The model 2 has never been able to play as loud or deep as the model 3
and above. That's the main reasons it costs so much less. If you like
Thiel and want louder, find a series 3 or higher.
Hi Tom, Actually I am pretty happy with my the CS2.4. I only brought up the discussion to illustrate differences in design philosophy. Also before I didn't quite know the reason behind different model naming convention. Now I know 2 vs 3 denotes the size of the mid range driver and may be the bass driver as well. |
Thiel's naming has been called confusing, although it is quite logical from inside the system.
There are a few different series, which developed organically over time:
O the original O series which was sequential, first product, second product, etc. without regard to what it was. That series ran through the O4a (second generation of O4) andO3b, third generation of O3. The next iteration of the O3 was dubbed Coherent Source by Peter Moncrief of International Audio Review.
That CS name stuck and all subsequent floorstanding coherent speakers fell into the CS series, with the 3 being the 10" 3-way flagship. The CS3.5 was the 5th generation of the 3 and was replaced by the 3.6 and 3.7. The CS2 appeared as a smaller, less expensive model to inherit what we learned from the 3. The O4 - 6.5" 2-way became the CS1 series which ran consecutively all the way to the 1.7. The model 2 had much longer runs without upgrades than the 1 or 3 which received the bulk of Jim's development energies. The CS2 was an 8 inch x 3" x 1" ported design which ran more than 10,000 copies before the CS2.2 in 1990. The 2.3 and 2.4 sported the coincident-coax as a proof of concept while the CS3.6 produced robust sales and received internal, non-heralded upgrades. Note that in Thiel-land a new model designation means at least new drivers. When products received internal upgrades, they had names like 3.6.1, etc. but only dealers knew of those designations.
When home theater came along more series were added to the mix.
SCS (Small Coherent Source) the bookshelf - satellite series got the first coincident-coax 6.5x1"driver which ran to SCS4. MCS was Medium Coherent Source, often used for center channel, etc.
The Personal Coherent Source was an executive - desktop little thing of its own.
The SubWoofers were designated SW, but with upgraded room interaction software became the SmartSub or SS series.
What holds true is that each number model series remains a consistent entity such as CS3 = 10"x3 way, etc. and the post decimal number is the generation with 2 being the second, as in CS2.2 etc. Each model retains its distinct personality and attributes, but grows in quality as new technologies and solutions were developed.
The CS1 had a full series from CS1 to 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and finally the 1.7. The CS2 generations always ran longer for marketplace and R&D reasons. So it topped out at 2.4. The next generation was named after Jim's death and was called the 2.7 due to the radical coax driver and asterisks woofer it shared with the 3.7. Except for that model 2 number skip, the numbering is fairly consistent. Way, way many products for a small company.
|
Reading this thread is a highlight of my day. Tom, now you have made me very curious about the internal upgrades you mentioned. How many times were the CS3.6s upgraded? My CS3.6 SN #4789 and 4790 were produced 5/22/96.
|
jon - I also enjoy the time I steal to write these messages.
Note that I am reconstructing history from various supplier records and so forth. What I believe is that the 3.6 was upgraded in Feb 1996 via XO component changes for smoother performance (3.6.1) and again in March 1999 to separate some film caps on the woofer/tweeter board from resistors to eliminate overheating (3.6.2). You have 3.6.1s, but may have hot caps. That upper board is behind the passive radiator. Cap damage would show as melted spots where touching white rectangular resistors. If you see no melted caps and the speakers sound good, you're OK. If there's trouble, Rob can help you.
Now for a little fun behind the curtain. My crossover modifications are specifically dealing with heat management, like in pro gear. All the layouts are modified to place all resistors along a central bar where the upgraded MRA resistors are mounted in metal clips screwed to the aluminum bar which is sunk to the input panel plus possibly a back-mounted heat sink. The result will preclude heat damage, but is also intended to introduce thermal stability to keep XO crosspoint behavior more stable during hard use. Congestion at FFF is mostly amplifier deficiency, but also includes value drift in hot components. Beetlemania's 2.4s will attach the hot bar to the SE input plate. Coils are also being elevated for 3D radiant cooling; likewise the caps are lifted from the board and the board is lifted from the cabinet wall for vibration isolation as well as thermal stability. Whew!
My 2.2s are getting real serious treatment of an additional chimney-spine: a square tube up the back and vented at the back center of the top. That chimney sucks cold air from the floor to exit at the top and sinks the XO hot bars as well as an aluminum tube from each driver to sink magnet heat plus provide additional recoil resistance for the drivers. If all unfolds as dreamt, such a modification could be available from Coherent Source Service as a Full Tilt Boogie Upgrade. My 2.2s include double bypassed caps and 4-9s foil coils in all series feed positions. The original 4-9s coils are retained in the shunts.
