Jim steered me to the Bryston 4B amplifier for my new Thiel 3.5s. Never looked back.
13,229 responses Add your response
hi Cabinlife, congrats as well. they were how i started my journey with Thiel back in 1985. they can be a bit bright so pay attention to amp, cables etc. Also i have a pair of Sound Anchors that i used to use with them as they needed them for stability and leveling. Let me know if you would be interested in them. |
cabinlife - I offer my assistance in documenting your CS2s for the purpose of educating us all in their particulars. There was a XO refinement in May '87 and original electrolytic caps are up to 35 years old. And so forth. If you like, you can post your serial numbers and whatever else you wish and various folks here might help guide you toward optimizing their performance. Tom |
The recent mention of the CS2 piqued my interest and perhaps the Thiel hive-mind can help me. I have a pair that I bought in 1990 (sn 11263, 11264) that I retired last year with used 2.4s, which I then upgraded using Rob GIllum's caps & outriggers. The new setup is great but I'd like to find a use for the 2.0s, but don't really have the space in my house for them. The mid-range & tweeters were replaced in about 2010, and the woofer was rebuilt by Thiel at the factory. Are these worth keeping (assuming I can find a use), and if so, should I replace the caps or do other work on them? The cabinets are in decent condition and I have them stored in their factory cartons. |
CS2 guys - welcome to a remembrance. The CS2 is among the most successful and most formative in Thiel's history. The 3-series launched from near the beginning; the CS3 was 4th generation thinking in 1983. The CS2 was a fresh start in 1985. It was devised as the little sister to its big brother CS3 - smaller, less expensive, less bold for smaller rooms and music, delicate and refined. It was the largest count and longest running speaker in the history of the company. Rojacob's fall at the end of the cycle. Some dealers encouraged us to delay the introduction of the 2.2 because sales were strong for the 2. In fact, the two products over-lapped their production cycle in 1990. I want to tribute Tim Tipton as part of the CS2s success. Tim had succeeded in his own enterprise and came to us as a seasoned manager - he ran our purchasing department for 20 years until his retirement. Tim brought concepts such as progressive forecasting and commitments. The CS2 concept required parts cost to be 1/3 lower than the CS3, in addition to cabinet materials and labor 40% lower. Let's look at drivers and crossover components. The Dynaudio D28 tweeter was an expensive unit, used in many of the leading brands at that time. The Vifa midrange and Seas woofer were substantially customized and therefore priced at premium. Tim negotiated prices based on our forecast of 10,000 drivers with annual commitments a year ahead of need on prenegotiated monthly releases. In a volatile marketplace filled with small, transient, unstable startups, Tim positioned Thiel as an anchor around which driver suppliers could plan. The importing distributors could bring in thousands of units for us on a predictable schedule. He negotiated every ounce of cost reduction from the situation, and with price-freeze protection 2 years out. Tim's local reputation was that he could squeeze and dime out of a nickel. The crossovers were expensive - including 6-9s aerospace coil wire which I had sourced from ITT for the 03. Tim applied the same long-range forecasting to that wire for substantial cost reductions. And caps and so forth. He also introduced more sophisticated accountancy, such as the CS3 drivers, caps and so forth continued to bear their previous cost burdens and the negotiated reductions were applied to the CS2 bill of materials instead of averaging the shared parts costs. In my cabinet planning, Tim served as an intelligent participant. He helped isolate the profound cost savings of concentrating the wave-shaping mechanism into the grille board rather than the 3-D baffle augmented with a complementary grille of the CS3. Remember, this jujitsu machining all preceeded CNC technology and required serious dedicated methods with high-skill workers. The grille-boards became an independent operation, untied from cabinets, wood finish prediction, run sizes and so forth. CS2 cabinets had all flat panels with only the single angled baffle. Some of you might enjoy a marketplace anecdote. Tony Cordesman was writing for Stereophile at that time and gave the CS2 an astoundingly positive review, taking the Quad