I think it’s by far a better mid hopefully I can learn some crossover stuff (just bought a few books) and learn how to bring it down a little bit so it’s more even in loudness with the rest of the drivers. Obviously consulting with thiel while I’m doing it. Anyways time for a new laptop cause my current one can’t handle the software that I’m trying to get that thiel told me about.
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!
13,522 responses Add your response
@prof Love your description of 3D imaging / soundstage. Well put. @yyzsantabarbara Congrats at getting through your rebuild. A lot of work while learning new stuff along the way. Not a bad way to pass time during a pandemic. Been doing a lighter weight thing with my 3.5 mid drivers. 13m > 10f 3.5 mid follow up: They do seem to be breaking in and evening out in a good way. No new measurements taken - just subjective impressions. I am back to listening to complete songs and enjoying the music. I will try refoaming my bad 13m and at some point put the originals back in. For now I will keep enjoying the 10f's and see how they (and my ears) evolve. |
As an FYI. Here is a link to the technical details of what I described in my past post on this thread. The author of this article is the person who did my DRC work. He is a big fan of Thiel's and used to own the CS3.7. https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/what-is-accurate-sound-r923/ |
jafant The Premier 12s don’t have easily user accessible 2,4,8 Ohm taps, but they are available in the design so a local dealer can apparently switch them to whatever tap you want. They come configured for 4 Ohm taps, which makes sense because, per JA’s measurements, they seem to be essentially designed for 4 Ohm output, generating most power/least distortion at 4 Ohm. That’s no doubt why they seem to have worked so well with all sorts of lower sensitivity/harder to drive speakers I’ve owned including the Thiels. The CJs don't seem to "need" a high sensitivity or higher/even impedance load to work great. Since my Joseph speakers are closer to 8 Ohms I did some research in to whether it made sense to have the CJs configured for 8 Ohm output.But research yielded information suggesting that it’s actually generally best to go with a 4 Ohm output if you can (and not just with the CJ tube amps). Even for tube amps that increase power output at 8 Ohms, or speakers that are 8 Ohms, apparently a 4 Ohm output will tend to yield the best accuracy and bass control. So for some amp/speaker pairings you may loose a tiny bit of power headroom, for slightly better sound out of 4 Ohm taps (and since it will likely be a mostly inconsequential amount, the overall better sound from the 4 Ohm can be the better choice). Again, since the CJ outputs the most power/accuracy at 4 Ohm, I leave it there and it works great with my Joseph speakers too. |
@tomthiel, Jim’s idea of costs coming down with production would seem to make sense. Amortization sets in at some point, no? I only referenced the combinations that I did as a refence to what Jim was using. Other than for small receiver/ shelf mount little systems. Packaged setups weren’t the norm at the NYC dealers. Although Lyric used to demo Maggies with Audio Research often, and Levinson might be hooked up from time to time. But not so much at Innovative, where the set up was more often what ever the last customer requested. When one walked in you never knew what speakers were in what rooms or connected to what gear on any given day. Adcom was getting a lot of attention back then, so it wasn’t uncommon to see that set up. But Krell, Spectral, c-j, P.S. Audio, etc. would very often be hooked up too. I got to know the owner of Innovative in another environment/relationship and he claimed that the CS 3.5’s were amongst his all time favorite products. First and foremost because he sold a boatload of them, and secondly because they so easily demonstrated the virtues of moving up to better gear. More sales to a steady, returning clientele. Innovative were big Linn dealers, and Linn was all about the upgrade path. Of course this was all before personal PC’s, the internet, and HT was just emerging. People seemed to spend a lot more of their discretionary income on hi fi in those days. |
prof - I've settled on VTL tube amps versus any solid state amp I've had on the 3.5's, for the very reasons you cite. I had an ARC D90 when I first bought the 3.5's and liked it very much, except it's soundstaging was nowhere. I tried CJ solid state, and liked it .... had some "rounding" similar to tubes, but sounded "hollow" compared to the tubes. The only transistor amp I've had driving the Thiels that sounded good was the old Amber Series 70 amplifier. I agree with you, ultimate detail does not win over ultimate musicality in my book. |
