Thiel Owners

danomar

Good to see you here again. Happy Birthday! indeed. Stay tuned until one of the Panel's PSC experts chimes in to address your query.  What other gear is in your System?

Happy Listening!

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.

danomar and gman - I don't have direct knowledge of the PCS, it coming after my time at Thiel plus never having actually seen one. But I can throw some scattershot around it in case something may help.

The Y2K PCS was a trickledown product from the 1998 CS2.3, which was Jim's first generation passive-coupled mid-tweeter. That 2.3 driver also graced the 1998 MCS. The PCS - Personal Coherent Source - was billed as a desktop system. I didn't know about a stand. I've heard that an upgraded PCS was in the background haze, which would have utilized a third generation passive coax being co-developed for the 7.3 along with a 'normal' 2-way active coax in case the passive didn't cut the mustard for the pinnacle 7.3. Such a gen3 coax would also have gone into the CS2.5. None of that happened.

An interior woofer brace with drawbolt was designed for the CS7 / 7.2. I don't know about similarities / differences to the PCS.

Regarding comparisons - the most direct family resemblance would be with the 2.3. The 2004 CS2.4 coax was improved and the XO refined. I've never heard either the 2.3 or PCS nor seen schematics of the PCS. My speculation is that it would likely have true first-order crossover slopes because the driving problem necessitating the hybrid first-second XO is overtaxing the bottom end of the tweeter. The CS2.3 / PCS driver has that mechanically coupled midrange driver to carry the bass end of that compound voice coil. (Clever, no?)

To round out my comments, The SCS4 / PowerPoint (etc.) products all returned to true first order, having the advantage of Jim's further tricks for increased tweeter power-handling. Just for grins I'll add that my SCS4P (professional) in development places a thru-wall heatsink on both the woofer and tweeter for thermal stability when using the speaker hard for hours on end. 

Cheers, Tom

@jafant I am using my mid-level Luxman C-12/M-12 combination. I am in a temporary housing situation, so the full system is still in boxes. Still, thus far I am impressed.

To put my choices in perspective, a year or so back I decided to focus on smaller speakers because 90% of my listening is at moderate (70-80 dBA) volume levels. I was planning to get KEF Reference 1s but opted for the KEF R3 Meta a month ago because right now is not the time for the more expensive speakers. The KEF R3 Meta is surprisingly good. It produces very tight, deep bass and the midrange/treble is very clear. The soundstage is very good, too.

When compared to the KEFs, the PCS speakers have more nuanced response (more cohesive and balanced) and, more important to me, a better-filled soundstage. I listen to a lot of live performances (mostly jazz) where one can discern where instruments are placed: The PCSes create a wide, dense soundstage that approaches the KEF Reference 1 and perhaps the Eclipses. I seem to be within the performance with the PCS rather than looking at it with the KEF R3s.The KEFs produce greater clarity and response overall, but the PCS sounds like one speaker whereas the KEFs seem like a collection of drivers. The R3 is still impressive, but the Thiel soundstage is what I crave.

Since these speakers seem designed for use with subwoofers, I dragged out one of mine and hooked it up. Few speakers that I have heard work as well with a subwoofer as the PCSes.

I was keeping an eye out for a pair of CS2.4s, but when I saw these, I needed to get them if only out of curiosity. They might fit my needs better than the 2.4.

I have owned Dahlquists, Vandersteens, and a variety of other speakers, but now I understand the Thiel presentation. Very nice. Very, very nice.

danomar

Nice system. The CS 2.4 speakers do require a medium size room.

Happy Listening!