kheine - Clearance is tight enough under the cabinet that some banana plugs are too long to fit. There are 45° locking banana plugs that solve that problem. Send me a PM if you wish.
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!
13,494 responses Add your response
Tom, thank you for your feedback, I’m disabled so I have some trouble getting the wires hooked to the bottom. Though once done, it won’t be a problem. We are still unpacking, and my music room is the last to get setup, so I’ll report back on banana plug connections. I have large spades now, and bananas on both ends will make hooking up, or changing wire easier, and per your report, sonically superior.
|
biannuzzi22 - I'm not a 2.3 expert, but I might shed some historic light around it. The CS2.3 was the first-generation Thiel-designed coax. The 1990 SCS used a stock ScanSpeak 6.5" coax which solved Thiel's fundamental problem of working properly only for a seated listener 8' or more away. The coax upper driver was then applied to higher priced Thiels. By 1996 enough experience had been gained to produce a cost-effective coax. The model 2 was the chosen platform because its use in rooms smaller than for the model 3 and up made the model 2 a good candidate. Note, the model 1 never got a coax for cost reasons. The brainstorm was to create a mechanical crossover between the voice coil and midrange cone based on resilience/ viscosity to decouple the midrange cone from the directly driven tweeter dome - in just the right way. The product could only be created because we were prototyping all our drivers in-house by that time. It took more than a year of iteration to get it right. It worked, but with shortcomings that Jim addressed in the subsequent 2003 CS2.4. The 2.4 is considered the sweet spot of that design. The bucking magnet was added in 2001, #4567 to manage the home theater use near televisions. The 2.3 coax was less expensive to produce than the 2.4, so it continued its career in the PCS and MCS models. Jim continued work on the wrinkles of the mechanical coupling and had hoped to use an improved version in the CS7.3. A major element of that driver is the obviation of any electronic crossover between the midrange and tweeter. The joint crossover is devised to drive one electrical motor with compound mechanical elements covering the combined range. Note: both the woofer and coax crossover sections are quite different between the models implying significant differences between the drivers. They are not interchangeable between the models. Your 2.3s are what they are. Any differences from the 2.4 would be speculation on my part. I have 2.4s and can't believe the wonderful sound quality for the price. That niche was in the DNA of the model 2 from the start. |
In case anyone is interested. TMR has listed a pair of Black CS 2.4 speakers - serial# 1523, 1524. Asking $1199 + $399 for shipping within continental US tmraudio.com/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/thiel-cs2-4-floorstanding-speakers-black-pair/ TMR lists the age as 11 years. This I would take with a grain of salt. When I purchased My own pair of Thiel CS 2.4 serial# 2951, 2952 in 2011 they had 5 years left on their 10 year warranty. Therefore, based on the serial#s, I’d say that the date of manufacture for the pair just listed by TMR dates to somewhere between 2003 (the year of introduction) and 2006 (the year of manufacture for my pair). |
FWIW, I personaly really like the bottom mounted cable posts. IMHO, they are an elegant solution to what otherwise would be a daily eye sore. Furthermore, it mitigates connectivity issues from curious children and pets, and the lessening of slack helps keep adults from tripping over speaker cables too. |
kheine - Yes. There's a long story about the bottom inputs, but we can summarize that my design goal of furniture elegance without electronic clutter, has been less than popular. Here are some considerations for your move that include the fruit of my recent redevelopment work. I believe that the 'wire as waveguide' construct is more functional than 'wire as electron conductor'. Sound quality will be improved more by managing propagation fields than by making lower resistance connections. I now land firmly on banana plugs rather than spades or bare wire. I also remove any excess conductive mass in the signal propagation path to reduce eddy currents. Therefore I judge your 3.6 plastic capped binding posts as sonically superior to the later large metal lugs and knobs. But greater improvement can be made by streamlining the signal path further by repositioning the inputs away from the electrically conductive input panel and using a straight-line, a low mass terminal system directly through the cabinet (bottom or) back. There is something to be said for positioning them at the back edge of the bottom, facing down. (I suspect you would rather not.) I highly recommend the Electra connectors from GR Research. In fact, as a stand-alone improvement I suspect their ise will bring the largest SQ improvement / cost of anything you can do to your speakers. You would mount the pair at the bottom / back of the cabinet, right through the MDF panel (bottom or back). You can gain sufficient access through the woofer and the existing input panel. Let us hear about your outcome. |
