unsound
Agreed, more power into lower impedance points is a necessary factor.
Happy Listening!
Agreed, more power into lower impedance points is a necessary factor.
Happy Listening!
13,222 responses Add your response
Fellow Thielophiles, I’m torn on my next step! My 21 year old CS 3.6s need a tweeter rebuild (I’ve had to do this at 7-year intervals and it’s that time again). I’m not sure if the speakers also may have a problem with the crossovers — they’re sounding raspy and pretty nasty lately. Issue is I’ve only had Thiels (03a and then my current 3.6s) for the last 33 years and haven’t done any serious listening to other speakers! ! Now that my 3.6s need work - and given possibly having to do significant work if crossovers need attention - and only CSS still servicing them, I’ve actually been thinking about listening to some other speakers (sorry guys!). I’m curious if the “improvements” that the dealers, that Ive recently spoken to, say have occurred in the last 20+ years |
(Continued - sorry) are real or just the normal sales talk. Have speakers really improved that much in the last 20 years and is it maybe worth checking out other brands now that my 3.6s need work ? Are there any objective Thiel owners among the Thielophiliacs that have done serious unbiased listening to other newer brands and can provide thoughts on PRAT, imaging, coherence, etc. of other brands vs. our beloved Thiels? Thanks. |
unsound... You were the very first member to relate the merits of the 3.5’s to me and once again I have learned more. I mis-spake (new word!) about sensitivity/efficiency and your input cleared that up. Much appreciated. I had lived with a pair of Klipsch Epic CF-3’s for a period far longer than I have with any Thiels. (Entirely Audiogon’s fault, mind you.) Those old Klipsch had a sensitivity of 101db, capable of being driven with a tabletop radio but - and oy vey! - those compression horn loaded tweeters really got to me after a while. At one point, just before I removed the drivers and turned the cabinets into bookcases, I had actually stuffed a pair of white crew socks into the horns to eradicate the brittle quality. Solely for aesthetic reasons shortly thereafter I used some foam. Neither attempt resulted in resolution to the perceived problem so...bookcases. Don’t ask. I am less of a carpenter than I am a technically proficient “audiot”, but it struck me as a good idea at the time. Anyway...it might be misconstrued by some followers of this thread that I didn’t like the 3.6’s. They were typically excellent Thiels - unbelievably “true” sounding from top to bottom. It was only at my very conservative listening levels that they didn’t, couldn’t (?) deliver that natural, organic bass. Pushed a little beyond my norm they were as wonderful as the 3.5’s. Thiel makes ANYTHING sound good, period. I’ve thrown just about everything at the Thiels I’ve owned - class a, class a/b, class d, monoblocks, tubed and passive preamps, and they all benefitted from Thiel. If I didn’t discover Thiel from this site I would probably still have that old Pioneer pushing them Klipsch... |
There’s been a lot of recent talk about using Bryston amps with Thiel’s here recently. I am not the only one who has touched upon this more than once before, but I guess for some slogging through all the posts on this thread might be daunting. There was a time with the earlier Thiel’s that Bryston was as easy recommendation to make. A company with a long tradition of well made products, with one of the best warranties in the business, respected by both audiophiles and pros alike. Heck, the 3B is still one of my favorites. But... the more recent Thiel’s with sub 4 Ohm impedances aren’t quite as good a match. If one is considering purchasing Bryston amplification for any of the sub 4 Ohm Thiels it behooves you to read the following: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-4b-power-amplifier-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-3b-st-power-amplifier-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-7b-sstsup2sup-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements We can see that only the biggest 7b mono’s really have a proper 2 Ohm power delivery window to deal with the more recent Thiel’s. Even then it 690 Watts into 2 ohms is equivalent to a 172.5 Watt amp that could truly double down. With the latest Thiel’s impedance load one would be paying for 400 or so of unused Watts per channel. |
