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!
What are your thoughts on this paper from Townshend Audio about cable technology. Would seem to fly in the face of everything we - or at least I - know or believe about speaker level cable:
Then, on a separate topic... going back a few pages (I don’t get here as often as I’d like), you were commenting on the development of “coherent source” in various Thiel models over the years. During your discussion, you referred to second order crossovers being used in the SCS series. Would that include our beloved Powerpoints? I’m crushed! Although I can’t argue with the results.
I am always amazed at the depth of your knowledge of areas in audio where my knowledge is so much more superficial. I'm looking forward to the possibility of upgrading my CS 2.2s when options are available. As I mentioned earlier, the 2.2s are doing a great job of keeping up with some amazing changes in my streaming system, including adding an Innuos Phoenix USB reclocker that just arrived yesterday.
I've looked at the Morrow speaker cables several times but never taken a chance on ordering them. It seems like all of their models use the same set-up of lots of insulated small wires, with the more expensive models simply having more wires. It's never been clear to me how to decide what the right match for wire density is in my system - so I don't decide. My speaker wire runs are too long (8m) to take a trial lightly, so I haven't.
My current (from the 1990's to today) speaker wire is Straight Wire Encore in a 24-ft pair, but I'm planning to install Cardas Parsec soon. After several comparative trials, I've been using Cardas Clear Reflection balanced interconnects and Shunyata power and USB cables. I can't afford to use the higher-end Cardas speaker cables in my 8m runs so I've chosen the more mid-range Parsec as a compromise. I like that the Parsec uses Star-quad geometry, high-quality Cardas copper, multiple small gauge Litz wires, and even some of the "matched propagation" strategies from the more expensive Cardas wire to equalize timing of the conductors and dielectrics. I've wondered if this focus on timing will especially matter for Thiel speakers.
Please continue to keep us up-to-date on your cable search. I have to admit that I have not had much luck with Synergistic Research for interconnects or USB cables in comparative demos I've done in my system. However, I know others who love SR wire in their systems, especially when using the more expensive SR offerings.
@jafant i Actually have Ted of synergistic audio on my friends list. Love his posts on his car hobby and the videos he posts of the production facility. Unfortunately you don’t get a discount for being his friend. LOL
@jafant I've found that an old pair of simple AudioQuest (I think 4) cables sound the best on the 2.7 and DHLabs Q-10 sounds best on the 3.6. The rooms are also quite different. The 2.7 better damped and the 3.6 a little bit more live due to hard surfaces.
Another note on the ARC CD6 test. I didn't mess with speaker cables at all during that test - only interconnects. Thiel/Krell has never been known for soft/weak/wooly/uncontrolled bass so I didn't think to mess with the speaker cables. If I get the chance to test another ARC spinner I'll mess with speaker cables as well.
@tomthiel I've been looking for a pair of the Goertz cables to try however none have popped up locally.
jafant - I suppose my experience might have some instructive value. Note that my approach is not that of a hobbyist, but that of an experimental observer. My choices must approach the ideal, including the assumptions, general practice and choices of producers upstream. I recognize that is an impossible task, but within my constraints I try. For example, I chose Sennheiser 800S headphones, not only because they are very good, but because many high-end producers (mastering engineers, etc.) use them; so my potential personal preference for some other audiophile darling cans becomes functionally irrelevant. This is squishy territory which can cause a strict, skeptical engineer to abort - to conclude none of it matters, because it is a functionally unsolvable problem. I conclude that I must make my most balanced evaluations and choices toward this ephemeral ideal. Let’s go to wire. I am lucky to have a personal beacon experience. Without an illuminating experience I can see being lost in the wilderness forever. You may remember cousin Ted, the aerospace physicist who suggested wire as a wild-card solution from GE’s deep space communications problems. I spent the summer of 1978 investigating, experimenting and choosing wire which became Thiel’s standard, and an early milestone for wire’s importance in audio. Over the years, Thiel compared various wire geometries, etc. and stayed with the 18-2 solid CDA101 in teflon for internal wiring. I am presently expanding that solution which we’ll address another time. Interconnects and speaker cable are more complex, since we can’t predict the particulars of length, environment, and source and load characteristics, especially with speaker cable. Let’s stick to speaker cable. Before wire was a known thing in audio, Thiel started with homespun, getting pretty quickly to 00 welding cable, and around 1980 had our ears knocked off by Ray Kimber’s prototype braided wire at $1K/ pair foot. Someone here might remember the model name. I remember the radical improvement and that we beta tested further improvements of that flagship cable over the years. Astonishingly good both technically and to the ear. Jim developed a test bed to read various reactances in frequency, distortion and phase /time domains. I hear knowledgeable people claiming there are no meaningful measured differences - I say emphatically that is not true. I rather think that opening Pandora’s Wire Box simply raises more questions and considerations than they want to address.