I jumped the gun and decided to contact AccurateSound.ca to do the DRC from my ROON based music (not my tuner or SACD player). My speakers have 2 brand new COAX drivers with less than 10 hours burn-in, I was told 200 is needed. So far, with these new drivers, my system has sounded the best. Which makes sense after fixing all the damaged driver, wring, and air leak issues. So I decided to jump the gun and see what Mitch Barnett could do with system in it’s current form. I sent him the measurements that he needed and a few hours later he came back with the first of 6 Convolution filters. This is a computer zip file that gets loaded onto the ROON server to act as an software equalizer before my digital data hits the DAC. The goal is to create a sound curve that is optimized for my room and sitting position. I have a big speaker in a small room and I sit slightly to the left side of the sweet spot. Mitch created a filter using the Audiolense software (he also works with Accurate, but not in my case). The first filter he sent me was jaw dropingly great. I was floored how perfect the sound was. I am listening to a bunch of different music to come up with ideas for the other 5 filters, but really having a tough time figuring out what needs improvement. I suggested another filter with a bit more bass. He also suggested something that fits the Harman target curve. We will figure some new ones on Monday. I am currently listening to Santana’s Woodstock recording. I listened to it at a dealer on Wednesday. It was on a $32K Paradigm Persona 9H speaker + Mark Levinson gear. The bass was way more powerful (and incredible) than what I have with the CS3.7. However, there is no contest on the COAX vs the Be drivers on the 9H. I think the 9H was not setup well in the room, because I have heard the 3F and 5F sound better than this 9H demo, but nevertheless I love what I am hearing today with the CS3.7. This office system I have is now perfect. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/7605 |
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/forum/speaker-project-gallery/45255-thiel-cs3-5-cabinets-project/p... I wonder if the crossover is copying the original and new drivers or completely different... |
I use the CJ Premier 12 monoblocks (140W/side).Tube richness but with power, grip, control and nothing "slow" about the sound. Michael Fremer truly nailed the sound in this review: https://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/653/index.html |
From 1996 to 2004 I had CS .5 speakers paired with an ADS A2 integrated amp. It was a decent and highly enjoyable combination. Then my ADS A2 gave up the ghost after some 20 years of faithful service. Simon, the owner of Audio Consultants suggested a used four year old Bryston 3BST as a replacement. Turns out I really didn't know what I had until the Bryston amp together with a Bryston preamp replaced the ADS A2. What I then heard from the CS .5 speakers was an absolute revelation. |
Unsound - good horses keep living and living. Your judicious explication reminds me of a general theme which our Goners might enjoy. Thiel presented a peculiar problem for many retailers, including Innovative Audio. Retailers make packages. Those packages follow guidelines or rules. In the day it went something like one third budget for source, a third for amplification and a third for speakers. Give or take a lot. Thiel comes along and the formula crumbles because Thiel rarely sounds very good with an equally priced amp, and someone with twice the amp budget is inclined to believe that a speaker at twice the price of Thiel is better for him/her. (Most often him - often her perspective permitted the Thiel, damn the formula.) Jim had no patience for what he considered such illogical behavior. His formula was that lower prices make easier sales. He also fought to lower prices, especially at product introduction, with unrealistic and ill-founded ideas of how costs would fall as production rose. In fact the opposite was true, but that’s a different story. But the fallout was that just as the retailers settled into their Thiel pricing / presentation strategy, the prices would rise significantly to the consternation of many dealers. The joys of sales rival those of manufacturing. LOL. Audio Consultants in Chicago broke the mold splendidly. They set up Thiels in multiple rooms spread over multiple stores so that customers could hear $2500 speakers driven by $10,000 amps and understand that the whole budget was well spent. AC was our top dealer year after year. |
Thielrules I did not use REW- and did not know about it until your mention. Room EQ Wizard? I’ll download and check it out. I simply used Logic’s EQ plugin and snapped a few pics while pink noise was playing. I didn’t go too crazy with it. I also recorded musical passages to compare by ear. Email is noams@comcast.net if you’d like to see what I got - imperfect as my methods where. |