@unsound - I find it more cognitively dissonant in the used / classic speaker market than it was in the new / heyday speaker market for a speaker to require extremely specialized and expensive amplification in order to work, even reasonably well. Of course there are users with relatively small rooms who listen at relatively moderate amplitude and who by good research or luck have a moderately priced amp that can drive later-career Thiels. But there are more who don't and plenty of driver damage done by less-than-stable amps. Yes there were real problems winding underhung voice coils with enough turns to raise driver impedance. But there was also a look-the-other way attitude about less than ideal amps. Note that Jim's recommended amps were always priced at a substantial $ multiplier of a pair of Thiel speakers. |
@unsound - the many moving parts are gradually coming into better focus. Neither of those 3.6 drivers is in production. The replacement drivers that will serve the 3.6, 3.5, 3 (plus earlier similar) models will be based on the 3.6 drivers, but can allow changes as we re-tool. I am exploring the crossover changes needed to accommodate higher driver and net system impedances. Jim never convinced me that he was correct in his low impedance jag. In fact, it was a significant disagreement between us in the day. Regarding 'your' 3.5s and to the extent possible for all Renaissance re-issues, I am aiming for a 4 ohm minimum. The CS2 and previous models hung around 6 ohm nominal and 4 ohm minimum and could be driven very happily with a broad range of amps. I'm working back to that baseline.
|
@beetlemaina - good to see you. Your nod to Cardas led to their inclusion in this winding journey, where I ended with their 'chassis wire', which I consider a masterpiece of innovative engineering. Straightwire, Iconoclast, Morrow, Kimber, Fishman and MIT physics have also contributed knowledge, expertise, samples and guidance. Interesting that all of you beta rebuilders have replaced Thiel stock wire, all being pleased. I agree with your perceived need. It would take a book to sift through the particulars; but suffice to say that my solution contains multiple elements of new art and addresses the shortcomings of Thiel's wire without sacrificing an iota of its intention and successes. I'm sorry that I can't expound. My guiding lights include correctness and cost-effectiveness, which doesn't translate as rejecting better if too expensive. My cost-effective solution is better than anything I've experienced for my purposes of correct transmission of audio signal. Yes, I'm pleased. One of my development input streams is my recording. I record acoustic music in real time and space, very simply and directly. A pair of mics flat to 50kHz on a separating disc of Golden Proportion and non-diffractive / non-reflective surfaces. The 8' cable pair feeds a SoundDevices recorder at 32bit/192kHz without any protection, manipulation, or post processing. The SSD recording is the mic feed. Comparing and evaluating recordings with various cables (the only cables in the chain) has been extremely helpful in an extremely complex maze. I am confident that you will at least enjoy and I hope support my cables. After the better part of a year of rejections, I have found an american cable manufacturer willing to take on the particulars required. We're getting started now and will have beta samples within the foreseeable future (God willing and the creek don't rise.) We'll announce here. |
@tomthiel Best wishes for 2024. I hope you are able to bring your sonic advances to a larger audience this year. I will testify to the notably improved sound quality via passive parts upgrades under your guidance. Curious to know more about your wire advances. You might recall I was really pleased with the Cardas hookup wire and binding posts on my build. But it sounds like you have something you like even more! |
JA - congratulations on this forum and on the likes of unsound and pops chiming in after all this time. 2024 is bringing some tangible fruition. Long, slow trudge, with so many lessons learned and alliances made. I thank all of you who have taken on your various tasks and contributed your knowledge and shared your outcomes. My best wishes to all. Tom |
Today marks this thread's 8th Anniversary here on AudiogoN. Since inception, we are acquiring and attracting new Contributors and Members of the Panel. Most of you guys enjoy Jim's earlier or vintage models as well. A model for every Audiophile!