Back to cable. There was a stream of Kimber. Also there is Straightwire who was a close ally with Thiel from their beginning. Steven Hill is an engineer and has developed and explicated a significant knowledge base over the decades. At present I have some early Straightwire (model unknown) that I’ve lived with since the 1980s. One of my studio workhorses is Straightwire Octave II @ 4 runs in 12’ lengths, star quad with individual terminations that I can mix and match for mono and/or bi-wire or bi-amp. I am not in the listen and choose my favorite game myself, lacking the time, access or budget to do so, and eschewing my personal preference, while valuing "rightness" and "standardness" in my decision matrix. So my process goes like this: discuss with Steven what I want, weigh his solutions and technologies toward those goals and accept his recommendation as to where to land, which is generally the performance sweet spot of the brand. In this Case the Octave II is suitable for my purposes - I use it every day.
Let’s jump to preference. I prefer the Morrow SP-4, which I chose by a similar process, but in 12’ lengths it lacks some beef on the bottom. I have 4 runs which I can double and get the solidity I want. I could get it by running 6’ lengths (which I have demonstrated), but for my purposes, such non-standard runs defeats some of my reference purposes. Awhile back we explored here (or possibly behind the curtain with some of you, pardon my spotty memory) the pros and cons of parallel vs twisted runs. I agreed with those who preferred the parallel runs which produced an ephemeral, liquid-like presentation. But, my measurements and further listening led me to conclude that those pleasant effects were artifacts of delicious problematic behavior. Nix. So, I twist my double runs. In addition to those brands, I have and use some old Audioquest, model unknown as well as Benchmark’s Canare, Bluejeans Belden, ProCo (professional) 12’ gauge star quad and OCOS (Dynaudio’s coax), as well as various Audioquest, MIT and who knows what that are occasionally borrowed for comparison. I use many of these wires in live recording and off-site playback duties, and can identify their sonic fingerprints. I know some folks here just don’t buy the wire thing, and you among others are committed to pursuing those nuances as a serious undertaking. I don’t claim to understand much of what goes on in wire, but do know that some serious stuff is going on. Part of the mix includes dielectric considerations and many manufacturers just don’t go there. Of the thermoplastics, the Teflon family wins, both in listening and measuring. The hierarchy is known and agreed, and, who would guess, more expensive performs better. As an anecdote, I quizzed John Siau of Benchmark about such dielectric considerations, to which he had no response, side-stepping to star-quad geometry’s cancellation of distortion mechanisms as the important factor. I bought his wire. It’s good, one up from ProCo, similar to Belden, but lacks the higher order performance of audiophile cable. I don’t think he could be convinced of such further considerations, but then that’s not my job.
I overlooked AntiCables. I like Paul’s approach and the product, and he seems now to be addressing directionality. I know that directionality matters, but I also know how wire is drawn and how little I could trust the process to yield consistent draw-down monitoring to guarantee which direction the crystals lie. Anyhow, directionality can be heard, so therefore probably tested via some method beyond my scope. In the ’no insulation is the best insulation’ stream, Morrow is on to a big deal. Grown cellulitic fibers are better dialectics than thermoplastics. Morrow uses cotton fiber, which is excellent. (Ever notice how great those paper capacitors can sound?)
