Thiel Owners

Here’s an update on my CS2.4SE crossover upgrade project, including an update on Tom Thiel’s hot-rodding intentions. I’ve been PMing Tom for the past several weeks. He is directing most of my decisions and I’m providing him feedback as a beta-tester.

So far, I have ordered and received Mills MRA-12 resistors from Sonic Craft (the only vendor that had all the correct values). Mills should be a step up from the ERSE resistors used in many Thiel models. All but one of the resistors on my SE boards were not labeled with manufacturer but they are probably ERSE (or Xicon). I considered every resistor I could find that met Thiel’s spec. Dueland and Path Audio are widely regarded as the best resistors available but these are crazy expensive (~$30 each compared to ~$5 for Mills) and subjective reviews suggest their sonic performance is not commensurate with their price (hey, that sounds like a LOT of things in audio!). Mills MRA, I think, represents a clear upgrade over Thiel’s OEM resistors while also representing good value. Tom agrees and these will probably be included in the forthcoming kits.

I have these installed only on one channel so far. It took me about 3 hours and a second pair of hands but the second speaker should go faster with my experience other than there’s no help for my soldering gun which is less than professional grade (Tom Thiel recommended at least 140 W for the lead-free solder on Thiel boards; my gun is 180 W). I did this just yesterday, so no burn in time tho’ Tom thinks this is not necessary for resistors. My initial impression is that lower-level “grunge” has been removed, ie, the noise floor seems lowered. This is subtle but is quite worthwhile for the sound I seek! I will listen/compare more before I upgrade the other speaker, including in mono one speaker at a time. Look for further updates in the coming days and weeks.

Tom has been researching the many options among capacitors, including bypasses. He is very close to a final parts list for his Power Points and CS2.2 as well as my CS2.4, and has the layouts worked out (apparently, the CS3.6 will also be among his first “hot-rods”). He is planning point-to-point connections. My SEs, built in 2012 around the time Kathy Gornik sold Thiel, have printed circuit boards so Tom thinks I will hear an improvement just from that simple change. Only the coils and styrene bypass caps will be salvaged from the original boards. Most of the new caps will be sourced from Clarity and are custom sizes so it will be a few more weeks before he has these (and another delay before the kits become available).

Mr. Thiel’s goal is to maintain Thiel Audio’s adherence to neutrality, high resolution and fidelity to the input signal while improving the overall sonics via superior passive parts. But he also is balancing value, so e$$$oteric parts may not be on his list. Instead, I expect to see/hear a well-considered crossover upgrade that should be a readily audible sonic improvement - even compared to my SEs - yet in line with Thiel Audio’s value-oriented approach.

Tom is still in the “hot-rod kit” development process but I want to get this out now because he is wondering about the demand for taking the new crossovers outboard, ie, the new boards would be in their own cabinet just behind each speaker. The advantage of outboard is maximized sonic performance via isolation from physical and microphonic resonances. This would also allow substantially better cooling which is important for those who listen loudly! I think this would also be easier to install for DIYers (I’m guessing the eventual kits will be DIY or send your speakers to Coherent Source for Rob Gillum to do the work). Tom has the shop to potentially match our cabinets (altho’ black would be easier and matches the front baffle of most Thiels). I imagine a XO cabinet would be the same width as our main cabinets, maybe a foot or so tall. Finally, an outboard solution would increase the options for new bracing to further reduce main cabinet resonances. The main (only?) downside of an outboard crossover is reduced WAF.

Tom would like input from the larger community as he finalizes his plans. So, please respond “yea” or “nay” regarding outboard crossovers so that he can gauge interest.

Here is an example of an outboard crossover (Avalon Ascent): https://usato.audiograffiti.com/annunci/diffusori-acustici/167157/

and: http://www.hifido.co.jp/KWB/G0201/E/400-10/C15-87521-47650-00/

Put me down for “yea”.

I would be interested in upgrading the newer speaker.

Mr. Thiel is targeting the older models first partly because he thinks the X.7s are starting with better technology. Just guessing here but it will probably be late summer or fall before the first round of kits are available from Coherent Source. Anything for the X.7s will be beyond that timeline.

posts are on the back

Same with my SEs. Not an issue as the external cabinet is attached via cable or umbilical cord. Probably an inch or three between the cabinets. Actually, that brings up another disadvantage of the outboard solution: cost. In addition to the extra cabinet, cabling between the two is needed.

Thiels rule!

I’m optimistic that the new boards will elevate them to the next tier. As I wrote elsewhere, probably my last speaker.

those outboard crossovers are HUGE on the Avalons!

