Thank You -guys for chiming in here. Happy Listening!
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!
13,807 responses Add your response
With a room that size, the 1.5's will be too small. You're not going to fill the room sufficiently. The 3.5's requires an amp with LOTS of current and the ability to drive a 4 ohm load with ease. As long as you have that, it'll be very rewarding. And of course make sure you get the bass equalizer, an absolute necessity with the 3.5's |
The 3.5 is a remarkably good speaker. I’ve had 3 pairs paired to amps that were capable of 300 watts into a 4,ohm load. I never came remotely close to that. The bas eq is indeed a must for making them sound as Thiel intended. Though I’ve never blown a speaker in my life the 3.5 mids do not suffer abuse well. If you can make sure they’re working prior to purchase - the repair/investment is about $300 apiece if they aren’t. And worth every penny. I had a pair repaired by Rob a few years ago. |
Long ago and far away, I once heard a pair of 3.5s that took my breath away. The owner had set them up in a very nice room, constructed of plaster on structural brick with 2: 6' pocket doors and openable windows on one side. So, the room was effectively non-resonant and adjustable. The speakers flanked the fireplace, creating a varied reflective surface. 12' ceiling height. Magnificent. That pair had dual inputs; I don't remember whether that was standard or a modification. The amps were Phase Linear 400s, top notch in 1980. Each amp drove one speaker, with one channel driving the bass and the other the mid-highs. Same amps, same cables on all 4 circuits. Equalizer affecting only the woofers. What a trip. |
As Oblgny has already suggested the 3.5’s work best with the 12 dB boost compensating for the natural (and superior) sealed box roll off. Allowing the speakers bass extension that only much bigger and more expensive speakers are capable of. Though perhaps without the ultimate loudness those bigger, more expensive speakers can provide. Yes, the 3.5’s don’t dig below 4 Ohms, and the impedance actually rises at the lower frequency range, which should offset to some degree that rather large 12dB drain on the amplification. Still 12 dB is considerable draw. With their shallow cross-overs, under powering this range can suck power further up into the critical mid range and even beyond. Enough power is required not only for ultimate loudness but for overall linearity and coherence. I wonder if anyone has tried the eq options on the full core Roon platform? This might be a modern inexpensive (free?) option/upgrade to the OEM eq? It would at the very least now offer balanced connection options. Furthermore, the full core Roon platform also offers room correction, which might alllow the bass boost to be customized to one’s room rather than to a theortical anechoic model. Such room correction could even offer consideration of different room placement. As in the customary positionig the room correction could negatively effect the all important direct sound to correct the reflected sound. But....if the speakers were placed directly against the back wall, the correction would be more uniform, and proved natural bass boost requiring less amplification demands. Of course for the pure analog crowd this might be an anathema. I am still wondering how viable it would be to convert 2 single ended stereo OEM eq’s to mono balanced units particularly for those with digital phobias. |
I have used a 31 ch. Equalizer, dbx1231, and been able to make some room corrections, of course within reason. These EQ have a balanced out, is that what you are wondering about using 2 EQ? By the way, in my experience, the mid range or higher did not suffer from using an under powered amp, at moderate loudness. 88 dB at 2 watts is plenty for a small room listening to instrumental music. |
Small rooms can only handle so much volume before becoming overloaded, but 88 dB doesn’t really come that close to presenting the dynamic range of so much music. With appropriate amplification the 3.5’s are capable of presenting a much better presentation of this musical characteristic. Thiel’s sensitivity ratings as presented, and as independently measured are accurate, but perhaps misleading/confusing. If one takes the actual impedance into consideration, the sensitivity decreases about 3 dB with each halving of impedance below 8 Ohms. |
