danomar
I’ve never owned a pair of the proprietary stands offered with the PCSs, but I can attest to the functionality of that panel for internal access. The drivers can be removed from the front, but the mid/woof is actually braced against the back of the baffle by a block of wood that slides along a kind of rail system and tightened by a very long wood screw. Does anyone know if this construction was used in other models? Anyway, it’s pretty cramped in there and the panel allows access to the crossover (which seems to be directly attached to the lovely Vampire terminals), without removal of the pretty hefty mid/woof.
One reason I’m interested in the conception of that rail system is that it is part of the source of the well-known cracks that can form in the mid/woof region of the baffle. I would guess that the brace was properly tightened at the factory, but I don’t know what role it would play in the recommendations for transport. In any case the bottom panel allows access to adjust the brace, removal of which, at least, also facilitates crossover access.
Has anyone owned or listened to the PCS and 2.4 side by side? Since it resembles a kind of mini 2.3/4, I’ve always wondered how much it might sound like a 2.4 with limited bass. Also, since the published measurements (Stereophile) of both show a similar rising 45 degree phase response, l wonder if these models utilize the modified 2nd order slopes that Tom Thiel referred to regarding the SCS.
FWIW, I find that if one is not using an amp that truly doubles output into lower impedances, they can be a bit bass shy. However, I am constantly amazed at how well a simulacrum of closed-box bass is created by these speakers. With proper boundary placement, these are the least ported-sounding, ported speakers I’ve ever encountered! I’ve always assumed that they were meant to be used with one of the Thiel SmartSubs, and were commonly reviewed in that configuration.