@jon_5912 I don't know that the CJ is rolling off the treble. At least, it doesn't sound like it - it doesn't sound darker, in fact a bit more lower treble illumination. In comparison the Bryston actually sounds a bit darker. And of course the differences I'm describing fits in to the "picky little audiophile differences" category. But as we all know, those little differences we seize on to can have big subjective effects in how we enjoy our systems. I swear, sometimes I feel like I might not even be in this hobby if it weren't for tube amps :-) |
@tomthiel, at the risk of beating a dead horse, please note in order to have a consistent, generally available reference that I used the Audiogon Blue Book for pricing. I also used end of cycle pricing for the CS 3.5's combination, and beginning of cycle pricing for the CS 3.7's combination. The original pricing for the CS 3.5's was about $2550 and the original pricing for the Threshold S500 was about $2900. Of course that doesn't take inflation into consideration. The end of cycle Threshold S550e was priced over twice that cost, which included a nice upgrade of dual trannies and true balanced inputs, that couldn't be used with the 3.5's eq. On the other hand the $11,000 pricing quote of the 3.7's seems quite low, as the Stereophile link suggests $12,900. IMO, the CS 3.5's were and are one of the all time audio bargains. Kudos to you and the rest of the Thiel team! |
@prof, in the past I've thought that rolled off highs improved imaging. I thought that the very high sounds threw off my ability to hear spatially. I'm entirely in the listen to what you enjoy camp so I'm not at all critical of tube lovers. I just wonder if I'm the only one that has gotten this impression. |
I've been enjoying the comments and historical perspectives from @unsound and @tomthiel regarding the 3.5s and Thiel's efforts at creating solid and marketable bass. Although I generally like sealed boxes for producing tight bass, I have to agree with @prof that I've really enjoyed the bass performance of Thiel's passive radiators, such as those in my 2.2s. This discussion got me thinking about my purchase of the 2.2s way back in early 1992, at which time I debated between the 2.2 and the 3.5. Although the 3.5s sounded good, there was something more natural and "together" about the 2.2s - at least to my ears. There was something about the EQ on the 3.5 that I didn't really like. Maybe the ones I heard weren't set up correctly or maybe I had just been brainwashed enough by the critiques of the 3.5 equalizer in TAS and Stereophile, but the 2.2s were a better value in my eyes (and ears). The 2.2s were sleeker, cheaper, and sweeter IMO, and I haven't regretted the choice a bit. And lately I've been finding that upgrades to my amps, preamp, DAC and cables have opened up the sound from the 2.2s further than I could ever have imagined possible. Unless my 2.2s finally succumb to the ravages of old age and can't be repaired, I have no plans to be speaker-hunting in the future. |
I tried throwing the Bryston 4B3 amp in to the system again today, doing some back and forth between it powering the Thiels and my CJ tube amp. I keep thinking "I’ll put it in and just live with it for a while." But when I put on familiar tracks - e.g. Talk Talk’s Happiness Is Easy - I can’t help be taken aback by the difference. "Where is that roundness, fullness, 3 dimensionality of the images?" By 3 dimensionality I don’t mean that with the Bryston the Thiels don’t image/soundstage. They certainly do, with precisely placed voices and instruments. But the voices and instruments themselves sound flattened dimensionally and tonally. More like the way "3D" images look on those old viewmasters - a series of flatt images placed in 3D relief. That’s an exaggeration, but essentially the nature of the difference I perceive. I put back in the CJ, and everything sounds bigger, more filled out, the drum kick and snare sound rich, with a present texture, the drum-set now seems more 3 dimensional like I’m peering in to the studio, voice sounds organic, acoustic guitars have that similar golden sparkle I hear from my own guitar, etc. And with the Bryston, string/keyboard parts that usually float organically and 3D sound thinner, flatter, more icy in tone and texture. Interestingly, this is exactly the character I perceived when my friend switched from his tube set up to the Bryston, at his house. Ever since then I’ve found a slightly off-putting coldness/hardness/icy quality to the sound - things sound clear but nothing sounds organic and real. (Though I never tell him this! I know not to excite audiophilia nervosa!) Anyway, none of that is to say the Bryston is objectively worse than the CJ tube amps. The Bryston also brings some excellent qualities. Just not the ones I tend to value first. |