My audio journey. Warning, it's long! In high school 1974, large Advents, turntable, Yamaha CR-2020, Ortofon cartridge and i was hooked. Listened every chance and late at night with cans. Wanted more power, got an SAE Mark IV power amp with a SAE Mark 1 pre. Gorgeous looking. Good, not great sound but plenty of power except i would pop the temp cutoff on the amp playing the speakers out the window. But i stopped my journey there, never being overjoyed by the sound. Life got busier. Then off to grad school, career, kids, and so forth. Fifteen years ago i reentered the audio market with bucks in pocket. i accumulated Thiel 2.2s in line with Proceed CDP, Levinson 38 preamp, Levinson 332. Loved everything about the sound. Huge soundstage, detail, imaging, full deep bass.I was in love. I would fall asleep with the music washing over me like a warm summer breeze. Trade up to Revel Studios. What an extended tight bass!! Just more everything!! More precise detailed highs, more low end, but a tight sound not seeming as smooth as the Thiels. Narrower soundstage too. I didn't complain, I just was complacent about the sound. No internet to reach out to for advice. I had no clue of the differences the interaction of components made. Next the kids are in sports, i'm trying to exercise, chase kids, make money, keep wife happy, i get tinnitus too. Had financial crunch in 2008 and sold my equipment. Moovin' on. 2018. Kids are out of the house now. Tinnitus not too bad now so here we go!! I saw some 2.4s on Audiogon, and locally too!! Even better! Hmmm, maybe it's time. More in a moment. Dave |
gasman117 Good to see you here. We all were stung my the obama years to state the very least. Thank You for sharing your Audio journey. It is certainly time to get back in the game with a sweet pair of CS 2.4 loudspeakers. You will not regret it. Keep us posted as you re-build a system. Happy Listening! |
Got my SS2 setup yesterday and I'm floored how much my CS2.4's improved. I expected "more of the same", but playing with the Integrator and changing from augmented to crossover at 50Hz, the speakers took on a completely new dimension. Even smoother, the sound stage got completely 3 dimensional (you can easily pinpoint instruments not only to the left/right, but height as well and front/back). I could not be happier with the combination of the CS2.4's with the SS2/Integrator. |
audiojan - Thanks for the update. I have become aware of the audibility of the midrange hash introduced by a port / passive radiator having effects on the whole presentation. I recently participated in a product development blind A/B test where
everyone heard that hash in dramatic fashion. (Tannoy - ported) There is a hypothetical possibility to take your improvements even further. See Atkinson's CS2.4 review. Note the -10-20db junk from 100 to 1kHz. Similarly the reflex tuning introduces high-pass phase shift on the woofer roll out. My wish list includes immobilizing the radiator for sealed box second order bass rolloff (like the 3.5) and augmenting with second order SS x Integrator bass. The potential improvements intrigue me greatly. Of course such modifications would apply to other models as well. In that light, I hope to find a Thiel Integrator: Any physical condition, $1K max. |
unsounds post from
09-18-2018 re the doubling down into 2 ohm requirement has me wondering -- can we once and for all clear this up: is it absolutely necessary to have that capacity in order to drive Thiels (I'm thinking of my 3.7s) to perfection? I mean, very few amps advertise this ability. What about the Classe CA-M600 (600 8 ohms/1200 4 ohms)? Not rated into 2 ohms, but certainly enough current, no? Todd |
Todd - I am a strong proponent of the 2 ohm deal, since Thiels drop near 2 ohms over broad frequency ranges. I make a big deal out of the requirement because many current sources exhibit considerable anomalies as they run out of oomph. That distress shows up in many sonic results. And those results are blamed on the speaker as sounding x, y, z. Amp circuits are quite individual, so the 2 ohm double may not always apply. And, as you say, something as big as that Classé is not likely to run out of power in any normal situation. Other amps in the family produce 3x the 8 ohm rating into 2 ohms. That topology is both stable and plenty strong. My intent has been to advise against amps that are not stable driving 2 ohms. For instance the PS Audio BHK-250 stereo amp is rated as "stable into 2 ohm load", but in fact can only drive that load for short durations. It is not suitable to drive your 3.7s and PS will tell you that if you ask the right questions. Which is my point. Get an amp that will drive a 2 ohm load continuously. |
Tom - Thanks for the response. Just to clarify: by "other amps in the family," are you referring to the Classe family? Finally, can we get a list going of amps that satisfy the continuous 2 ohm criterion? Certainly the big Krells, the Classe Omega ... but, what else? And, what does one look for besides a 2 ohm provision in the published specs? Are there other ways of discovering that an amp without the 2 ohm spec will work? Todd |