rosami, while there has been some incremental improvement (IMHO more hype than substance) over the years in speaker design, I still think the real value is with some of the older stuff. Some of the great designers, like Jim Thiel, John Dunlavy, Peter Walker, etc., have past, and there hasn't been a stampede of newer one's jumping to take their unique places. If you like Thiel's you might want to check out offerings from Duntech, Green Mountain, and Vandersteen. I suspect the next generation of speaker design on the horizon might be a bit different with more internal DSP functions. Time will tell. |
I picked my bryston 3b st to drive my 3.5 and with a impedance of 5, and worked out really well. For my 3.7 I have decided on the 7b St monoblocks that I will run in parallel bridged mode, resulting in 500 Watts at 3 ohm and all the current that can could be needed. I also looked at the 14bsst but was told that it could not be converted to parallel mode so the 7b St were the last ones that could be switched parallel or serial. |
With all the Bryston love, I'm sure a tube-head's opinion isn't welcome.But.... For my own personal taste, I had the Bryston 4BST for a number of years just to be able to test on a variety of speakers - an amp I could always throw in that would drive anything, even though I mostly used tube amps. Never could keep it in the loop too long. I sooo much preferred CJ tube amps on my speakers, including the Thiel CS6. My pal is going through one of his "I'm fed up with the hassle of tubes" phases. Replaced his tube amps with a big new Bryston. All vinyl system. He's very happy with the sound. Me...I definitely miss what to me was the more natural, organic presentation he had before. But, that's personal taste for you. |
Read the reviews and make your conclusion, Bryston isn't the only one that can manage the power hungry Thiel's and make them sing ;-) Audio-GD Master 3 power amp, Audio-GD Master 10 is the Master 3 with an integrated preamp. Spec's, 250W @ 8ohm / 500W @ 4ohm / 1000W @2ohm http://www.audio-gd.com/Master/Master-32015/Master-32015EN_Specs.htm Reviews, https://6moons.com/audioreviews/magnepan2/1.html https://headmania.org/2017/07/16/audio-gd-master-10-speaker-amplifier-review/ http://www.modelpromo.nl/Audio-GD_Master10en.htm |
You guys have been busy while I've been away . . . holco - further investigation has shown that the OX seems to have 3 types. Lex 1 is PtP on Masonite with Solen (etc.) and first-rate ERSE / Jantzen coils. Lex 2 has same high quality components on PCBs. That seems to be what you have. Those coils are good and they match your boards. Don't swap them for the schematic you posted because those values were for masonite. You can physically measure your coils with an impedance meter if changing coils. But if you change gauge, then the DC resistance also changes which must be compensated in the resistor values. Since you have good coils, I suggest the easiest way out for now is to stick with them. Go with the Mills resistors. Sonic Craft has New Old Stock Mills, which is best. As beetle said, we're working on custom values, etc. and hope to have news to report by end of 2018. Keep us posted. |
@tomthiel Interesting that there are 3 iterations of the
CS2.4 XO. It appears that, other than the Clarity SAs on the coax feeds, my SE
version has the lowest parts quality of the 3! I suppose the sandcast resistors
are equivalent for each iteration.
@holco, unless you opt for a full Tom Thiel-style XO rebuild, which is my plan, I wouldn’t change much else on your boards other than the resistors. Your woofer board has better caps and coils than my FST-sourced boards. I would replace the resistors with Mills MRA and call it a day.