What little I know about Adcom. In the day, Adcom may have out-sold everything else put together - solid entry into high value high performance. I knew Nelson Pass at the time and he designed a few of their mark I products. The updates and mark II versions were not designed by him. In his (paraphrased) words: "I would design a simple, clean, straight-forward unit, it would have its market life and then they (Adcom) would hand it off to someone else to pile on the parts." He said he had nothing to do with the GFA555mkII. It was designed by a well regarded French designer with considerably more complex circuitry and feedback schemes. Fast forward: I contacted Jim Williams regarding upgrading my 555mkII. Jim rebuilds and upgrades professional studio gear out west, considered about the best it gets. He upgraded my Studio Technologies mic preamp that I got from Tom Jung. Jim picks only gear with solid upgrade potential into the big leagues. The improvement in the mic pre was stunning in every audiophile respect as well as textbook measurements. This is all to say that Jim told me he doesn't work on 555mkIIs - he doesn't really like them. BUT if I sent him an original 555, I would like what he sent back. Two points: 1: don't assume a later amp in the line is the same. 2: If you stumble on a good deal on an original 555, snag it, for yourself or me. I would have it delivered to Jim Williams and eagerly await its arrival in my hotrod garage. |
Also bonedog someone on the adcom group over on Facebook made an little unit to go in between the speakers and the amp that is a protection block. Something I will be investing into despite that the adcom 5800 has no signs of anything bad in it now or anytime soon. It does not mess with the signal in any way shape or form. The guy is a genius. |
@thoft. FWIW I used an Adcom 555II on the 3.5's for years. I installed a high quality passive stepped attenuator in it and ran my DAC directly into the amp. I now use an old Superphon preamp into a Classe C300. I'd say the Adcom set up gave me about 70% of what I'm hearing now. Unfortunately I never did run the Superphon with the Adcom, but if experience with the Classe is any indication, the Superfon makes for a big improvement over going directly in. I had bought into the 'less is more' philosophy on line level inputs and now believe that was a mistake. All my non audiophile buddies where always very impressed with the old set up and I enjoyed it, but knew the Thiel's where cable of reaching another level. A word of warning -I've owned a bunch of 555II's and destroyed the woofers on a pair of Infinity Kappa's when one amp went bad. After that I had that I had the amp driving the 3.5's check and serviced - but was always a bit nervous. With current used prices on 3.5's being as cheap as they are, the irony is that to really hear what they can do, you need to spend a lot more on what you feed them than you did on the speakers themselves to really hear their potential. |
I took some measurements with the miniDSP mic and REW software to see if the new COAXs I installed (plus other wiring fixes) have resolved the SPL issues. I now see a beautiful LEF and RIGHT measurement chart with everything overlapping, just like my KEF LS50’s. Halleluiah! So my take away from all of this for any one looking to get a CS3.7. Even a massively screwed up one like mine. The speaker can be made perfect using Rob Gillum as a resource. All this work was done at home by me who is a novice on electronics. |
Unsound - good presentation! I would like to start by saying that I love the 3.5 and barely know the 3.6. My comments address the arc of development of ideas into products at Thiel. Regarding measurements, JA’s rig at Stereophile has value for non-coherent products, but like Rich V and John Dunlavy, Jim called out JA on how his ’nearfield’ rig did a disservice to our products. Jim did his calling out in private. My comments about product maturity and accuracy are more from a perspective of problems addressed and solved behind the curtain. Each product was a closer approximation to Jim’s stated goal of the four faces of accuracy. We invested heavily in building a new measurement lab and equipment with each of our moves and expansions. By the early 90s Jim had his final lab setup which generated measurements that track with the Canadian National Lab and other heavyweights. They told the story. Those measurements coupled with a pretty deep dive into Finite Element Analysis revealed layers and forms of distortions that were each formulated and solved, as well as practical, within the framework of the next product being developed. My lightweight measurements here show the 3.6 to be technically better than the 3.5 in all ways except the bass. But that leaves much important ground unturned. The CS3/3.5 was developed with