to be struggling to up power into a 4 Ohm load with just a 40% increase in power from 8 Ohms into 4 Ohms, instead of the desired 100% increase. I think it fair to assume that the expected power increase into the CS 1.5's 3 Ohm load the Cap 101 will be compromised. The above linked measurements of the earlier Classe' Cap 100 shows that it blew a fuse when delivering only 200 of the 400 Watts expected into 2 Ohms when driving only one channel. Put another way; a half the 8 Ohm rated Krell KSA 50* power amp will handle the CS 1.5 impedance load better. Don't be fooled into thinking you might be covered with a "stable into 2 Ohms" disclaimer. That only means the amp won't go into oscillation when presented with a 2 Ohm load. That could mean that the amp just shuts itself off before blowing up. It doesn't suggest how much power, at what linearity, with how much distortion, or how it will actually sound at 2 Ohms. In your 12 X 15 room you might get OK results, but should you want to use the 24 X 24 room you might find the Classe' CAP 101 wanting. * Krell KSA-50 power amplifier Specifications | Stereophile.com |
I just added goertz mi 2 speaker cables to my system after using monster cable for the last 25 yrs.I was pleasantly surprised with the difference I can hear subtle details that I didn’t hear before I bought resistors and capacitors and made my own zobel networks which I jumped on the speaker side I had my 16 yr old son and his cousin do an A/B comparison test same song,volume, and listening position and they also agreed it sounded better |
Professional tape machines suffer in modern comparisons because they're all at least 25 years old, with technology and electronics that are even older. Whether multi-track or 2-track mixdown, most of the mechanical parts are worn-out and unavailable, the electronics are also worn-out and old-school parts and circuit designs. Few remember how to maintain and calibrate (daily) the studio decks. Finding decent tape is a challenge. I'm sure only a handful of studios worldwide have an analog recording chain that's working as well as it was in 1980. And what artist wants to pay the far greater price to record true analog? I sure wish it were otherwise, as I'm sure if analog studio gear had kept pace with everything else the past few decades, the choice of all-digital for ease of recording, near-zero cost, and improving-yearly sonics wouldn't be quite as stark. Ironically, when I see a current album was recorded AAA, I'm concerned about the health of the entire analog signal chain and their intentions when the best digital gear can make recordings that will exceed worn-out analog recorders and signal chains :-( I've seen the recent revival of prosumer (and pro) 2-track R2R for the ultimate in home playback, but most of them are fully redesigned (playback) electronics and rebuilt or remachined mechanicals. And I'm never sure how and from where they're sourcing their not-inexpensive tapes... |
John - there's a parallel phenomenon happening in the pro world around tape recorders. A great recorder can be a holy grail for a recordist, especially one with analog vinyl as their target playback medium. Recordists post their epitome tapes for comparison against modern signal chains, often to significant embarrassment of sloppy performance. In 1980 the tape machine might have been king. But it can really suffer in comparison to best of form contemporary technologies. Some folks here have studied integrated amps and have good advice to give. |
johnhh " what I wanted back then " When getting back into listening to vinyl I tried to go back and build my dream system from the 80's all Carver electronics and all American where posible . I had re-capped both the amp and pre-amp , installed new RCA connectors and speaker posts and yes they sounded better BUT they were still did not sound as good as I had dreamed of , or should I say they still were not up to modern sounding equipment . I know there are now 199 pages in this thread but you'll find many good suggestions on amps that match well with Thiel speakers , good luck . |
johnhh - I concur with Scott and can add some tangentially-related personal experience. Not Sansui, but Yamaha of the same period. Our non-profit performance venue here in NH was given a Yamaha P2200 @250 w/c and the workhorse darling of its mid-70s era. I wanted it to somehow become a great sound-quality amp for our Thiel 1.5 small venue system. We had caps upgraded, replaced fuses, modified its output impedance, and generally souped it up as best we could. It sounded fine . . . until I substituted my Classé DR-9s or even the Adcom GFA-555II or 5300. These hi-fi amps 20-25 years more recent and designed with sound quality as a goal were in a far higher league. I'll add that my experience with Japanese design(ers) of the 70s oozed conventionality. Japanese culture does not permit innovation. If any design element could be scrutinized, even by a high-school textbook, then the designer would risk his reputation by promoting it. I have some actual stories of Japanese companies buying avant-garde American designs and then subverting/ diluting them until they were "normalized", and thereby losing their specialness. It's no accident that Japan did not break into the high end in the 20th century. |