I would love to see such a list of 'best Thiel amps'. But I am not current on the market offerings beyond the usual suspects listed in this forum. I know that "best sound ever" at the 3.7 introduction was the new biggest and best Bryston. Yes, I meant Classe in general. When I was paying attention, they had one circuit topology executed at different power levels and passive component qualities. They were (and probably still are) a high current design. Dave Nauber, president of Classe, is a long-time Thiel associate and could speak knowledgeably about how their amps drive Thiel. As to what to look for, the 2-ohm current requirement behavior is the major Thiel problem. After you limit the field to those amps that can, the rest becomes personal taste and opinion. As a personal story, I fell in love with Tim de Paravicini's Esoteric Audio Research amps in the mid 80s on the CS3.5. We set it up at CES to considerable delight of the pre-show manufacturers walk-around. However, some badass bass showed that it couldn't control the back emf of the equalized woofer. We abandoned it and most other tube designs. The point is that I would look at EAR's tube or solid state amps because they have such gorgeous delicacy, and ask the hard questions about driving near 2-ohm loads - show EAR the load curve. I would also look at PS BHK-300 for similar reasons. In fact, I'll be auditioning a pair of those later in the fall. My must have factor is a current source designed for that load. The rest is preference. |
My audio journey continued part 2... I pulled the trigger on the 2.4s. About 15 minutes from me, who would have thought in a Rochester , NY suburb? Turns out the oak finish looks great in my great room. Probably not the final location tho' Then i immediately ordered the outrigger stands and the boutique caps for them from Rob Gillum. The stands really anchor the speaks to the hardwoods plus they look fantastic, there is nothing like superior aftermarket products made by artisans. Haven't had the time to install the caps but soon!! I found a local CL Adcom 545 GFA II for good price while i researched what amplification to use. Immediate gratification got the best of me. The Adcom was disappointing tho'. Really bright with loss of definition with complex sounds like high hat/cymbals/triangle. Kind of congested too. Bass not too bad to just not focused ,detailed, or deep. I became worried about buying a power amp that would worsen the brightness since the Adcom was so harsh. That fear drove me to look at tubes and tube-like solid state. But Rob Gillum uses a Bryston in his chain. Another adviser had said Brystons are very bright amps. But tube like power amps (Classe or Pass) were out of the 2-3k range. That conflict was resolved when I found a Bryston B4 SST^2 on audiogon. Bought it, got it, set it up, one channel dead. Back to Bryston US. Fixed by resetting circuit board, no charge. A great company. The Meat: WOW! Easy to describe difference. Highs nicely balanced, not bright. Soundstage deep now and just as wide. Every instrument and voice has a precise place now.The soundstage developed layers front to back. Detailed detailed detailed sound, just wonderful. There is just so much air in front of me! Bass is just ,,, i guess the current word used now is controlled. not really extended but now the bass drum is effortlessly presented with no sense of strain or limit, it is clearly separated from the bass guitar now. That's it for now. Proceed CDP, Bryston SST2, Thiel 2.4. Getting there! i'll letcha know what other stuff iI find. Dave |
Great read Dave! The 2.4's are truly very special speakers and they are a bit picky with amps and setup. Once you have them dialed in, you are rewarded many times over though. Another addition to the 2.4's which I'm just scratching the surface on right is is the addition of a Thiel SmartSub. I'm using a Thiel Integrator and crossing the speakers at 50Hz to a SS2. The improvement (of the 2.4's!) was just remarkable. It took everything to another level. I think I can live happily with these speakers for as long as I can make them run (or rather, as long as Rob Gillum has parts for them!) Let me know how the new caps workout for you. I've been contemplating doing exactly the same upgrade to my 2.4's. |
I’m sitting here listening to vinyl on my 2.7s (Eddie Kendrick collection, among many others I’ve spun today) and the sound is so smooth, even, spacious, yet focused and punchy. That palpability the Thiels do is so mesmerizing, like a drum kit and bass have just taken up residence between the speakers, . I sure loved the 3.7s, but often really appreciate that extra bit of kick and density I get from the 2.7s, right were the bass guitar and kick drum live. |