less robust lab resources and before FEA. I think of it as Jim’s masterpiece because it showcased his resourcefulness and resilience. I’ve mentioned measuring speakers in the tree and the rooftop and buried in the sandbox with his self-designed and home-built sweeper and bleeper and hundreds of hours of critical listening. And on and on. The 3/3.5 stood on the shoulders of our previous more homespun efforts. And it shone brightly and made us proud. I have not previously addressed the heart-wrenching difficulty of abandoning the sealed bass and how that came to be. Our first marketed product was the 01 in 3 generations, with a sealed, equalized bass hitting 30 Hz in a bookshelf format at 92dB sensitivity. That bass system was his pride and joy, resulting from more than a year of experimentation with sealed, vented, transmission line, plus some flights of fancy. We expected that bass system to continue forever. But the market pushed back pretty hard, considering the equalizer as a Bose copy or like waving a red flag in front of an audiophile (Larry Archibald in Stereophile), Harry Pearson spending half of our virgin 03 review in the Absolute Sound picking apart the negative sonic impact of the EQ. Etc.Short story is that the 02 with its ported bass, which we considered less than best, was conceived in that push-back. I’m with you regarding the vented bass of later Thiel speakers not fitting the philosophical construct of coherence. But notice that the reviews and marketplace at large rarely if ever denigrate the 4th order time lag of Thiel vented bass. They mostly praise its ’punch & solidity’. So you and I and a few others can appreciate the ’rightness’ of the sealed/ eq’s bass, but that doesn’t build a company. I’m not surprised that you appreciate and enjoy the CS5 and its sealed bass. That was JIm’s attempt to execute correct bass down to 20Hz without the maligned equalizer. And it works extremely well with the big IF surrounding amplification requirements. These days I take some flights of fancy regarding other roads not taken. I believe that those roads, closer to Jim’s and all of our hearts of our specific, eccentric interpretation of how to best reproduce music, could have led to a more satisfying and ultimately meaningful life’s work as a designer and a company. Consider that the later drivers are far more efficient than the CS5’s and how that would have permitted higher impedance configurations to allow far more kindness to amplification. Jim’s dedication to developing the CS5 was monumental. His and all of our disappointment in its tepid market reception was close to devastating. Now we have two seminal ideas of equalized and unequalized sealed bass which both met more resistance than acceptance. I absolutely wanted to improve those platforms. Jim was discouraged. Kathy as marketing director surveyed the landscape and decided (she was the decider) that ’it didn’t make much difference’ to the dealers as long as it sounded good. We could spend a chapter parsing that out; but bottom line is that Jim abandoned his signature bass approaches and focused on executing vented bass the best he could. I’m glad that you are addressing these issues. They were huge issues for me personally. My gig as a founding partner was to incubate the company to sustainability while keeping our vision clear. I deemed the bass alignment thing to be a core issue. Kathy did not. Jim and Kathy, by that time, marched in lock step. There is another significant issue around company building. I’ve mentioned before that we bootstrapped our growth, which is an understatement. By CS5 time (1988) we took on a seasoned business manager who worked the numbers hard and well. His assessment indicated that we were underselling our products by a LOT and couldn’t continue. A fledgling company can do the near impossible at a small scale for a limited time. We were ten years in and technically not profitable. Another chapter there. Suffice it to say that getting great bass can represent over half the cost of an entire product (bigger cabinet, serious drivers and crossovers, etc.). So your price comparisons should consider that the CS3 and CS5 iterations were selling at unsustainably low prices. The watershed product that distilled these conflicts was the CS3.6 with its vented bass, executed very well, but nonetheless a compromise. You may appreciate that I never bothered to listen to a CS3.6 after its production development rigors. Isn’t life something? Some issues and developments only come into focus through a very long lens. That’s been more than 25 years ago. Thanks again, John. |