As good as the Sansui AU9900 may have been / was in 1975, amplifier technology is now so many generations of sound quality beyond that as to make it likely unlistenable compared with a Classe CAP-101 or similar. How is the Sansui much different or any more 'fun' from the Pioneer SX-1050 that's only a couple years newer design? I owned and/or listened at length to similar Pioneer and Sansui amps of the era. I bought an Advent 300 receiver to replace the Pioneer and, aside from power output, it blew them both away in every sonic metric. Old top-of-the-line Japanese electronics are usually really well-built and generally reliable, but today - in most cases - they are better to look at than listen to. Their best FM tuners excepted, with some new parts... |
I feel like a 9 year old in a room full of adults... My earlier post: I am new to this mania, moving from a Pioneer 1050 SX to something more fun. Not ready for the cost of hifi... I have some Theil CS 1.5 speakers that I want to power up. They will be in a small home office 12x15, but may move them into the garage/shop 24x24 but crowded as I spend a lot of time there woodworking and kicking back. Considering cost,,,, for an amp I am looking at a Classe CAP 101 and a Bryston 2B with a 0.5B preamp. I will use a Bluesound Node and stream Qobuz or my CD collection flac files from a hard drive. Question - I am kinda hung up on getting an old Sansui Professional Integrated cause they are just cool and what I wanted back then. The AU9900 is 90 wpc at 8 ohm, 120 wpc at 4 ohm. Assuming the amp is re-capped, any thoughts on how they would match up with the 1.5s? Thanks. |
ctsooner |
What a nicely made video of a magnificent sound system. Ken extended an open invitation to me to experience his place. But we really were in different worlds. For those of you who know Thiel's history, we were a nose-to-the-grindstone / little engine that could with the principals all typically working 12-15 hours x 6-7 day schedules. Jim and Kathy did more shows than I did, and I returned right after strike to tend to production. Free time was a foggy fiction; it was inconceivable for me to visit Ken's gig, no matter how attractive. But, I didn't realize how far he took it, what a monumental effort. I note Vance Dickason, speaker designer and author, in the credits. That's serious design chops. His crossovers would be informative. And there's the matter of cost. Imagine the price tag on that rig! That illuminates a piece of Thiel history. Ken ran a commercial/industrial mold-making operation. He claims he made our patterns, masters and molds for the CS5i baffle. Mostly true. He quoted them, which induced serious sticker shock in yours' truly. I opted to refurbish the pattern that I had made for the initial baffle runs via a local Lexington marble shop - patterns are somewhat damaged in the mastering process. We pushed and tugged awhile, and I ended up making the quoted $20K pattern for a couple days' work in my project shop and original CNC. Similarly the production molds - we had made two in the original marble shop. Ken's price was unrealistically high, and I opted to upgrade our originals myself (in my bootstrap style.) That fact cut Ken's price in half and added a highest-quality renewable wear-coat. He still made plenty on the job. His work was exemplary of a highly skilled craftsman. And his prices were wrangled into the zone of accessibility due to competition with Thiel's vertical integration. Such is the nature of small business with options to self-supply technical elements. |
Tom, I don't know if it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but the buzz is back concerning the youtube documentary: One Man's Dream - Ken Fritz Documentary Absolutely insane dedication by a brilliant audiophile to making a massive home system. He mentions you and Jim several times, saying he did some work for you (Theil cs5 as I remember, baffles?) and that he took your advice for an element of his wall construction. I don't suppose you've heard Mr. Fritz's system, have you? |
sdecker not to mention the several SA-10 filters for CD/DAC and SACD playback. Crazy options! I found the Esoteric's CD playback "strange" in comparison to its inherent SACD playback. CD was bad. SACD was excellent. Another strange twist, the previous 11S2 owner did step up to the dCS Puccini. The SA-10 would be a very strong contender in this regard. Happy Listening! |
Well the SA10 is twice the price of the SA-11S2 and designed nearly a decade later, so I would certainly expect it to sound better, especially following the critical feedback Marantz got from their relatively murky sonics back in the day. The front panel ergos are improved, there are digital inputs, their in-house transport is two generations newer, and PCM is immediately transcoded to DSD. I'd venture to say these players could well be sonic apples and oranges. You found the SACD format as a whole to be a "strange interpretation of the music" or Esoteric's playback of it? CD playback should now be as good as the format allows on any player over $2K. Low-rez PCM ought to have been figured out by now. Different flavors and approaches, sure, but pulling everything off the CD should be understood -- I may be wrong. I spent a day listening to the dCS Puccini SACD player nine years ago (vs other units, including my own DAC FWIW): that was the best SACD playback I've yet heard, and I'm sure a decade later newer designs sound as good for less money. |