@tomthiel I would love to see such a list of ’best Thiel amps’. While I’ve had SS amps of various types, including the Bryston 4B SST for a while (driving various speakers, including Thiel CS6), I’m ultimately a tube amp guy. So my addition to the list would be something like my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 mono blocks. 140W/side of push-pull tube power. There hasn’t been a speaker these can’t drive to satisfaction, and they were heaven with the Thiel CS6, 3.7 and now 2.7. Way back in 90’s and early 2000s, although I’d heard and admired Thiel speakers for years and admired them, it was hearing CS6s driven by VAC tube amps at an old CES that started my Official Thiel Fever. "Thiels and tubes, never thought of it!" The VAC were to rich for my blood, but I managed to mostly replicate the magic using the CJ amps. (My Pal has a vinyl set up with great speakers and he usually uses a Audio Research tube amp with a tube pre-amp. He got a bit sick of the hassle of tubes, bought a new Bryston amp, and he's very happy. But for me his system has taken a distinct step backward to a harder, less organic and listenable sound from what he had before. Just goes to show how subjective this is). |
I think we tend to forget about the vagaries of an actual acoustical presentation and the coloration endowed by the hall. For instance, my wife and I attended a solo piano recital a couple of nights ago. We knew the hall, we knew the performer, and it was one of two Steinways used in the hall, both of which we also knew. But there are contingencies--audience size, hall size, curtain across back of hall open or closed, the way the pianist voiced (not to mention the way the piano tuner voiced the piano), seat location, all kinds of variables. These all affect how we hear, in real live music, qualities such as attack, decay, envelope, stage, etc. that we as audiophiles use in evaluating components. But what was very nice was when, a day later, I put on a cd of Peter Serkin playing some Wolpe , Lieberson, et al. It was just like being back in the hall. That's what the 3.7s do for me. |
Todd - you address a core but obscure point. What is the job of the hi-fi component? It is far from agreed that each component should faithfully reproduce its input signal. Most components editorialize in various ways and require the user to mix and stir the playback system to taste. The other end of that chain is that most recording is considerably editorialized and often with a bias toward adequate performance for MP3 or car radio. So the soup is nearly impossible to decipher. As you know, Thiel stood squarely and obstinately in the 'reproduce the input' camp. In that camp, the vagaries of the recording venue and performance are squarely in the recordist camp. My present work, which is making slow progress, is to further purify the precision of Thiel speakers reproducing their input signal. Cheers, Tom |
All this talk of amplifier power got me curious so I checked the measurements of some of the stereophile reviews. The 3.7s have a minimum of 2.4 ohms which is pretty low but they are also pretty sensitive so overall the are a difficult load but not exceptionally so. The 2 2s are actually not that difficult of a load with a minimum 3.5 ohms impedance. This is in line with my experience as I have found that they do fine with a Yamaha Home theater receiver. I'm sure more would be better but they're pretty darn good this way. I can see why the 7.2 would be an amp killer since it's a tough load impedance wise and also has low sensitivity at 85db. https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs37-loudspeaker-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-2-loudspeaker-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurementshttps://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs72-loudspeaker-measurements |
unsound - Indeed the matter is not simple; it requires some study to understand. One good article from Benchmark is available on the web. https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/speaker-efficiency-and-amplifier-power There are other good articles and texts to study. The relationship between voltage and power sensitivities produces a large array of interrelated results in the speaker and power amp. The common way to specify the sensitivity of a speaker is to state both aspects: voltage and current ie, 88dB @2.83volts @ 4 ohms. As was said previously, that voltage sensitivity would be (-3dB) or 85dB IF it were at 8 ohms, but it is not. And those two speakers ( 4 and 8 ohms) will act differently from each other in many regards and require amplifiers with different characteristics than each other. Jim Thiel didn't make low-impedance speakers to torture amplifiers or listeners; there are practical limitations of physics. He chose underhung motors which require a 2-layer coil to remain short enough to get the significant low-distortion