Good day all.
Tom
|
@tomthiel, wouldn’t an outboard cross-over be a simpler way to achieve the same results and reduce vibration issues at the same time?
|
unsound - there are real advantages for outboarding, and time may lead there. I have laid out the crossovers in outboard configuration. However, there are problems along with advantages. The separate enclosure flunked the appeal census by a wide margin. The electromagnetic field interactions of coils would require a fairly large enclosure. And the wire-cable between the XO and the drivers is a critical link that invites unknowns because an external XO might be moved, adding additional cable of unknown parameters, which could seriously impact the signal at the drivers. That cable snake requires engineering-development that I am not presently prepared to provide. Many of those disadvantages could be overcome by piggy-backing the XO on the back of the cabinet, but that reintroduces some of the problems.
All things considered, including my limited time and resources, led to starting with the XOs remaining internal, which also preserves the classic Thiel value of simplicity of use.
|
For the CS2.4 owners, how does one have access to the XO?
Do the drivers have to be removed? Or can the XO be
accessed from the bottom of the cabinets?
|
The 2.4 XOs are accessed from the passive radiator.
|
andy2
Yes, the XO is accessed via the Passive Radiator- Tom beat me to it.
Happy Listening! |
tomthiel
Thank You for more history markers, this time, addressing the various series of Thiel Audio's wonderful loudspeakers. I did wonder and was curious how the models received their badges, names over the years.
Again, you are important contributor here. I look forward in reading about the next history lesson. Happy Listening!
|
jonandfamily
Thank You for listing your serial numbers of your CS 3.6 loudspeakers.
I enjoyed reading your thread about the dedicated line, circuit install in your home. Looking forward in reading about your impressions, thoughts, on its effect of your system. Happy Listening!
|
All
A gentle reminder, as Jon pointed out, please list your Serial Numbers of your speakers. This will give a little more insight, possibly, the numbered pair of said model(s) produced. Hope you guys are enjoying the Fall season. Happy Listening!
|
Yes, the XO is accessed via the Passive Radiator- Tom beat me to it.
So I guess the next question to ask is if the Passive Radiator is easy to remove? :-) |
tomthiel
Good to read that you discovered how to find your email , PM messages here on the 'Gon. I sent you a new message today. Please read and reply. Happy Listening!
|
My 3.6s are 1001 and 1002 I’ve found a few articles online about heat causing problems with the xos I haven’t experienced any problems with my speakers but after learning I have the first gen 3.6s and there were 2 revisions after that I’m thinking Tom’s hot rod upgrade could be a game changer! Tom keep sharing Thiel history and inside info I enjoy reading all your posts!! |
There's a pair of CS6s on audiogon right now. For anyone wanting to get in on the Thiel sound I highly recommend them. When I had them in my home they were stellar; still one of the best speakers I've ever had.
(And sounded wonderful with tubes!).
|
Regarding access to XOs for the 2.4, here are Rob Gillum’s instructions to me:
“The crossover can be accessed through the passive radiator opening. The base is not removable, as it is screwed, and glued. To access the crossover, you must remove the passive radiator screws and let the passive radiator drop into the cabinet. It can be rotated 90 degrees, and removed while servicing. To re-install the passive radiator, you can place your fingers at the surround, pressing outward to hold in place while re-installing the screws that hold bit in place.”
I would add two things, 1) be patient rotating the radiator to get the right angle for removal; 2) you don’t need to be overly paranoid grasping the radiator surrounds as I was initially. Not nearly as delicate as I first imagined, albeit still need to exercise care.
|
beetlemania
Good to see you. Thank You for the diy tip. Happy Listening! |
fitter468
Good to see you again. Thank You for listing your speakers' serial numbers. Those are low production numbers indeed. The 3.6 model has quite a few fans and owners here. Happy Listening!
|
tomthiel
my 3.6 SN are 5773 and 5774 were produced 12/4/1998 thus should be 3.6.1 version, is it right?
|
silvanik
Thank You for listing your serial numbers. Happy Listening! |
Silvano - correct. All, if you don't hear a problem, you don't have a heat / melting problem. The cap melting is caused by sustained high volume use.
|
My CS2.4's serial numbers are 778 and 777.
|
andy - your 2.4s are Lexington made with point to point wiring and 4-9s coils and domestic / european caps. I would consider them superior to later 2.4s with Chinese-made crossovers. I don't know the changeover date, but yours are Lex-made.
|
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the info. I am glad the XO's in mine are home made. :-)
|
andy2
Thank You for listing your serial numbers. I do not believe that I have seen SN that low for CS 2.4- special speakers indeed. Happy Listening! |
tomthiel
Thank You for replying to my email. Happy Listening!
|
I do not believe that I have seen SN that low for CS 2.4- special speakers indeed.