I’ll mention a recent lesson from my internal wiring quest. Dialectic matters, and two or more different dialectics in the bundle is better than one - to spread out the anomalies. If we assume CDA101 (best) copper and great insulations, geometry is a really big deal. The cost and consistency of braiding are unfeasible to me. Small irregularities in braid more than undoes the advantages. Same-direction twist wins as an implementable solution well grounded in known physics and within reach of conscientious manufacturing processes. My proprietary configuration may end up being patented or proprietary to Straightwire, so I’ll not go further. And, believe it or not, craftsmanship is a far bigger issue than I assumed. Small physical / mechanical variations in my hand-laid samples create audible and measurable differences, which go way down with optimized mechanical lay-up.
I note that Jim ended up with Goertz flat wire and the Absolute Sound or Stereophile reviews of the 3.7 noted its superiority for that speaker. I have read about flat wire, but never heard any. And I wouldn’t go there myself because its market marginality would buck my practice of swimming mid-stream. So, that’s a look at my little corner of the world of wire. It’s a fascinating world, and one who’s dismissal would leave many delights unsavored. This post scratches the surface - there’s always more. I enjoy hearing your perspectives - I don’t get out much - and I should get back to work now. Cheers
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-2-3-vs-2-4-the-real-difference If anyone else is interested, I found an old thread comparing the differences between the 2.3 and 2.4. In a nut shell, there are slight differences in the mids and uppers. Not as big a difference as sdecker claims (2021). According to him its “not night and day” ,and “NOT big differences”(2003). I’m thinking maybe his 2.3s didn’t have the upgraded coaxs, so with my 2.3s upgraded there should be even less of a difference.
I believe in careful yet prudent calculations when building a reference system. I do not care to have cabling sourced to china in my system. This has been quite an exercise because too many U.S. companies are cutting corners. Nordost and Synergistic Research, are noted for not sourcing to china, I have inquired each of these manufacturers.
Cabling wise I enjoy the AudioQuest I got which where 600 dollars. I feel they give the thiels a natural smooth timbre. At some point I will get synergistic audio cables though.
sdl4 - The 2.2s are quite good, aren't they? And they're highly upgradable with better XO components and related goodies - when the time comes.
Regarding cable, I have rotated a dozen or so interconnects and speaker cables through my setup over the past couple years to reference my ears in my room and system. My favorite is Morrow. You might consider it, with their generous take-back trial deal.
I am impressed by your patience in your search for the best cables for your system. As I face my rapidly advancing years, I am finding myself becoming less and less patient in making decisions about my audio gear. I've come to realize that researching gear online is a lot less rewarding than listening to new gear at home, so I'm making faster and more quickly researched decisions. Lately, I've been upgrading my streaming gear, and the music keeps sounding better with each new change. Fortunately, my Thiel 2.2s have welcomed each upgrade and are not holding back my system in any way.
I am awaiting an audition of Swisscable in April or May. I am currently on assignment for work. As soon as I hear these offerings, I will post my impressions and thoughts here.
My pleasure. I once owned Transparent Super MM2 interconnects (IC) and speaker cables (SP). I have not auditioned the GEN5 series.
I will try to demo the ARC CD6 as soon as possible for a comparison to your impression(s). It could very well be a matter of 'newer is not always better'.
I concur w/ your assessment and evaluation of the CS 2.7 loudspeakers. Are you using Transparent speaker cables? A mix-match of cabling could act as a culprit to "rounding" as well.
I was using Transparent Super XLR. I have a much older pair and the dealer gave me a pair of the recent ones to try. The newer pair was better in the bass however I still couldn't live with it.
I've read great things about the ARC CD9 and Aesthetix players however would be hesitant to buy either without auditioning them at home.
I will say this - the depth, width, dynamics, and tonal qualities of the 2.7's never cease to amaze!