advantages of the topology. That coil requires a wider magnetic gap. Even with huge magnets, the maximum efficiency of that driver is lower (half) than a normal overhung motor. Given the point of diminishing returns of that topology, the maximum impedance of that driver is established. More wire turns (higher impedance) yields lower linear excursion and higher mass for lower efficiency. And so forth. So the driver parameters settle where they settle. Then, Jim chose to balance, compensate and correct many anomalies of driver response over a very wide operating range necessitated by the 1st order slopes. Each correction element lowers impedance further. And in the end, the impedance is maddeningly low. Jim's rationale was that amplifiers can be found to drive low impedance loads whereas the speaker constraints (described above) are immutable. Focused gaps and rare-earth magnet geometries were all applied to raise base efficiency as much as possible. Thiel drivers are far more sophisticated than the vast majority of drivers in the marketplace, and their distortion performance is an order of magnitude better. I guess the low impedance is a price we pay. I direct you to the Benchmark or other articles to explicate the relationship between voltage and power. Once the relationship is understood, the rating scheme becomes more clear. |
unsound - Oh. Let's try again. I have no experience with Roon, although I am using 24x192 digital downloads through my Metric Halo D-A to lovely effect. The model 3 up to the 3.5 was designed for equalization, which does some things well, but runs out of air-moving capacity sooner than the passive radiators. Regarding room placement, we must be careful. Room correction modifies the output into the entire room to optimize at the sole listening spot, which messes with the power response and ambient energy of the room. I can often sound somehow wrong. Regarding placement near the back wall, yes it boosts the bass and requires less woofer output. But the downside is that wall placement couples strongly to some room modes creating associated sonic problems. Also, a potentially destructive reflection pattern occurs. The ear-brain tries to resolve-combine any sound sooner than about 5 milliseconds from the original sound, resulting in time smear. After 5mS±, the reflection is heard as a reflection and cognitively integrates as such, causing little to no distress. In round numbers, about 3' from the wall gives ample time for the back-bounce to trail the direct sound for good listening. All in all, I am not a fan of placing speakers close to a wall. As an aside, the PowerPoint gets the wall reinforcement advantage with no bounce via its 45 degree launch plane from the ceiling (etc.) It works. If I were trying to use 3.5s in a large room or loud levels or bass-heavy material, I would try for a subwoofer, crossed over without the equalizer, with appropriate matching 2nd order slopes and physical placement-alignment. That would really give it new life. BTW, the 3.5 was the last product to have 1% double bypass caps around the 1mF tin foil / styrene film caps and 6-9s super coils. If the 3.5 sand cast resistors were replaced with Mills MRA-12s, the result would be very sweet indeed. |
So day one with the Parasound JC5 with my CS3.7’s using the my new Oppo 205. Absolutely opened up the bass and without using my SS2.2. I dont impress easily. I’m amazed. Previously have used a Mac 452 as well as the 601’s and the JC1’s. The JC5’s blows them away. Maybe the Oppo 205 which is new as of last week, is making the difference. But the PS Direct stream is no slouch. I almost don’t need the SS2.2 with the P05x, that has the 3.7 and 2.4 as rears calibrated in them. Just bought a pair of Pioneer /TAD S-3ex . Pretty cool, huge bass. My living room looks like a showroom!! |
Interesting comments Tom concerning the use of subs with 3.5s without the equalizer in circuit. That’s exactly how I run mine now - dual subs actually - and I’m thrilled with the result. This allows me to do real justice to more powerful recordings without worrying about the stress on the vulnerable mid-range drivers. I takes a bit of fine tuning to get everything balanced, but well worth it. I’m actually resting my 3.5s at the moment and am running my Quad 57s. What these help to confirm is how good that 3.5 mid-range is. It’s certainly not disgraced by the Quads. |
sandy - I am very interested in hearing your thoughts when you do add the SS-2 subs. The JC-5 is, I believe, the work of John Curl: one of the greats. cat - In addition to the mid, the eq also drives the woofer beyond linear excursion and, believe it or not, the bottom of the tweeter is boosted by the eq . . . just a little, but it precedes Thiel's ultra long excursion drivers. Everything matters. |