On the coax board, I would replace those resistors as well, maybe try to figure out a way for them to breathe for better cooling under those big Jantzen caps (perhaps a thin aluminum bar underneath them to draw heat to the sides?). It is highly desirable to replace those 100 uF electrolytics with MPT-type (Erse PulseX is a good option that won’t break the bank) but it will be really tough to fit those on your PCB. I suppose you could just replace those with fresh electrolytics of similar size. The only other thing I might consider is adding a high quality bypass to the 43 uF subfeed. The cap itself is labelled as MPT type (might be a Solen?), so already good quality. But you might try a ~1% bypass. I am going to use a 0.33 uF REL Multicap bypass with that cap (planned as a Clarity CSA 250 V). Cornell-Dubilier 0.1 uF is also worth considering for a bypass. You might even experiment with 1% bypasses on your Jantzens if you’re really adventuresome. |
beetle - good advice. Regarding your 2.4SEs, the evidence suggests that the original boards made in Lexington were Masonite PtPoint. Perhaps after Jim's death (2009) Lexington changed to PCBs with the same traditional parts. (I don't know when that change happened, but ERSE had those PCBs for sourcing parts before China. Many folks say the PCB per se does not reduce sound quality. Your SEs came from after XOs were sourced from FST in China with CYC parts, including some downgrades from Propylene to Polyester (T). It seems that those parts were supposed to be clones of the extant parts, but sources say the verification is weak or missing. We are assuming the unverified Chinese parts are of lesser quality. Despite the unknown parts quality, including wire alloy, the coils are not tightly wound, which results in squirm losses. Regarding sandcast resistors, you have heard and I support upgrading to Mills. However, I know that the Lex sandcasts were ERSE which we know to be best of form. But resistors are great bang for buck, so why not upgrade while you're in there. |
31 - regarding your CS5 vs 7.2 query: my considerations would be more strategic than any one aspect of performance. That performance aspect is the type of bass alignment where the CS5 is sealed and therefore produces more coherent bass as it rolls off the bottom end. However, both products go deeper than most program material, plus the ear is least sensitive to time/phase in the bass, so I would attribute minor significance to that aspect. (Albeit, I personally like the CS5 bass, which isn't the point.) On to amplifiers: the deep bass of the CS5 drops well below 2 ohms and therefore requires significant and specialized amplification to drive it well. If I had a pair of 5s, I would split the bass from the upper frequencies for easier amplification. Repairability: the CS5 lower drivers were Kevlar by ? (I may remember some day.) I don't know their availability or whether Rob at Coherent Source Service can rebuild them. Check on that. But, those were 1988 specialty drivers from a model that sold less than a thousand pair. So caution is advised. The tweeter is Thiel and also used in the 2.2 and 3.6, so it's available. Note that the 5 is a 5-way, so the integration of the drivers yields a very smooth frequency response and reduces excursions required of other Thiel products with fewer drivers. The CS7.2 uses Thiel drivers and I believe Rob can repair those. He says there are virtually no problems with the 7.2. As a general observation, Thiel approached product design as a process of incremental improvement. Each design stood on the shoulders of everything that proceeded it. I think of the 7.2 as a fully modern, realized design whereas the 5 as an evolutionary step. As I've mentioned before, I find significant flaws in the 5's use of bucket brigade delay for the 2 midrange drivers. That's a lot of circuitry for the signal to navigate. FYI: I have heard the CS5s more than the 7.2 and have heard them both perform gloriously with the Krell FPB-600. Reviews suggest that any amp short of that or similar full-out muscle is likely to whimp-out under the CS5 demands. All that aside, if you are inclined toward collecting icons, the CS5 is unique in Thiel's history. Its development was spurred by demand, especially from Japan, for Jim's ultimate statement. In fact I judge that he pulled some significant punches; it could have been more ultimate, even at that time, had he allowed a budget of $15 to $20K rather than the under $10K at the top of his psychic tolerance. Now, a flight of fancy. In my dreams I would remake the CS5 to a higher standard. An easy fix is a cabinet resonance or two. Another fix is to break out the bass from the upper drivers for separate amplification. Now we're in no-problem performance land. Furthermore, let's upgrade passive parts for further significant improvement. Then the serious business - reshape the cast marble baffle for physically proper driver placement rather than electronic compensation. I remember the first 100 pairs were Brazilian Rosewood from my private stash - considered the finest cabinet wood in the world. I am unaware of any other fully 5-way coherent source transducer out there. Such an undertaking would be a collector's edition re-imagined re-issue of the iconic and obscure CS5 from 30 years past. It would fly. |
