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!
128x128jafant
silvanik

Looking forward to an after show report from you guys. Have fun!

Happy Listening!
bighempin

Enjoy a fun and safe trip picking up those CS 3.7 loudspeakers.
Take the Cable audition while you are on scene.  Happy Listening!
There is a sonic trait on the CS2.4 that I wonder if you agree.  Maybe Tom can provide his inputs.  

In speaker design the baffle is pretty important to the sound which has to do with diffraction which I won't go into detail here since it will just create an even opposing opinions.  Anyway, the CS2.4 has the coax fairly lower from the top of the speakers.  For comparison, the CS3.7 has the coax almost at the top with the aluminum cone on top.

When in a recording where there is a hard right or left mix, in the CS2.4, I do feel that the sound comes from the baffle which spoils the 3-D illusions somewhat.  In some of my designs, I place the tweeter right close to the top of the speaker so in such recording, the image flows more from the air as opposed from the baffle.

So in the CS2.4, the high freq. sound has to traverse the entire upper baffle so you hear the reflection from the baffle and not directly from the tweeter.  I suspect that Thiel may have had this in mind, therefore on the CS3.7 design, the coax is placed at the top of the baffle to create a better 3D illusions.

An example of baffle design which improves diffraction is employed by Avalon Acoustic which has the tweeter close to the top with the baffle swept back.  I think Thiel curved baffle such as the CS3.7 is even better but it will probably cost more to manufacture.


Can’t say I’ve noticed this trait, Andy2. Some songs with the mix in one channel seem to emanate well outside the bounds of the speakers. The CS2.4 does this at least as well as the CS1.6 and Vandy 2Ce Sig II. Just earlier this evening I did a double take as the image was a couple of feet left of the left channel even with my eyes open. I think this is this is more dependent on the recording than other factors, at least with designs that attempt to reduce baffle effects.

 I continue to be very impressed with SQ after my XO rebuild. If I’m in the hot seat, I can’t read with background music on - too distracting! The only sonic parameter that doesn’t quite match the very best I’ve heard is image density. Perhaps *that* is influenced by the baffle? But the TAD Ref One is among the best I’ve heard in that regard (and other regards!) and I don’t think anyone would accuse that model of having an innocuous baffle.