ESL-63 as his comparison against which the CS2 stacked up quite respectably. Tony specifically cited the elegant success of the CS2 grille for dispersion control and diffraction mitigation. Stereophile's new publisher Larry Archibald took on the CS2 as his extensive long-term reference and always niggled an upper midrange edge . . . It turned out that Larry "never used grilles" and therefore had negated the carefully engineered tweeter wave guide and rounded edge boundary. He later claimed that Thiel had solved the edginess problem via crossover changes. Tony was an extremely astute listener, migrated to The Absolute Sound, and all these gyrations stay behind the curtain. Back to Rojacob's CS2s. That historic model doesn't turn up much these days. But considering its inherent strengths I suggest they are well worth reviving. At nearly 30 years old, the electrolytic caps are near expiration. Storage is especially hard on Ecaps and failure of series feeds would endanger the midrange and tweeter, which are out of production. Your coils and wire are state of the art. Your schematic is tweaked and final behond #4900. If you want to delve, I can recommend caps and resistors as well as some cabinet tweaks. The CS2 began life at $1250/ pair in 1985 and were always compared to products costing some multiple. You could make them better than new with very little investment. |
gasman117 Good to see you here. Yes- REL subwoofer(s) are a sonic match for the CS 2.4 loudspeaker. There are a few members of the Panel here that uses this combo. Also, there are a few owners over on Audio Asylum as well. At your leisure, read through this thread for pertinent information regarding REL / Thiel matching. Keep us posted on your progress. Happy Listening! |
Hello all! Discovered this thread a couple of weeks ago. Great thread. Now that I've read it from beginning to end, thought that it was time to introduce myself and join this band of brothers (and maybe some sisters). Like a number of you, I live in the Chicago area and have been a long time customer of Audio Consultants in Evanston. So a little history. My journey to Thiel began with Magnepans. Had a pair of SMGa's and I was quite happy with them. I had picked them up from Audio Consultants back in my bachelor days in 1984 together with a Braun/ADS A2 Atelier Integrated Amp (80 watts per side into 8 Ohms). But in 1996 my wife and I were very concerned that our young toddler (he's now 26 and in grad school) was more than capable of toppling over those baby Maggies and injuring himself. So it was into Audio Consultants my wife and I went to find a solution. Simon at Audio Consultants said he had just the speaker for us, the Thiel CS .5, so we traded in our baby Maggies for a pair of baby Thiels. Then flash forward to 2004, and my trusty ADS A2 after twenty some years of faithful service gives up the ghost. Back into Audio Consultants I go, this time with my 11 year old son in tow. Once again Simon has the answer. He suggests a used Bryston 3B ST with 16 years remaining on its 20 year warranty. But where am I going to put it? I explain that I have my stack of gear sitting atop an old fashioned ice chest. At which point my 11 year old speaks up and says, "Dad, what about putting it underneath the ice chest". And that is where the 3B ST has been ever since, with a used Bryston preamp taking the place of the ADS A2 in the stack atop the chest. Once I had it all set up, boy did that Bryston rig make those baby Thiels sing. Then at some point Simon in his very understated gentlemanly way puts the bug in my ear "you know, with the amp you have you can think about better speakers". So fast forward again, this time to 2011, and with a home renovation and family room addition now behind me, I target buying a pair of used CS 2.4s which I locate at Audio Consultants Libertyville store. And the .5s. Instead of trading them in, I have them bubble wrapped sitting in my crawl space, awaiting the day that my son has the place to put them. CS .5s serial#s 0439 and 0440 in Black CS 2.4s serial#s 2951 and 2952 in Black Ash (as to provenance, I am the third owner ... all owners purchased the speakers from Audio Consultants; speakers were approximately 5 years old at time of purchase in April of 2011, and was told that owner direclty previous to me had traded them in for a pair of 3.7s ... so there is the possiblity that a previous owner is a participant of this thread) |
| Post removed |