Happy Listening! |
If I can add to @tomthiel ’s exceellent summary ot the CS 2’s; on numerous occsasions different individuals at Thiel Audio have commented that the CS 2’s were the most robust, reliable speakers Thiel has ever made. As a personal note, while the CS 2’s are perhaps the easiest from a technical perspective Thiel’s to drive, they do benefit from quality amplification. The ported bass can be a bit soft and perhaps due to this there can be something of a sonic upward tilt, coupled with a somewhat forward presentation. New they were a real value; at their current used prices make these speakers an absolute terrific bargain. Some users might have been temepted to overdrive them with underpowered amplification. The double sided baffle tape might make baffle removal a bit difficult, but it is most prudent to examine the drivers before purchasing to make sure they are original and in good shape. I’ve seen many where unscrupulous sellers try pass off cheap fixes as originals. I don’t mean to discourage potential buyers, just the opposite. If the seller refuses to offer photos of the drivers, or if you see them connected to cheap recievers: be wary. Coupled to an amplifier with tight bass, a sweet top end, that isn’t too forward in presentation (not typicaly a cheap, easy find) one can put together a fairly inexpensive system that shoots way above it’s weight class. Despite their really inexpensive used costs, they can really benefit from better upstream gear. I’m not sure there’s a better used speaker available at their current asking prices. Highly recommened! |
| Post removed |
jchussey - the CS3 EQ is approximately the same as the CS3.5. You could substitute them. The CS3 EQ starts a little higher at about 100Hz rather than 80Hz for the 3.5 and maxes out a little higher at about 26Hz rather than 20Hz for the 3.5. Look at the CS3 Stereophile review to see the curve. The response without the EQ will be the mirror image of that boost curve drawn below the 0 axis. The CS3 and 3.5 are identical in intent. The tweeters are the same, the woofers are the same except the 3.5 cone is coated for a smoother response. Rob has that coating that you could apply. The midrange is the big difference. The original SEAS wasn't up to the task and overloaded in the lower mid / upper bass and sometimes failed. The ScanSpeak 3.5 mid was far more robust and broader range. Note the sculpted baffle edges of your CS3s are true conical sections, which are a bit 'better' than the single radius curves of the 3.5. I am treating the 2 models the same, they will get the same new tweeter and midrange built on the CS3.6. And the EQ will be substantially better. It is prototyped and sounding good. |
Here's a readout of the CS2 tribute. CS2 Chapter in Thiel History The CS2 began life in 1984 after the game-changing introduction of the CS3 in 1983. The CS3 was the 4th iteration of the model 3 – equalized sealed 10” 3-way with bass response to 20Hz. It demanded a fairly large room, a very robust woofer, and a midrange to cover 7+ octaves including in and out ramps. The model 3 spent significant budget on that very capable woofer and the active equalizer to take it so low. Its right price was considerably higher than Jim wanted to charge, and many of its virtues were not needed by many listeners. The model 4 filled smaller spaces with a bass limit in the mid 40s from a ported 6.5” two-way floor-stander. That format became the CS1 series. Thiel needed something for smaller rooms with less demanding bass at significantly lower cost than the CS3 while providing better performance than the 04/CS1. The CS2 was born from that need. From the beginning its identity included trimming costs without sacrificing performance beyond bass extension. In fact, its midrange could be cleaner since its crosspoint came in at 800Hz rather than the model 3's 400Hz. By this time Thiel had established a strong working relationship with Vifa, who co-developed a 3.5” full-range driver for our CS2 midrange needs. Vifa and Jim co-developed the woofer with some of his emerging motor geometries and techniques, even though it was still a conventional overhung motor design. A reflex woofer costs about half of a boosted sealed woofer because its low-frequency linear excursion requirement stops at the port tuning. In 1984 all cabinet work was still conventional tablesaw work along with our newly acquired inverted router. The CS3 baffle was being sculpted with hand tools, at considerable cost. We developed the routable CS2 grille board as a wave-guide and diffraction control mechanism with considerable success, at very low cost compared to the CS3 baffle. Later when we bonded the grille to the baffle with rubber tape, it became even more effective. The port cost nearly nothing compared to the $ multi-hundred equalizer, which audiophiles wanted to be more transparent (requiring higher cost.) The CS2 load was a very resistive 6 ohms minimum, and moderate 87dB sensitivity, making it extraordinarily easy to drive. We focused our collective energies into cost-effectively producing this low-cost / nearly full range, coherent source for smaller spaces. It was our first real hit. The introductory price was $1350/ pair against the CS3's (insufficient) $1950. It met its market and sold consistently well. Its 1991 replacement CS2.2 was driven by our developing CNC capability for a more sophisticated cabinet to support new driver technologies first developed for the 1988 CS5. The CS2 served as a sophisticated, elegant entry-level speaker for a broad audience. It sold about 7500 pairs over its 7 years, the most of any Thiel model.
