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!
jafant
Hi andy2, what is your opinion on the 1uF foil caps (C2 and C7), why JT omitted it in the SE crossover?

Before answering your question, let me just take a moment discussing the physics behind capacitor and inductor.  Think of them as the ying and yang of circuit design.  I am not sure if you're technically inclined but they act opposite of each other.  The capacitor acts to slow down a current whereas the inductor acts as to speed up a current.  Mathematically a capacitor is an integrator (a process of averaging) and an inductor is a differentiator (a process of diffrentiation which emphasizing the extreme).

To make thing a bit more complicated, the larger the capacitor, it carries extra parasitic that is not part of the capacitor.  The lower quality of the capacitor, the higher amount of parasitic.  Therefore, there is a need to have a smaller capacitor in parallel for the higher frequency to get through bypassing all the parasitic of the large capacitor.  If you have a really good capacitor, it would have less parasitic so it will not degrade the treble frequency so bypass capacitor may not be needed.

So the purpose of C2 and C7 are meant to provide an extra path for the higher frequency signal therefore to improve the transient of the treble frequency.  Now it's a matter of implementation.  If you think your main capacitor is good enough, then C2 and C7 may not be needed.  So it's your call.  Although C2 and C7 improves the treble transient, the problem with running a large capacitor and a much smaller capacitor together is it may introduce jitter since the signal path is now unequal.  Another way to implement it is to equally split the capacitance value in half.  For example, if you want 14uf, it might be better to have two 7uf vs. one 13uf and one 1uf.  Both implementation both adds up to 14uf, but the physics will be different hence the difference effect in treble.  At the end, it'a a matter of fine tuning.

For comparison purpose, most speakers have separate tweeter and midrange driver, therefor the tweeter xover on those speakers have very small capacitor in the signal path which is around 4.7uf to 6.8uf.  For the CS2.4, if you count up all the cap in the signal path (14uf + 28uf = 42uf), that is quite a bit so the bypass cap is probably more important.  Listening to the CS2.4 and my own design, I do feel my speakers have that extra treble details that is hard to describe but it's there.  Some have mentioned that after the cap upgrade on the CS2.4, there is extra air and transparency so it may have something to do with that,

"I have used the Clarity CSA (the older version, not the latest one with their newer Copper Technology), Mundorf Supreme cap, and Jantzen Z-Silver."

Andy - would you please clarify which ClarityCap you are referencing? The CSA has the copper ends.

Thanks, Tom
Andy - would you please clarify which ClarityCap you are referencing? The CSA has the copper ends.
Hi Tom,

Sorry, I got confused with all the acronym.  The Clarity cap I used was "SA" and not "CSA".  So I the Clarity cap that I used did not have the Copper Technology.

Again, sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for the reply, Andy. I’m pretty sure the C in CSA is for copper. Maybe your earlier experience was with Clarity SA? Tom Thiel suggested Mundorfs as a possibility for the coax feeds early last year and I considered those. From my reading, there is wide performance among Mundorfs, probably owning to their varied sources. Somewhat independently, each of us circled back to Clarity (in no small part after reading through a long capacitor thread on a’gon). The CMR range captured my imagination but Tom convinced me that CSA with a good bypass would have similar performance for less money (Thiel Audio’s MO). The Jantzens seem to be excellent and that is what @holco is using to great effect.

It’s been a couple of years since I’ve heard a top-$helf system but my upgrade captures what I recall of its SQ. Of course, the CS2.4 comes up short in low bass and a XO upgrade can’t help that but my upgrade has resolution, immediacy and transparency on par with the best I’ve heard. Musical immersion. The only criticism I can muster is that image density doesn’t match the best I’ve heard. Not sure whether it’s something with my set-up or room or the speakers. But I otherwise now have my own top-shelf system.
Andy - thanks for the clarification. The C is for Copper in CSA and the CSA is reported to be a big step better than the SA. One day I will directly compare the SAs from the 2.4SE with the new CSAs.