@jon_5912 But agree, perusing the recent arrivals on Audio Consultants Used Equipment list is a daily ritual. It is where I found my 2.4s along with a few other items. I get my hair cut at Jay's Barber Shop just around the corner on Maple, and following my hair cut it is very hard to resist popping into Audio Consultants to look around, chat or simply say hello. |
Hello to all, great write up Tom! Well my speakers arrived on Wednesday. The piano black finish is fantastic! However my left speakers midrange is not working. I will contact Rob at coherent source service and see if there’s anything They can do. Not sure if I will keep or return if I can not get a new midrange speaker for it. Maybe look for some 1.5s. |
George - I use PX02 and PXO5 crossovers rigged for each model. They create an inverse of the roll-off characteristics of the speaker, therefore creating an ideal match by definition. That solution was patented. It seems to my ear to work very well. I have never heard better integrated bass, and it seemed to get high marks from reviewers. There are issues of amp noise and repairability. Performance issues remain. One function of subwoofers is to increase the speakers' output. We run out of bass excursion first because we seek to tune the enclosure as low as possible. The PXO doesn't increase the system output limit, but only adds the missing low frequencies. Someone on this forum has an Integrator, which does increase output by allowing a higher crosspoint to be chosen. I want one. There are also questions begging in the phase domain, since the reflex bottom rolloff approaches 4th order. (The Stereophile graphs look more like 3rd order 18dB/octave.) My admittedly shallow understanding is that the high-order crossover will create ringing, which Thiel speakers go to great lengths to avoid at the higher crosspoints. I don't hear artifacts and wonder if the ear might be less sensitive to phase anomalies in the low bass. Perhaps others might comment on that problem; ideas welcome. I am not familiar with the SmartSub 2.2, and haven't seen any reviews of x.2 subs. I don't know much about the development history of the subs, being after my time. Might the .2 designation be New Thiel? My SS1 and SS2s have Jim's (again patented) room boundary interface, which works very well to set the proper level based on proximity to walls. I have experimented with 1 vs 2 subwoofers and found noticeable improvement with 2. The 2-series crosses over in the high forties where directionality is thought to be hard to hear. But it seems to my ear that directionality is an issue. I would choose 2 SS1s over 1 SS2. |
tom, Thank you! My PX05 came configured for the Thiel 2.7 speakers. My SS2.2 has the same room adjustments as the SS2. I'm aware of the speaker output issue; however, haven't had to worry about it, as I play classical CDs at a reasonable level. (The only comments I get are from my neighbors if I crank up the Verdi Requiem or Berloiz' Te Deom or Requiem.) My basic reason for asking: My children will "inherit"the two-channel stereo system; but they are more into other types of music, and had asked me if the crossover and sub would be "up to it!" I believe I can tell them "Yes - - as long as you keep the volume at a civilized level." I'm content with the present setup, but would like to add another sub - - if I could find a decent one in working order. The SS2 series apparently are scarce. Thank you again, george |
prof, I'm using the Thiel PX05 passive crossover to drive the SS2.2. As I understand it, the PX05 takes the full range signal going the 2.7s and passes the low frequency signal to the 2.2 sub. There is no high frequency roll-off for the 2.7s. The PX05 was configured specifically for the 2.7s. Input to the crossover is via four interconnects from the amplifier's output terminals.. I'd guess the low-pass point is circa 60-80 cps. The PX05 signal goes to the Sub via an XLR cable.. No LFE input from the preamp. george |
J.A - Thanks for asking. Good progress re comparative listening and measuring tools. Great appreciation for Jim's component choices within his budgets. I'm presently testing various mechanical upgrades: cabinet stiffening, stiffer driver mountings, XO panel isolation, etc. Advantages of hindsight include location of cabinet resonances via reviewers and more sophisticated instrumentation. I can address some of them, others are baked in. Many electronic components are chosen, but no crossovers yet. pm to you. |
Tom and Prof From my 2.7 Owners info: CS2.7 SPECIFICATIONS Bandwidth (–3dB) 35 Hz-20 kHz Amplitude Response 35Hz-20 kHz ±2.5 dB Phase Response Minimum ±10° Sensitivity 87 [email protected] V-1m Impedance 4 Ω (2.4 Ω minimum@160Hz) Recommended Power 100-400 watts george |
