Yeah, I'm not sure Thiel's would typically need such large cases for cross-overs, except perhaps for the CS5's. Perhaps something that resembled typical components might be found more acceptable to some? If external cross-overs were to be considered perhaps both pre and post cross-over amplification could be considered too? I am most curious about upgrades for the 3.5's! There are a few different things that could be done with that model. |
hi Guys, I just acquired a beautiful set of demo 3.7's in maple. They are breaking in and so it is too early to comment on the sound. they can be pretty ragged at first but after a week they have improved a bunch. I am going to eventually sell my 2.7's as i cannot keep both (lucky you Prof.). Joseph Audio was also on my list but could not pass these up. would be curious to see if anyone ever gets to compare the two. If anyone on the east coast is interested in the 2.7's, please feel free to write me at [email protected]. I do have all boxes and everything, but shipping is so expensive. |
Hello everyone. Thanks, beetle for the update and I appreciate whatever feedback you guys can give. There are so many considerations and development requirements, and so little time. But I am making progress. Unsound, indeed our crossover cases would be quite tidy, along the lines of an 8" cube and probably as an option. Heat dissipation and electromagnetic field management are the prime motivators. I will be comparing internal vs external in my PowerPoint-as-studio monitor experiment. Making it up as we go. Regarding CS3.5s. Indeed they are worthy and among Thiel's biggest game-changers. However, redevelopment of that product should include the equalizer as either unbalanced or fully balanced and with greater sophistication applied. The bass equalization concept rocked, but its implementation could use improvement. Big project for which I am not personally qualified. Any takers? Also, the drivers were the last "modifieds" for Thiel. They had custom elements, but not Thiel's proprietary motor technologies or diaphragms - from-the-ground-up designs. I have chosen the CS3.6 for its more sophisticated proprietary drivers and more accessible solutions. The 3.5 is indeed a classic and I would consider collaboration with the right upgrade champion. Ron, I have heard the 3.7 and 2.7 the day the finished 2.7 came to the Thiel music room, September 2012 - a room I had designed and built and in which I knew all acoustics and equipment. General thoughts: Over the years since the early 80s, the model 2 was a trickle-down product with the advantage of sunk-cost technologies developed for the 3 and with lighter loads re deep bass and ultimate sound pressure levels. An easier ride with a most-bang-for-the-buck mission. This time, outside designer(s) stirred the pot. My gestalt impression, knowing the long-term history and learning about and hearing this x.7 iteration of the dance, is that the 2.7 is voiced toward forgiveness. Jim was quite single-minded in choosing his solutions toward ultimate fidelity to the signal rather than "easier to take with most recordings". I found the 2.7 to be sweeter, but less resolving, even with the identical coax driver. Natasha Crane (my secret weapon) attended that session with her bat-ears and no hi-fi experience (a great advantage.) After the lights-out, presentation she said "the 3 is way better, but the 2 is friendlier". My present path is to make a pair each of internal and external upgrade XOs for my PowerPoints and work with beetle's CS2.4s and learn what we learn. This project is front-burner, but shares priority with other demands on my time. The feedback of this group is helpful. Parts are trickling in. |
Thanks for posting, Tom! The external XO in an ~8" cube would be unobtrusive to include in a living space. I am even more interested now that I know the dimension. Given that my goal is to optimize the SQ, adding this small cabinet behind the speakers is a no-brainer. I'll await the report of your trials. I need to correct the record. Above I wrote: no burn in time tho’ Tom thinks this is not necessary for resistorsBut here are his words to me in a PM: All components benefit from burn-in, including resistors, but ESPECIALLY solder joints. The metallurgic structure has been disturbed and somehow heals in use. I expect your job will sound better over the coming weeks.Apologies for misinterpreting an earlier message. I'll let the speakers run at least 100 hours before I do any serious comparisons. |
Tomthiel, thank you for your prompt response. I can’t help but wonder if more traditional less high, 17” ( or 1/2 size X 2) with available rack mount wings, component style cases that could fit on a typical rack might appeal to more individuals who might prefer not to have boxes strewn on the floor? Such standard cases might be more cost effective? As I alluded to previously an outboard crossover might lend itself to the option of bi or tri- amping for many models (with allowances made for CS5’s). Something that might be of particular interest to earlier models with bass eq’s. I have neither the time, tools or expertise to be of much help, but I do have 3 3.5 eq’s. I might be willing to lend 2 of them as guinea pigs for upgrade considerations. Balanced mono’s? In sympathy with updated cross-overs? Something(s) else? |