sdecker 2nd Note: A long-winded review is certainly welcome here anytime. Your impression on CD playback from the SA-11S2 mimics my impression of the Esoteric DV-60. Each of the (3) CD filters did nothing for my ears. On the flipside, SACD playback is excellent. I found it ( and still do) a strange interpretation of the music. I simply could not find the (CD) groove? I wonder if CD playback improves on the upper-tier Esoteric models? There are enough Audio and owner reviews on the Marantz SA-10 Reference player across several forums. Overall impressions and thoughts are positive on CD/DAC/SACD playback. To date, I have not read a negative/poor review. Not bad for a sub $10K digital machine. Happy Listening! |
tomthiel Thank You for the SCD-1 update. I can certainly appreciate an 'Audio ICU'. Great sense of humor there. Mr. Bill Thalmann has an excellent reputation in the Audio repair/restoration business. I can hardly await for his diagnosis. We all know that older does not mean obsolete. Historically, key pieces of Audio gear set and continues to set a Gold standard. The SA-11S2 is an opportunity to for me to evaluate Marantz's version of a Reference CD/SACD player. Add to the fact that Fuses and op-amps, can exchange for better presentation and sound, makes the spinner more attractive. This purchase is a gateway to the SA-10 Reference CD/DAC/SACD player in current production. As always, I enjoy reading about Thiel Audio history. Specifically, the gear you guys utilized in the sound lab, as Jim was developing his signature loudspeaker sound. Musical engagement indeed. Happy Listening! |
sdecker - from my perspective, I appreciate your thoughts very much. This thread is my sole involvement with the world of internet opinions. Because I am committed to Thiel speakers as my life-long transducer, and because Thiel performs in somewhat idiocentric ways with some equipment, I find it quite helpful to hear people's opinions about the system performance with various gear. Also, in this on-going community we gradually develop a sense of various contributors' tastes, values and approaches to their sense of rightness and musical engagement. I don't consider such reviews and commentary in any way improper or off topic. Of course it's not my call to make, but I did think expressing my opinion might encourage discussion around the issue of what is or isn't on or off topic. JA has consistently encouraged broad musical dialogue. As an aside, my Sony SCD-1 was delivered by a friend today to Bill Thalmann in Virginia for his assessment and possible resurrection. It will spend a few days in his audio ICU and I hope to have a report next week. I'm really fairly in the dark regarding its performance relative to other spinners - I got it because it was Thiel's and had been upgraded and it was, after all, the first of the genre and a heroic engineering effort, especially for 1999. I'll be open to hearing how you guys think it stacks up with more modern gear. |
As jafant is the original poster of this 199 page thread, and specifically asked me to comment here about my impressions of a disc player he purchased, I'll respond. I'm not hijacking the thread, or he's not telling me I'm not, but my long-winded reviews rarely get comments. I auditioned the Marantz SA-11S2 for a month in 2009 as an open-box unit from Music Direct. For similar reasons to you: how a relatively expensive SACD player can sound, how the CD section sounds, how the transport sounds vs my own, and the overall impression given Marantz's reputation for build quality and SACD playback. My primary comparisons were to my CD playback of a Madrigal-updated/upgraded and my slightly modded Proceed CDD transport via a Kimber D60 to my Great Northern Sound substantially (and cleverly) modified Bel Canto DAC2. SACD was compared to my Yamaha DVD-S1800 universal player: it plays SACD natively in DSD from laser to outputs so you do hear the purity of the format, but uses probably $10 of parts to do so for the 2-channel mix. I threw in my analog rig using the 'same' material as a reality check. Michael Fremer did a full review of the unit for Stereophile and I remember agreeing with most of what he said (as I usually do), despite his requisite sugar-coating for the magazine. In short, with CDs, there wasn't anything the Marantz did notably better than my rig, and a number of areas where it fell short. With filters 1 & 2 I found CDs to sound slurred and muddy. Only 3 sounded OK. Compared to my stuff, the lower bass was amped-up; the mid-bass was slower, underdamped; slight differences through the midrange that didn't favor either; it was a draw in HF textural resolution, but the Bel Canto was better with HF decay naturalness. Soundstage width was about the same, but my rig did dimensionality better. My rig did the PRaT thing clearly better, but the Marantz didn't have its external clock option. The Marantz didn't have the speed, resolution, and clarity of my stuff, which matched the Marantz for smoothness, lack of grain, and freedom from long-term listening 'digital fatigue.' Overall, a warm frequency balance does not an 'analog-sounding' CD player make. The player sounded marvelous with SACD. A mostly-different signal-processing path, but Marantz took advantage