|
Hello Scott, Good to meet you. In these 262 pages there has been barely a whiff of mention of the CS2. I'll attach a tribute I wrote to the CS2 several years ago and add some here. Generally first generation Thiel models survive a few years before they get replaced by what we learned first out. The CS2.2 (1991) came seven years (longest run) after the 2 (1984) with over 7500 pair sold - most in our history. Its clear mission was as trickle-down from the model 3 plus benign tradeoffs: Less bass extension, less output capacity, smaller woofer allowing an octave higher transition to smaller midrange for easier transition to the tweeter. It worked. I'll add that the cabinet material :1-1/8" industrial particleboard of 100% spruce for almost double the stiffness of the later 1" MDF made for one of the best cabinets in our long history. To your question, the XO transition serial number was 4901 about 2 years in. Rob Gillum of Coherent Source Service can tell us the particulars, but I have the later schematic. I can supply some back-story. Larry Archibald, then publisher of Stereophile loved the CS2s, but niggled them more than once in print. I found out more than a year later that he listened exclusively without grilles, even though he was told and other reviewers enumerated how integral the grille was to their performance. We wanted Larry to update the record with his better assessment, which he wouldn't do (egg on his face). So Jim looked for an improvement and found an extremely subtle change which gave Larry a scapegoat. Short story is that the grille's absence accounted for the lion's share of Larry's complaint. Also, you may not have the 1" butyl tape anchoring the grille board to the baffle, which brings further significant improvement. I agree that the CS2 is worthy of upgrade and may have been hot-rodded by some on this forum. But things get a little sticky. That tweeter and midrange are no longer available. The woofer is early but true Jim Thiel with many enhancements. It will stay. Rob has a midrange drop-in if a re-engineered unit proves unfeasible. Understand that newly developed drivers are to fit multiple products in order to justify their development cost. The CS5 needs a lower tweeter which is now an unviable 2" MB Quart dome, and the CS2 and 2.2 need a small midrange. A 3" Thiel driver might fill both the CS2 and CS5 needs. It would use the double-cone geometry and Jim's lifetime motor improvements. This is not a front-burner project, but of great personal interest to me. Bottom line is that mid and tweeter changes require crossover changes. So you don't want to dive too deeply tweaking around obsolete drivers. All that said, there is some low-hanging fruit for you. Replacing the series resistors with Mills MRA12s makes for an inexpensive and lovely improvement. There are 1 tweeter and 2 midrange feed caps to replace with Clarity CSAs to significantly clean up the sound. Of further note, as many on this forum know, I've been developing new internal wire. It is lab proven and now being developed for manufacturing. It incorporates new art and I am as thrilled as can be about its upgrade performance, including affordability. Within the foreseeable future your speakers will be formally addressed. For now, I probably have those caps for you to experiment with, and the resistors are readil available. Send me a PM if interested in wading in. |
quasar24 Welcome! Scott. Good to see you here today. The Panel does have a couple of CS2 fans and owners. Feel free to peruse these pages or stay tuned until one of the CS2 experts chimes in to address your query. I am looking forward in reading more about your Musical tastes and System.
Happy Listening! |