Thank You for citing your system. It does seem a bit unusual with the CD6 presentation and sound. I wonder if ARC cut corners on this spinner? Over the years, I have read that the CD7 is the best cd player ARC made. I did not detect any "softening" with the CD5 nor CD9. I auditioned each player in an all-ARC system. I suspect that a touch of synergy was going on there. Which cabling are you using with the Krell and CS 2.7 ?
Sidenote - I did find the ARC CD9 and Aesthetix Romulus equally excellent in a shoot out. Additionally, each of these 2 spinners feature a killer DAC (if this is a consideration?).
Had the opportunity to put an ARC CD6 into the system with Krell FBI and Thiel 2.7. The top through midbass was amazing...the best this system has ever sounded. However once you got into the bass it had no bite. Symphonic bass drum sounded like they were being struck with pillows. Double bass didn't have the grunt on the front of the note where appropriate. Overall I would describe it as "rounded".
Has anyone compared the CD6 to other ARC spinners with Thiels? My 3.6 are currently damaged and awaiting repair so I couldn't test those.
Jim Thiel calibrated his speakers at a distance of 3 meters facing straight ahead. Ideally you would have a minimum of 5’ from side walls and a minimum of 3’ from speaker backs to wall behind them.
Sdecker, I promise I won’t get depressed. I love learning about this stuff. If I do, I’ll just go listen to some music. If you don’t mind me asking, what are the sonic differences that cause you to like the 2.4 over the 2.3?Thanks, happy listening
OK, sounds like you officially have a homework assignment. I was just listening last night, and decided not to move the speakers because I was very happy with the soundstage and imaging. But, I guess it can’t hurt to try. It may take me a few days, but I will report back what I find. also, I do have some treatments on the wall and a very thick shag rug on top of the carpeted floor. Also, I believe the open rafters help break up the sound as well. I do notice when I said closer to the speakers, the imaging is still good, but the realism is not as convincing.
I'm still going back and forth between the borrowed Bryston 4B3 and my CJ premier 12 tube monos (140w/side).
Basically the same impression every time. The Bryston has a bit more grip from top to bottom, a bit more tonal precision and clarity (well...tough call about clarity...both sound clear, the Bryston just a little bit more informative).
But the CJ is no wilting wallflower tube amp. It has at least as balls-to-the-wall energy and punch as the Bryston. And it has that "breath of life" tonality, where instruments and voices sound more texturally filled out and present, airy and "there" like I'm seeing through the electronics to the real event.
My dream is to try something like the Conrad Johnson ART amplifiers (e.g. original ART 275W/side, or the new ART 300 monos or ART 150 stereo amp). As I understand it those give the closest to the best of SS and the CJ sound.
I'm also currently playing with a JL Audio 110e subwoofer with my Thiel 2.7s.
Buried way back in this thread, 3 years ago, I was talking about integrating these subwoofers. Yes they have actually been sitting around that long because THAT is how much I dislike subwoofers! :-)
Anyway, it's getting interesting. I've been unable, as was the case last time I tried. to fully keep the midrange and upper frequency character I love about the speakers when using the subwoofer. I have a Dspeaker anti-mode I'm going to use today to see how that helps.
@bellesfan I still have my 2.3s and have been listening primarily to my 2.4s since 2006. I can tell you despite the similar external appearance, there are MANY changes between the two speakers that make them very different. Some tweaks may be made to the 2.3 XO, but you'd be nowhere near to a 2.4. If you want the full list of changes I can PM you, but it might depress you...
As above, try spacing the CS 2.3 10 feet apart instead of 13 feet. Listen to the change for a few days and report back here for any sonic difference(s) noted.
I contacted Rob at Coherent Source and he no longer has upgrade kits for cs7’s to 7.2. He also informed me that the coax drivers in the 2.3s were upgraded near the serial number 4567. The upgraded one has two magnets. My question to those in the know, what else besides the passive radiator and crossover was changed or upgraded in the 2.4? Can any improvements be made to the 2.3 ? my serial number is 5313, so I already have the updated coax. Thanks, happy listening
@bellesfan, Being so close to a wall is all the more reason to move them in closer, which should also make for a more solidly imagining center fill. At some point, you might want to consider some absorptive room treatment on the close side wall.
marqmike Good to see you again. Thank You for chiming in to assist bellesfan.You own a killer speaker in the CS 2.4 model.I enjoy a Wireworld Silver Star 5.2 HDMI in my tv/video set up.If you have an opportunity, upgrade to the Silver Electra 7 PC. Happy Listening!