Those were arguably the best speaker on the planet when new, certainly on the short list. A three-way with high-order filters takes a lot of parts.

For my CS2.4s,  I imagine a XO cabinet would be speaker width, maybe 10" deep and about 1' tall. The cabinet would be vented/screened top and bottom for maximal air flow.

Those cross-overs do look cool. Put me down for yea.

Woo-hoo, let's twist Tom's arm!

boxes strewn on the floor?

Voting options should include "It depends"?
:^)

No manufacturer can be all things to all people but there could be more DIY options given that these will be "kits". If Mr. Thiel does go outboard it would probably not be too onerous for a DIYer to modify these with binding posts and simply run a speaker cable from the XO on your rack to the speaker.

For myself, I prefer a solution of a high-quality strap from the external to the speaker cabinet (XO cabinet on the floor directly behind the speaker) and then cabling to the amp as normal.

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 resistors

But 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.

more urgent for older models as their cross-overs are likely to be needed (due to age)

Good point! I see that as a secondary benefit. The intention of the upgrades is to notably increase the quality of the passive parts and, thereby, the SQ. As Tom Thiel wrote earlier in this thread:

Thiel was always about finding the optimum point on the cost-performance slope so that real music lovers could afford our products.

Speaking for myself (and not Mr. Thiel), the upgrades seek to maximize SQ beyond what was possible at the price points of the original products. IMO, a cost-no-object approach to the XOs for the CS7.2 or CS3.7 would have likely have placed those speakers on par with the best available. The upgrades intend to seek to squeeze the ultimate SQ from the designs.

I am still burning in my new resistors, so don’t yet have a final verdict but my initial impression is that the Mills MRAs are a worthwhile, yet subtle, improvement over the ERSE resistors originally installed. This change in parts would have added $200-300 retail to the CS2.4 and represents, I think, the kind of decision Jim Thiel would have made when optimizing the “cost-performance slope”.

In my case, I recognize the drivers in my CS2.4s are really frackin’ good. IMO, I would have to move up to something like the Vandersteen carbon or TAD beryllium drivers to find something clearly better. Speakers with these drivers are an order of magnitude more expensive than my Thiels! But I think I can get really close to their level of performance by optimizing the XOs. In other words, it's a solution that gets me close to the very best but at a price I can afford.

Also, keep in mind that the technology has advanced since Jim Thiel designed the original XOs. Even the relatively recent Clarity SA coax feeds in my CS2.4SEs have been notably surpassed by Clarity CSA.

@unsound Glad you find my updates informative. Your CS3.5s must be close to 30 years old - I understand your concern re: cap life. That should further incentivize you to seek Tom Thiel's upgrades as they become available.

Actually, yea or nay *might* well work for everybody :)

In the case of the CS2.4, Tom Thiel has worked up a one-sided layout for internal installation and a two-sided layout for outboard installation, the latter to save space and enhance the chimney effect for better cooling. As these will be DIY kits (or, I imagine, send your speaker to Coherent Source for the work) there is a good chance we can each go with our preferred installation. The XO parts list will be identical, it’s just a matter of layout and extra connections in the case of outboard. Tom wondered how the community would react to outboard as an option and I think he now has an idea.

Again, the advantages of outboard are isolation from physical and microphonic resonances, improved cooling, and increased options for further cabinet bracing. The advantages of internal installation are reduced upgrade cost (no extra cabinet and connections) and no added box to reduce WAF.

Thanks sharing that interesting history regarding Thiel and Vandersteen dealers, Tom. I’ve read most of those journals Hardesty wrote and edited and he was certainly a fan of both brands (and not a fan of Wilsons, Pipedreams, etc). You might look to his writings for amplification ideas. He was a fan of ARC and Ayre - hey, so am I - and I recall he liked VTL among tubed electronics.

I’ve heard both the CS7.2 and 3.7 but in different rooms and different electronics plus a few years apart. I cannot pick a winner but both were extraordinary, just below the very best I’ve heard (but at a fraction of the price). I probably sound like a broken record here but I think Tom Thiel’s XO upgrade could bring both models into that next tier.

Ah, Bose! *Now* we know the rest of the story.

The CS2 2 is dead. Long live the CS2.2!

@andy2 lots of upgrade info this this thread also. In particular, look for posts by Tom Thiel starting about March 2018. Quite a lot to read and there probably isn’t any one post with the latest info but worth your time if you’re serious about an upgrade. Tom still hopes to offer kits but timeline is unknown (he originally hoped to have 2.4 kits by the end of the year - the best laid plans . . .). 