Many thanks to all on this site, especially Unsound. The insights and experiences posted here led me to purchase a pair of 3.5's. I very briefly considered Maggies, but I have enjoyed my 2.2's so much since 1992 that I had no choice but to move up the Thiel chain. WOW! Even with my ss integrated amp which only delivers 80 watts into 4 ohms I am blown away. I didn't think they were going to sound that much better or present such a holographic image. Nirvana! |
rwmeditz Welcome! Good to see you here. The 3.5 loudspeaker is a Panel favorite.Equally, there are a few owners and fans of the CS 2.2 as well. You are correct in your assessment about an integrated amp bringing all of that Aural goodness. It only gets better as one increases power delivery. I look forward in reading more about your Audio journey and musical tastes. Happy Listening! |
Integrated amps have evolved indeed. What strikes me about rwmeditz's experience of "holographic image" is how the impedance difference of the 2 speakers might be operating. The 3.5 bottoms around 5 ohms from 100 to 1K Hz with rising lower impedance. It presents a rather simple / orderly load for an amplifier. The 2.2 bottoms around 3.5 ohms from 100 to 200 Hz with another dip just under 40 Hz, presenting a more difficult load. I wonder what you would hear if both speakers were driven by a big, high-current amp. Comments are very welcome. |
tomthiel I suspect a bigger, deeper and wider soundstage driven by a higher current power amp. Now that I have two accomplished Integrated amps for comparison, Creek and Ayre. Both are musical in a pleasant presentation without criticism. Simply reach for disc after disc. The Ayre, being more powerful spec-wise, delivered more micro details and subtleties. Charles Hansen's Diamond Circuit is incredible. The Creek, being an older amp made in England, held its own for substantially less money. Carefully matching cables and power cords, this amp is a real contender without any embarrassment. Both brands offer matching CD players. Creek never built a SACD player, however, a Music Hall Maverick is a sonic match, IMO. This lesson describes evolution of the Integrated Amp.Happy Listening! |
tomthiel To followup on jafant’s question regarding the hot rod updates, are you able to provide some details regarding your progress on the 3.6 upgrades? Are you planning to release “complete hot rod kits” for each model, or generic suggestions for updating the various models? Any update regarding when 3.6 designs may be ready, and when Rob G. will be able to offer them? Many thanks! rosami |
I'm honored to be asked for my thoughts, especially from the master artisan and craftsman himself and the very knowledgeable Jafant, but I'm afraid the tech eludes me and I know nothing other than what I hear and feel. It explains why I'm still running them on an underpowered integrated. I knew I had to get my 2.2s when I got chills listening to exerpts of each of 3 pieces of music I knew very well, 1 rock, 1 classical, 1 jazz. Same for the 3.5's. The music made not just an artistic impression, but a much rarer visceral emotional one also through the Thiels. The music spoke to my soul, which is what Jim Thiel was likely hoping to accomplish for himself with his ultimate God speaker. Neither of mine will ever be sold, but one day they will find their way to my kids. Although I never play that loud, my wife begs to differ but our musical tastes rarely intersect, rarely a max of 85 db at peak, the 2.2s needed to be played fairly loud to realize the bass and soundstage, either because of lower sensitivity or lower resistance levels or weak integrated. In addition, the tone and separation are not as sweet, 3D, or separated. |
Continued, The 3.5s immediately revealed themselves. Obviously they played louder and deeper, I use the EQ. They are not as position dependent, and I'm somewhat limited in placing them, so it will never be ideal. But positioned where the 2.2s were I was center orchestra at Carnegie Hall with the 3.5s, with the 2.2s I was rear balcony. 