I used an Adcom SLC 505, a B&K CS115 and a c-j PF 2L with the Adcom 555 II. At least one of the Adcom pres was highly rated, and considered something of a giant killer. I never heard a Musical Fidelity product that I would consider buying. Isn't the MF Tri Vista an integrated? Are you planning on running one integrated into another integrated? Most high end pre's use separate power supplies, and the same holds true for ultra deluxe power amps. Having all that circuitry so close to each other allows for the transference of RF, EMI and ground issues. Does the Tri Vista use those canned tube nuvista devices. I remember reading many years ago that MF claimed that they had big surplus of them, but that was a long time ago. I don't know of anyone else that might stock those rather unique devices. I'd check, you might be SOOL should you need replacements. Would you need to send the unit back to England for repairs? I have to admit I have a bit of prejudice against MF. Shortly after Stereophile was sold to a major holder, for a few months the magazine looked nothing short of a monthly catalogue for Musical Fidelity, pages and pages of MF ads with intermittent reviews of many MF products. Suspicious to say the least! |
What adcom did you have and what was the pre amp? I currently use the 5800 with 18 mosfets per channel and a huge toroidal. Runs incredibly hot and with the luxman at least it sounds excellent with great dimensionality. I feel like adcom pre’s are the adcom amps downfall despite the adcom pre amps literally made to be paired with them. Also what would your input be on me getting a used musical fidelity tri vista 300 for thiels? Saw someone on YouTube using it with their cs7’s |
@thoft, I assume your addressing me? IMHO, the CS 6’s were something of a poor value. Similar to the CS 3.6’s in range, though with much greater ease and dynamics, but at nearly twice the cost, again IMHO, a poor value. YMMV! The CS 7’s were one of Thiel’s best. But, and I might be in the minority here, I preferred the CS 5i’s. But the CS 5’s amplifier requirements are, let’s put this politely; demanding. I had an Adcom on long term loan (a couple of months), and heard them on a lot of gear. While I admired them for allowing those on a budget to use speakers that might otherwise be out of reach due to amplification budget requirements. They were up to the job that was previously only available from more expensive (and sometimes much more expensive) amps. Ultimately the Adcom was amongst my least favorite amps. I found them to be dry, grainy, flat. and lacking dimensionality. I noticed that as long as it was in my system, the less time I spent listening to it. |
@thieliste, re: your 11/24/2020 post: Thiel Owners | Audiogon Discussion Forum IMHO, what improvements the Thiel CS 3.6’s had over the Thiel CS 3.5’s amounted to 2 steps forward / 3 steps back. Where as the flat co-axial drivers in the CS 3.7’s were a major(!) improvement forward. Still when all (!) is considered; I think Thiel’s CS 3.5’s were Thiel’s best product. When I say all, I’m including ROI or more plainly value. Lets compare: Thiel CS 3.5’s last sold for $2850 up until 1992 Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com Thiel CS 3.7’s first sold for $11,000 in 2006 Thiel CS3.7 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com Considering inflation between 1992 and 2006 would make the Thiel CS 3.5’s cost in 2006 = $ 4,067.03 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Now, if one wanted to retrieve all the musical information available on one’s recordings, unlike the Thiel CS 3.5’s the Thiel 3.7’s would need to be supplemented with subwoofers. Let’s use a pair of Thiel’s own bottom of the line Thiel SS1’s, original 2003 cost of $2800 each adjusted for inflation in 2006 = $3046.10 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Thiel SS1’s X 2 = $6092.20 That alone costs more than the 2006 inflationary cost of the Thiel CS 3.5’s When added to the original cost of the Thiel 3.7’s: Thiel CS 3.7’s: $11,000 + Thiel SS! X 2 : $6,092.20 ____________________________ Total: $ 17,092.20 Or more than $13,025.17 than the 2006 inflationary cost of the Thiel CS 3.5’s And that doesn’t include the cost of amplification: Jim Thiel mostly used the Threshold S 500 amplifier for the Thiel CS 3.5’s. Lets use the last version sold; the Threshold S550e which sold in 1989 for $6300 adjusted for 2006 inflation for a cost of $10,289.13 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Jim Thiel mostly used the Krell FPB - 600 amplifier for the Thiel CS 3.7’s. Lets use the Krell FPB - 600 C which sold in 2000 for $13,500 adjusted for 2006 inflation for a cost of $15,867.10 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Which would be an additional $5,555.97 in amplification cost, which when added to the extra costs of the CS 3.7’s with 2 Thiel SS1’s over the 2006 inflation adjusted Thiel CS 3.5’s = $18,603.14 Thiel CS 3.7’s = $11,000 Thiel CS SS1 X 2 =$ 6,092.20 Krell FPB-600C =$15,867.10 ________________________________ Total $32,959.30 Thiel CS 3.5’s =$ 4,067.03 - Threshold S550e =$10,289.13 ________________________________ $14,356.16 ___________ $18,603.14 Now the Thiel CS 3.7’s combination will outperform the Thiel CS 3.5 combination in most every way; ease of placement, freedom from lobing, ultimate loudness, (and with the subs especially in the bass region), and much, much more,... except time and phase coherence, and foot print where the Theil CS 3.5’s despite their 20 year age disadvantage still have the edge. Still, the CS 3.5’s wouldn’t be too embarrassed by the comparison. If one wanted to do something similar with the current state of used prices, I think the advantage would be probably proportionately even greater for the Thiel CS 3.5’s. Considering everything; I think the CS 3.5’s were Thiel’s best product. |
@tomthiel, In reply to your 11/25/2020 post: Thiel Owners | Audiogon Discussion Forum Let me say that your measurements are better than mine, as I have none. Though I think Stereophile's component measurements have real value, I am hesitant to use Stereophile's speaker measurements, especially with speakers like Thiel's. I have heard the 3.5's next to the 3.6's very often at my preferred dealer at the time, Innovative Audio in Brooklyn, with various gear such as Adcom , B&K, conrad-johnson, Exposure, Levinson, Krell, PS Audio, Rowland, Spectral, etc., And as they had a policy of only (except for the small budget lines) having one set of speakers in a room at a time, they were regularly moving speakers in and out of their various sized rooms. So there was that too. It's hard for me to imagine a speaker with a port and less bass output as being "more accurate" by "adhering to a more flat frequency and phase response curve" than a sealed box with extended bass response. Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com Thiel CS3.6 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com It might appear as though the 3.6's were .5 dB more linear above sub bass frequency but, when including sub bass frequency they were 1dB less linear, and only to 27Hz as opposed to the 3.5's 20 Hz. I can only wonder what the 3.5's frequency response above 27 Hz might have measured as. It seems incongruous that, all else being equal, a port would be more phase linear than a sealed box. I was aware of the significance of numerology in eastern culture. But, it seems as though Thiel's nomenclature only had value within Thiel. The difference between the CS3's and the CS 3.5's to the consumer seemed less than than that between the CS 3.5's and CS 3.6's. The CS 2's were 3 ways. The CS 5's had 6 drivers. The CS 6's had 3 drivers. The CS 7's had 4 drivers. Thiel could have used any number of alternative names to avoid using the #4, such as 3+1, or 2+2, etc.. The baffle was covered by a grill. With apologies to Bill; : "A speaker by any other name would sound just as sweet". Perhaps "rushing to market" was overstated, But meeting market demands still seemed to be the objective. The refinement of the 3.6's was welcome, but expected. The loss of bass response and the let down in time and phase coherence (a Thiel hallmark!) was not, then the extra demands on amplification and concurrent costs was also not. The jaded might suspect it was an attempt to give dealers an excuse to sell their more of their new home theatre sub woofers. Oh well, time moves on, and so must we.:-) |
A guy in Rochester NY is selling a CS3.7 for $4K but it is local pickup. Status update on my CS3.7 refurb. 1) I was able to contact Rob Gillum today and we discussed the resistance measurements on my crossover. One speaker, the good one, had 0 resistance on the tweeter, What the heck happened there. I was thinking I would need to disconnect the crossover and send to Rob. Not something I wanted to do. However, after opening up the crossover module I see the white positive tweeter wire disconnected from the crossover. Maybe it got disconnected when I moved the speaker to the garage for painting. I did use kid gloves with the transport but maybe not careful enough. This speaker was the one that was measuring stronger on the high frequencies on the SPL measurement. So the wire must have got disconnected after the measurements. The re-soldering of that tweeter wire was tricky but got done. I measured the resistance again and everything was good on both speakers. I added the 2 new COAXs that I got from Rob. They are the black ones from 2014. I packed up the old COAXs to send to Rob for analysis. If they are good they will be my backup drivers. 