unsound - there is always more than is obvious behind product development decisions. As I have alluded previously, the company supported Jim's design aspirations. Kathy, the marketing director, supported Jim's design aspirations. Drivers and electronics were Jim's primary interest. Cabinets played a supporting role as a necessity. Developing that baffle was a major undertaking. I made the mahogany patterns with late night CNC time stolen from day time production requirements. The convoluted baffle would have been a far larger undertaking, in design, pattern-making, casting and production finishing. The company did not have enough confidence in the product's projected sales to invest in that larger baffle cost. C'est la vie. Such dynamics are the stuff of small, self funded entrepreneurial companies. Given the luxury of capital to invest, including more staff, and the confidence that a market would emerge, I believe that flagship product(s) could have been developed which would have leap-frogged Thiel's market niche. The cabinets are indeed serious functional elegance. Thanks for that. |
tom, I remember way back when I had the CS6s at my place, they were the most luxurious speaker in terms of fit and finish I'd ever had. The wood finish was simply gorgeous, a fairly dark brown with strong grain - I forget the name of the finish (macassar ebony?) Did you do that work? Also: Weren't Jim and Kathy married at one point? |
No apologies required or sought. I am merely shedding light on the back-story because some of you guys are interested. No scab, really, just some story that usually gets politely ignored. Prof - yes, the CS6 and 1.5 were my last products before leaving in 1995. The machinery and manufacture processes all continued until the sale in 2012 when the factory was dismantled. That Macassar Ebony had no stain, that was the natural color of that South Seas species. Also, No. It's not that simple. |
Hope everyone had a fine Thanksgiving (for all those here who celebrated that day yesterday or at all). ... Here's another back story question: Early on, Thiel and Classé Audio seemed to have a close, if informal, relation in marketing and in-house systems (Classé and Thiel were marketed together mid-1990s at my local high-end salon, tomthiel still has legendary DR-era Classé amps). OTOH, the good fit between Thiel & Bryston has been well covered in recent posts. Over time, I heard fewer mentions from Thiel of pairings with Classé and more of pairings with Bryston (the two brands competed in roughly the same market niche). I speculated that this had something to do with Bowers & Wilkins purchase of Classé and their pairing at Abby Road Studios. Question: How much was this shift at Thiel due to the B&W acquisition vs. technical differences in the evolution of the Classé and Bryston lines. Side note: The Classé brand was eventually shut down by the conglomerate that purchased B&W. An attempt to resurrect Classé within the Sound United conglomerate is currently underway. In contrast to newThiel, new Classé is trying to retain most of its design team and culture. It will be interesting to see if the Classé reboot succeeds. |
ish - I can only provide informal remembrances. I would say there was virtually no connection to the B&W / political change. Thiel didn't pay much attention to that stuff. The dealers variously aligned with various manufacturers, but Thiel / Kathy didn't get involved with those dealer decisions unless asked for product-performance / sales success advice. You're on the right track with product-performance drift. Dave Reich's DR-series amps were extraordinary in performance / price at their time. After he left, the amps kept the basic circuitry, but drifted into euphonic design territory, which didn't serve our needs as a manufacturer. We sought out very linear, neutral, high-performance gear. Bryston continually worked in that direction as well as being rugged and reliable. Jim used Bryston in the lab as his reality check against the big, expensive workhorses. I personally never felt the Bryston gear provided the nuance and detail that our products could deliver. We used it at shows to demonstrate high performance / affordably priced capability. Reviews and rumor suggest that their present cubed series steps up their performance quite a bit. Good people, good gear. |
Thanks, Tom. I’ve never had an opportunity to listen to DR-series Classé amps. I think my first Classé amps were the first post-DR generation. They tilted to a warm sound. Maybe that agrees with your comments. My current-generation CT-2300 has a much more transparent and neutral sound to my ear. From what little I understand, its design is fairly distinct from previous Classé series, including the DRs. |