of the intrinsic advantages of DSD over PCM: very easy decoding, much higher resolution than redbook; the care in mastering the SACD layer; the smooooth sound of SACDs correlated with the smooth glossing over of CDs with their PCM decoding. At the time, my direct comparison was my universal player, which commits only sins of omission. The Marantz took the purity of native DSD of the Yamaha and put it through a good output section (at least) where the dynamics and details could and did shine through. But the bass was still bloated and slow. The soundstage wasn't nearly as holographic as I've heard from better and/or newer SACD players with the same discs. There was some resolution left on the table. Their custom M-1 transport and SPDIF processing (digital out) was no better than my Proceed. Far worse, in that for my full audition period I always got a ton of read errors across a variety of discs that usually required power-cycling the unit. The player was unnecessarily big and heavy, to justify its high end pretensions? The front panel ergonomics were awful, form over function. Why is the external clock selector on the front panel? Why isn't the polarity switch on the remote? Why is the power switch -- to be left on most of the time -- front and center? Why are the transport controls split 6" apart between the two sides of the raised center front panel? For such a big unit why is the display so tiny to be unreadable unless you're on top of it? Granted, my Proceed (essentially a Mark Levinson No. 37) excels at ergonomics, display visibility, programming flexibility, responsive disc reads, but I wasn't willing to take a step backwards when the player as a whole did not do $3500 worth of improvements for me. Any, really. I doubt that new opamps and replacing the 6 fuses is going to change the overall character of the player as I've described. If you got this for a few hundred bucks and have a bunch of SACDs, it may be worth it, but for MY sensibilities versus MY gear it was a disappointment. Twelve years later I know there are better units to be had for similar prices. Be careful what you ask for from me! I now return you to your Thiel speaker forum... |
@james633 I am a Thiel CS3.7 guy now and maybe I can offer some Benchmark feedback. The Benchmark HPA4 preamp is great. It will make any DAC sound better because it is quieter than all DACs connected to it and the volume control is of very high quality. I also have the Benchmark DAC3B it is pretty good, especially when paired with the HPA4 with balanced cables. However, I have a new DAC that I find a lot better than the DAC3B and I use it with the HPA4. It is also cheaper ($1500) and I believe it measure just as well as the DAC3B. It is the Gustard X26 Pro. The One to Beat: Gustard X26 PRO DAC Review (soundnews.net) I use the Gustard with 2 preamps using RCA and XLR to each one. The CODA 07x, a warm preamp, and the HPA4. Both going into a Class D amp for my Thiel CS3.7. I have 2 sets of long XLRs from each preamp. I have the DAC3B setup the same way with RCA and XLR and can easily do comparisons. The Gustard is the clear winner. It is a bit warmer than the DAC3B and really detailed with a very big sound. I should note that I had an issue with the first Gustard X26 Pro I bought. It was on rare occasions outputting increasing noise after many hours of playing. I would power down for 10 seconds and everything was good again. I have a contact in Texas who bought the Gustard X26 Pro after me. He did not have this issue. So I contacted the Chinese seller and they told me to send it back. I sent it back by USPS for $116 and they sent a new unit in 7 days. The new unit does not seem to have this issue. I also used it as a preamp but the 2 preamps I have are much better. |
Jafant, I have a simple all digital system. Mac mini computer into a wyred4sound dac, to two JL E112 subs highpassed at 60z to the MC462 amp. I dabble in home theater (well maybe more than dabble, with a dedicated, treated all black room lol) so I have a bunch of gear in a rack way off to the side bypassed through the DAC. Large 25x26x7.5’ room but I only sit 9’ from the speakers. Entire ceiling is acoustic panels with 9” of mineral wool behind them. That change helped a lot. I plan to get rid of the dac next and move back to benchmark. I will do their new HP4A and DAC. I really like the benchmark stuff but had issues with the volume control on the older models (moved too fast and had poor left to right matching as it changed volume). I tried a few tube preamps and solid state pre-amps and ended up with no preamp at all. I feel like the leading edge of the bass has been lacking since getting rid of the benchmark dac. Odd comment I know but something about it for sure. I tried the McIntosh C9 preamp/MC462 combo with the Revel 328be and felt the C9 added a little too much “Mac sound” so I think I will stick to a less colored preamp not to mention cheaper. The MC462 is just enough (very subtle) tonal color for me which took the edge of the Thiels and what I was going for. On a side note the Revel 328be is a really great speaker I think most Thiel owners would like. Flat tonal balance and wide soundstage with stable dispersion. Seemed to play with limitless volume too (very clean). The highs are really something on them. Makes the highs on the Thiels seem a little dated. |