Marqmike, thanks for the heads up, I’ll check out those power cords. That’s a nice sounding amp. Years ago when the first 150 reference came out, I did get to hear it and compare it to the hot rod. I immediately heard the difference. I haven’t been able to hear anything else from Belles since then because local shop stopped carrying the products. Thanks
Unsound, thanks for the advice. I did just spend a bunch of time adjusting speaker placement. Its amazing what a 1/4 inch of toe in will do. To be accurate, if you are measuring from the center of drivers, the speakers are 14’ apart. My room is dual purpose, 2ch and theater. That being said, there is a little wiggle room to move in the direction you recommend. I’ll give it a try. I didn’t mention, the left speaker is only 2 feet from the side wall, and there is no wall near right speaker.Thanks
I will have to say. Even with the largely imperfect set up mine is. It does do some trippy stuff. Stuff will sound like it’s coming from behind or right to the side of me. Etc etc.
Jafant, the local dealer that sold me my Belles, Shanling, and Primaluna, let me audition the Primaluna Dialogue HP (high power) integrated at home before I pulled the trigger. It’s a killer tube amp, but I liked the solid state Belles better with the Thiels. Was looking for a 150 reference or an SA100 when I discovered John at Audio Connection. He pretty much has me talked into a Virtuoso. We’ll see what happens.
Bellesfan I have a Belles Ref 150a V2 on my Thiel 2.4's. I have a wireworld silver electra 5.2 power cord on it. It was a nice noticeable improvement. I paid about 250.00 for a used one. It might be worth trying a cord or two. Two others that were on my radar when I got this one was JPS Labs Power+, Triode Wire Labs 7 +.
bellesfan I would venture to say that if you enjoy the Belles house-sound, then, move up the amp chain. On the other hand, if you enjoy the Primaluna house -sound, then, add one of its amp to your system.Best practice is to visit local dealers/retailers to demo competition products.I practiced this very advice 10 years prior to assembling my Reference system. It is an incredible Audio journey. Fun too!
@bellesfan, If I may be so bold to recommend (and I offer this without knowing all room dimensions) that you try moving you speakers 3’ in so that the centers are 10’ apart, and moving the speakers further out from the wall behind the speakers so that the speakers are 10’ from your listening position. This could remove more of the sound from the room, providing a greater degree of direct listening, while maintaining ideal driver integration.
now that my system can breathe and function at its full potential, I can justify experimenting with tweaks. In my old house it just didn’t make sense. Perhaps you could make some suggestions to steer me in the right direction, as I am a novice audiophile. As much as I love my Belles hot rod, I have been thinking an upgrade in my amp would make the most sense. If I do upgrade, a power cord would be a must. Thanks, happy listening.
The biggest improvement to my system has been moving into a new room. We have a very large open basement and I made a theater room at one end. The Thiels are 13 feet apart, 3 feet from the rear walls, and 16 feet from my listening seat. The sound stage and imaging is glorious. The vocals are dead center, very holographic, and up into the ceiling at times. A lot of the sound stage improvements also come from the addition of the preamp, and the CIFTE NOS tubes I installed. There is no comparison to the old corner of the basement in my old 900 square-foot house where the speakers were crammed up against the wall and my listening chair was literally touching the furnace. Not ideal by any means, but I made the best of it.
bellesfan Absolutely! I have read about Shandling over the years and most fans stay with the stock PC. This is a testament to quality engineering.A dedicated line certainly helps as does a conditioner/re-generator (much will depend on your locale). Reading this thread all of the way through, you will discover, that I am the first to stand up for cables/cords.By all means, experiment and have fun, in the process! Happy Listening!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