3.5 - much wider and deeper soundstage, deep bass rising up from the earth, tympani reverb palpable. Nonsibilant crystal clear highs, the notes of the triangles sparkling and shimmering. Every instrument where it should be and its sound coming at you and expanding like a cone as it should. The flow of the rhythm comes at you like the waves of the ocean. The notes fading into the absolute void of space, utter darkness. Tones as sweet as Jerry Garcias notes, real organic maple syrup, not sterile sugar or sickly sweet saccharine. The Beatles Let it Be was like hearing it for the first time again, and I was a fan ever since Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery. The voices on Beethoven's 9th and Mahler's 2nd are ethereal, sublime and poetic. I still love the 2.2s, but with my integrated they have a little less of all the above, especially imaging and sweetness. They are still wonderful, but less vivid, color rather than technicolor, cotton rather than silk. It almost seems that you have to invest more of yourself to get the emotional connection to the music while the 3.5s offer it up immediately if you are open for it. Perhaps the 2.2 is more technically proficient or analytical and the 3.5 more visceral or impressionistic. As I said when I started, it is the way I experience the music that I can share, the technical aspects I know nothing about other than what I learned from you here, and for that I am very grateful. For me the gear is a means to the end - MUSIC! |
It may help to know my gear, but … if I haven't given you a chuckle yet one will surely follow soon, unless I get kicked off Audiogon first. Just added 3.5s 1992 1. 2.2s 2. Linn Intek integrated 3. Linn Mimik CD player 4. Magnum Dynalab FT 11 tuner Late 1980's Sony CDP C67 ES 1980 Dokoder R2R, discarded late 1998 or so Circa 1973 1. Dual 1228 turntable with Pickering V15/1200 cartridge, recently refurbished after lying dormant for 15 years 2. Kenwood 5400 receiver, now idle since the DCM Time Window 1a speakers a friend gave me years ago had a driver go out, the impetus to get the 3.5s although the Kenwood can't run either Thiel 3. Cerwin Vega speakers, ? model #, driver gave out in 1992, hence the upgrade then Christmas 1967 A transistor radio from my uncle started this interest in audio equipment to listen to music, with the Beatles Hello Goodbye clip on the Ed Sullivan Show a month prior really shifting my musical journey which started with Sgt. Pepper's into high gear. My musical choices have also developed some over the years, although they still tend to be more instrumental, improvisational, and even more eclectic now. |
RW - your story strikes the core of our inspiration to "do speakers". Thank you for sharing. That emotional connection you reference is what we identified at the core of the minimum phase presentation. I have subsequently studied aspects of auditory neurology and psychoacoustics to enrich my understandings. Most of the world and nearly all of the technologists dismiss that very element (which you feel) - or at least its connection with phase integrity. You get it. My present task is a rather difficult one - so many technical aspects go into creating what you have experienced; some are known, some are surmised, some are mysteries approached through trial and error, and some are unavoidable or changeable. I must unmask the limiters without reducing the successes. Of special help is your comment about the added volume needed to unlock the 2.2s. I will contemplate clues around that idea . . . Of interest to users is that a large part of the puzzle resides in amplification. The 2.2 presents a more demanding load, and your listening experience sounds a lot like signal veil from a straining amp. That load is baked in to the 2.2, and gets worse with many subsequent models. I hope that you can borrow a "great" amp and report your findings to us here. |
Rosami - no firm news. The bankruptcy is still pending, so I am behind a curtain. I can say that I am enlisting talent to augment my limited abilities. I can answer your question regarding hot rod kits. Some general recommendations will flow (and have already) from the work. But the nature of the beast is extremely sensitive to particulars, and all aspects interact. So the "kits" will be very specific. Since custom parts are involved, purchase from Rob will be required. No news as to timing. But yes, news regarding progress. I am working. |
On a personal note, I will be traveling and out of contact for a week. I am attending a master class in soundboard tuning from the Australian physicist Trevor Gore. My primary occupation is designing stringed instruments and Gore's pre-retirement workshop will share his lifetime of understandings, tools and methods regarding what actually happens as the string excites the soundboard of an instrument - and how to optimize the outcomes. Many of you know that I was building guitars before we diverted to speakers - stringed instruments continues as a first-love; and there are many parallels and mutually enlightening aspects shared among the disciplines. |