I think it may become a future classic. It is a really unique design. I don't know what others are thinking but there are really nothing about the new speaker designs that interest me. Maybe I would like to listen to some of the Vandersteen's some day but others than that, there are not too much out there that catches my attention. A few years ago, Absolute Sound named a pair of speakers (I'd rather not reveal the name) that costs about $100K as the best speakers in the world. But other than the all aluminum cabinets, the design is more or less a square box with slightly rounded edges to improve diffraction. It uses high order filters and the drivers although were specifically designed in house, I am sure I could obtain similar quality drivers either from Scan Speak, Seas or Accuton. I am a bit disappointed in general in most speaker manufacturers. Most of them are just too derivative. |
On my 2.4's there is no serial numbers. Could have been wiped off? Or maybe someone put a new plate on there, but not from what I understand with the previous owner. |
andy2
Right On! as prof can attest, one is going to have to spend more, much more, to better these modern Thiel loudspeakers. Good to read that you are enjoying your 2.4 loudspeakers. I knew that you would enjoy them.
Happy Listening! |
marqmike
Good to see you again. Do you know the number of owners of your CS 2.4 prior to purchase- I wonder if one of the previous owners swapped the plates or something else...
Happy Listening!
|
jay - I suppose folks know that Thiel, with its nuts and bolts x no bullshit approach, started every model with serial number 1, which was mated with number 2 , all matched pairs were odd-low.
We kept the design prototypes. My 2.2s are -3 / -4 (final, pre-production.) Early + numbers went to dealers for display. Usually reviewers got numbers in the 100s after the display and pre-buy pipeline was somewhat satisfied. The products were quite thoroughly engineered and required no changes except when production drivers drifted or shifted parameters for some reason, such as different surround, etc. viscosity etc. . . stuff happens. Eventually there might be some refinements which warranted the x.x.1 sub model changes we addressed earlier.
Usually the second generation of a product was called the x.2. But one exception was the CS6, which in the early days of Thiel in-house drivers, received some upgrades to the midrange driver and consequent changes to the crossover, and was called the CS6.1. I estimate the date around late '96 and don't know the serial number of the change. Rob would probably know. I'm gradually collecting such information.
|
andy2,
I think I get where you are coming from.
When you really look in to what Jim Thiel was doing - the clarity of his design goal, and then the obvious challenges it presented, and then the absolutely clever way he continually improved the design, carving away at the liabilities inherent in trying do make first order T/P coherent speakers, (and not only that - really great engineering all around, including the bass drivers/motors etc) it really adds up to a unique and compelling package.
Though I researched and auditioned many other speakers, and of course other speaker manufacturers are trying to up their own game as well, very few presented the same sense of clarity of vision and goal, to reach a place most manufacturers abandoned, which such a singular engineering talent at the helm.
I think many of us love our Thiel speakers as that entire package, not just the sound but what the speakers represent in terms of their goal and the engineering talent they represent. |
tomthiel
Thank You for this piece of information regarding the numbering sequence of Thiel's loudspeakers. No doubt that Rob is your Man for such historical and valuable insight. Happy Listening! |
I think many of us love our Thiel speakers as that entire package, not
just the sound but what the speakers represent in terms of their goal
and the engineering talent they represent.
Well said prof (maybe prof is a real professor :-) There is another manufacturer that I admire although for a different reason. Sonus Faber's sound is probably completely opposite of Thiel but their design has the same vision as Thiel engineering. Their speakers to me are sculpture first then engineering (like Italian cars). I probably will never own one but I always enjoy looking at them. |
@andy2 Other than the Clarity SAs in the coax feed, there is reason to think your Lexington XOs are superior to later iterations that were sourced from China. That said, you might still consider upgrading the components if not doing a full rebuild such as I will be doing soon. Stay tuned. |
It was just one owner of brand new 2.4's. And he had not nor had anyone replace anything on them.
Mike |
beetlemania,
It will be interesting to see what you plan to come up with. Look forward to it.
|
My early plans were influenced by some other threads here regarding aftermarket caps and, more substantially, by Tom Thiel's comments here. But other than, maybe the Mills MRAs, all of the current plans and component choices are from the mind of Tom.