2) I finished the paint job. It was a 9/10 until I became more ambitious and decided to touchup a smudge on the aluminum shell of one speaker. I added some of the great 3M painting plastic to cover the wood in a small section. Painted it and came back the next day to remove plastic. Unfortunately, the tape on the plastic stuck too tightly on the new paint on the wood and took some paint off. Awww!. I fixed that with some sanding and touchup but now that side is a 7/10. I can fix it perfectly with some sanding and a full coat on that side but you can only see the touchup if you look closely from an angle. Maybe I will fix that but for now I have the speaker placed so that I never see it. 3) I added the new outriggers I got from Rob,. I like the way that looks and functionally useful so that my son does not topple the speaker. I managed to do all of this work without my son seeing what the drivers look like. Which is a good thing. As I listen to some John Lennon, the sound now seems correct. I was told that the new COAX needs about 200 hours to settle. However, given the massively messed up nature of the speaker when I brought it home, it sounds the best I have ever heard right now. The COAX is not as smooth as it will get but it sounds so much more coherent across all the frequencies. A bit like the Yamaha NS5000. All of this cost me about $2000 extra. With paint, 2 new COAX, outriggers, solder kit (and self training), multimeter, and the Recoil kit to fix the COAX thread. What a nightmare but a great learning experience on speaker builds. I will measure the speakers next week and hope the results are perfect. If so, I can continue with my DRC implementation. |
3.5' mids replaced with Madisound's '13M replacement' scan-speak 10f with adapter ring. My experience to date (and a little advice): Loosening the tweeters needs to be done with just the right screwdriver and much care. I had a ratcheting screwdiver with a perfect bit. The screws area deep and tight. Leave the top screw in and remove bottom two then loosen to be able to remove the mids. The mids themselves come out easily. White wire is positive. There is a red paper washer under the terminal on the speaker which I did not notice at first. Black one on neg. side (duh) The waveform rings will come off with with a strong sharp folding knife to pry it apart from the driver. It is perhaps hot glue that holds them together. It is not epoxy as I had feared. The waveform rings have a ridge that fit the original M13 but do not work on the replacement. You will have to hacksaw it off if you want to use it on the 10f or put the new ones in without them. Measurements and impressions: I took some less then laboratory spec measurements and recordings with a condenser mic into Logic Pro. email me noams@rum comcast.net if you want pics of spectrum. At 10" lined up on the mid centers*: From 200 to 4khz the graphs looked fairly similar. Above 4khz. The 13m's drop off on an even slope The 10f's fall off less evenly, drop off a bit at around 7K then bump up around 11k * (yes I'm picking up some tweeter too) Measurements done just after driver install - no burn-in Listening: I did not do any burn in but have about 10 hours on them now. Mostly a variety of well recorded Jazz and alt-country. They are very transparent and detailed but to my ear (at this point) the upper mids through lower hi's sound more pronounced and tad exaggerated. I hear it on vocals through snares and hi-hats. Come to think of it even upper bass is affected. I did not carefully compare sensitivity and was not super careful running pink noice at the exact same level each go round. I am suspecting they are bit more sensitive and are boosting everything in their range (which is a lot with these crossovers) in their own very detailed way. ** I am hoping further break-in will reduce this. Imaging is as good as ever. On some material they sound great, and overall the sound is still very impressive - but to my ear the originals seemed more balanced. They sounded 'just right' on almost everything I threw at them. Some of this impression may just be what I'm used to. One of my original 13m's is still good and the other has a bad surround but is otherwise good. I found a rubber surround that seems to fit perfectly and will at some point replace the foam on one or both of them. For now I will keep these in and play the 'SH' out of them for a while. I'll report further impressions after they've had more hours on them. Thanks to those here who helped with this endeavor. ** I do a bit of my own DIY on tube guitar amps and guitar controls but haven't tweaked crossovers at all. If further break-in doesn't land me where I want to go I'm wondering if a simple voltage divider or dropping resistor right at the driver terminal could in effect reduce their relative sensitivity to the other drivers without mucking up the overall sound or screwing anything else up. |
Just in case anyone is interested, TMR has listed a walnut pair of CS 3.6 speakers for $1399 + another $399 for shipping. Condition listed as 7 out of 10. https://tmraudio.com/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/theil-cs3-6-floorstanding-speakers-cs-3-6-walnu... |
