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
I assumed that chamber for the coax in the 3.7 and 2.7 were about the same and as Rob had the prototype of the 2.7 available, I used that to compare to the chamber volume of 3.5
Unsound - I like seeing you think outside the lines. Indeed that coax is a work of art that should find additional uses. To add some perspective, let me summarize Jim’s design process.

•The drivers are developed against their optimum criteria.•Each driver is measured thoroughly in an infinite baffle, and in the cabinet.•The cabinet including baffle shape, chamber parameters are optimized to align the driver to its infinite baffle state (as much as possible).•Driver anomalies such as resonances, enclosure effects, etc. are evaluated regarding which ones can benefit from electronic (shaping) circuitry.•Iterative process of driver changes (surround compliance, mass, etc.) with XO circuitry to bring each driver closest to its 6dB/octave slopes.•Continual comparisons of components, layout, etc. for optimization within the cost constraints.
It may be clear that changing a major element such as the driver, chamber size or baffle geometry for a different will have interactive effects on most of the design parameters. It was common for a speaker in development to get cabinet changes during development. It is likely that the new coax driver would have required different cabinet geometries, enclosure volumes, etc. to ’work’ as a colorless transducer at a level to satisfy Jim.
Indeed with much smaller changes such as replacing the original CS2.2 midrange with the ScanSpeak 10F, there are significant XO changes required because all the resonances and T/S parameters are different from the original. In steep-slope designs a driver can be ’dropped in’ because most of the anomalous behavior is in the extended overlap zones which are attenuated by the steep slopes. We don’t have that luxury.

Just my little peek behind the curtain regarding how everything is hooked to everything, nothing is simple, and no good idea goes unpunished.

@vair68robert
How would you characterize the sonics of the wool batt? And did you attempt to approximate the same volume as the ‘glas?
The wool quilting batting is very light ,
so I learned that it is to light and I ended up filling the back half
of the coaxial with the origninal fiber glass and the front with the wool I originally was using .
I changed because after installing the new wiring the sound was bright ,
and compressing the insulation and wool eliminated the brightness .
Using all wool the cost would become a factor ,
Maybe I'll try some bulk wool that is or can be more compressed ,
like the fiberglass .
I haven't used the wool in the bass or passive radiator chamber yet ,
but queen size quilting batting is on it's way .
I'm really enjoying the sound with the Cardas wiring ,
but I'm thinking about trying to reduce the gauge to the tweeters 
to see if that alone can or will affect the brightness .
I can't say about the sonics of wool ,
it's less itchy and healthier to handle .