I’m getting close to building the new boards. These will include Clarity CSAs replacing all extant caps, including eletrolytics. Tom has a custom voltage for some of these to save space and expense. My coax feed caps will include Multicap RTX bypass at about 1% of main cap capacitance. Resistors will be the Mills; I’m already running these and you can read my report in this thread maybe May, 2018. My XOs were sourced in China and the coils are suspect, so these will be replaced, probably foil in the coax feed. PCB will be replaced with point to point on masonite. Tom has written other details just a few days ago regarding his idea to provide cooling for resistors. |
......I think many of us love our Thiel speakers as that entire package, not just the sound but what the speakers represent in terms of their goal and the engineering talent they represent. Prof, your statement is the best summarization of my thinking about Thiel. For this reason I spent a lot of time to find my 3.6s in perfect condition and with the unique aim to keep them forever, a true artwork to me. |
|
beetlemania
Thank You for the update. Looking forward to a working XO model.
Hope you are having fun during this research process. It is going to pay-off big time. Happy Listening! |
marqmike
Very interesting development. Perhaps Mr. Rob Gillum could shine a light on this subject. Feel free to send him an email, at the very least, he his quite responsive via phone as well. Keep me posted should you decide to reach out and touch him. Happy Listening!
|
prof
Yes, it is the entire package indeed. Hope you are enjoying the Fall season. Happy Listening!
|
andy2
I just replaced the caps in my recently purchased used CS2.4s (sn 1030 & 1031) with the kit sold by Rob Gillum. beetlemania's note about removing the passive radiator is a good one and I would add that I was surprised at how long the screws were. They also require a hex wrench. Putting the passive radiator back in was easier than I thought but the whole process of removing and reinstalling them benefitted from the use of a small drill. When reinstalling, the drill helped in getting the screw to 'grip' the frame of the passive radiator more easily, drawing it to the cabinet as it tightened. I'm right-handed so I held the passive radiator with my left hand while using the drill on the screw at the top of the radiator. The speaker lay prone on a workbench and once the first screw is in, the rest were easy. |
To me the Thiel sound is the sound that makes me forget about the sound. There's nothing about it that bothers me. I don't understand why. Maybe it's because of the first order phase correct crossover. There definitely aren't any frequency response problems that bother me. Everything I've had in the past had problems that bothered me. Peaky tweeters, flabby bass, overly lean bass. Other, difficult to describe things as well. Whatever they were caused by I don't have any of it with the Thiels. I can sit back and relax.
The type of company it was definitely appeals to my personality as well. I'm not a fan of conspicuous consumption or the feeling that I have something special that hardly anybody else can afford.
|
jon
I'm with you. . . "I can sit back and relax."
|
To me the Thiel sound is the sound that makes me forget about the sound.
That's how I felt about the CS2.4. I remember back when the CS2.4 came out, there were a lot of reviews on the speakers (always a good sign for a component), and every review there was always some reference to it being a bit on the "bright" side. I just don't understand where it came from. If anything, I thought the CS2.4 in my system may be a touch warm sounding on certain materials. I remember I used to have a pair of Spendor S8 which were known for their musical and warm sounding. But as soon as I pull the speakers just a bit further from the wall, the sound balance just became completely off. The sound became lean and bright. The CS2.4 on the other hands is very linear in term of its position. As I move them further from the wall, the sound balance changes very linearly and very predictable. |
jon,
I agree. And that’s something I’ve been on about often in this thread. My Thiel speakers get out of the way of the sound, from top to bottom, to a degree no other speaker I’ve owned could manage. There’s just an evenness and control that leaves such confidence - no bloating here and there, no drivers sticking out sonically, just perfectly cohesive sound.
And I’m totally with you on the notion of price. As speaker prices ran ever further away in to fantasy land, Thiel kept firmly grounded in trying to produce as much great engineering for as reasonable a price as possible. I’ve always deeply respected them for that.
Andy,
Ditto on your observations about the linearity of the Thiels in terms of positioning in a room. I found the Thiels to be the easiest to position for great sound of any speakers I’ve owned. They just seem to maintain their balance so well. I think the control and lack of bumped up bloat in the bass region helps a lot.
It's not necessarily that the Thiels are the "best at everything" sonically. I can think of a few other speakers that have aspects of their presentation I like as much or more. But rather that they are so good in every parameter, and so cohesive, that nothing sticks out and it's easy to just hear the music and musicians, rather than the speakers.
|
When people asked Vandersteen that his speakers being
time phase coherent, what should the listeners expect
from his speakers, is there any aspect of his speakers
that should be special? What he said surprised me.
He said that actually the listeners should not hear anything
special at all. He added but over the long term,
the listeners will appreciate that the sound is completely
natural and life like sounding.
|