Thanks for sharing the summary of the upgrade choices, Tom.

@rojacob if you successfully upgraded the coax feed caps to SE then I can’t think why you could not also build an entire new board. You must have taken the coax board out to access the solder joint underneath, right. So, you can solder and have experience working in that space. 

Building a whole new board is not any more technical than that, just a much bigger project! And I imagine Rob Gillum could also assemble the new boards for a price but this would still require the user to replace the extant XOs. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. For the impatient adventuresome, you might proceed on your own with the clues Tom has shared. Otherwise, i suggest waiting for the kits. Some of the caps and coils are custom values unavailable from retailers such as partconnexion and sonic craft. For example, good luck finding a good quality foil cap in 14 uF. You can get the correct value by running caps in parallel but this adds to the size and expense plus could have negative sonic consequences.

@rojacob does your 2.4 have a printed circuit board or point to point connections on masonite (or similar)? The pcb version must be soldered from the bottom. Hard to imagine that operation without removing the boards from the cabinet. 

Regarding amplification, either I don’t listen as loudly as others or your Thiel models are especially difficult loads. When I had CS1.6s, i drove them with an Ayre AX-7; 60 W into 8 ohms, doubling into 4 ohms. That amp had plenty of balls to drive the 1.6 to any SPL I cared for. Sounded terrific other than a distortion in the upper midrange or low treble with certain recordings of female vocalists. Pretty sure this was from the Thiels and not the Ayre. My room is 18x19 with a vaulted ceiling and two large openings on the rear wall.

I’ve now moved up the chain to CS2.4SE driven by an Ayre AX-5: 125 W into 8 ohms, doubling into 4. Again, this “modest” amp has plenty of guts to drive the Thiels as loud as I care for without any sense of clipping or distress. YMMV.

That said, the impedance curve for the 5 certainly looks like a challenging load and I would pair that with something capable of delivering more current.

@andy2 I assume you mean non Thiels with a concentric driver? I’ve heard the TAD Ref 1; it has a concentric driver with diaphragms of an exotic material that I don’t recall. One of the very best speakers I’ve heard. Just stunning, but you’d hope so at that price!

My very short list of all time favorite speakers includes both time-phase correct and not. I don’t know if that part matters to my ears a ton but I will say that my favorite speakers at real world price points are Thiels and Vandersteens. One important feature, IMO, is that both of these designers use light and rigid materials in the midrange and with diaphragms <5”. This is super important to avoid distortion in the critical midband. It amazes me that some really high dollar speakers use 7” drivers for the midrange. No thanks!

@rojacob I intend to take pics when I build the new boards and I have several from when I replaced the resistors. Not sure where I might post these but perhaps Tom will share them with the kits - unless I eff it up! LOL

Yes, front baffle of the CS2.4 is 3” MDF. Don’t know about the 2.7, but imagine it is the same. Was that model ever reviewed? 

@prof thanks for those links. No wonder I never saw those reviews. I haven’t read TAS in years, their credibility is near zero, IMO. And hometheaterhifi is not one I look for.

I didn’t read all of those links but they do say that the sides are plywood (that veneer job must be interesting) and that the baffle is 3” but without specifying the material. Hard to imagine that thickness would be any other than MDF.

Tom has an idea to identify cabinet surfaces with resonance issues but I was unsuccessful at helping him with my setup.

Judging from the Stereophile review and measurements (never heard on for myself), the New Thiel TT1 seems like a competent design. But why buy one? If I want a competent (but still sourced from the Far East) speaker using "conventional" engineering I would just go with something like a Revel (better yet, the Canadian made Bryston). It is not surprising to me that the New Thiels were duds at the dealers.

On an alternate timeline, New Thiel continues to make CS1.7, 2.7 and 3.7, perhaps increasing the parts quality in the XOs much like Tom Thiel is proposing for the legacy Thiels. But even this would eventually need an engineer to keep advancing the product line . . . while staying true to Jim Thiel’s basic design principles.

That said, we Thiel owners are fortunate to have Rob Gillum available with service and parts, as well as a potential upgrade path via Tom Thiel’s mods.

@holco Please note that neither Tom or myself have conducted our own resistor listening comparisons. The Mundorf was on the short list but the Mills rose to the top of the list based on engineering, subjective opinions, and price. If cost were not a factor, I would try Path Audio re$i$tor$. The Mills are a really good and cost effective upgrade over the OEM sandcast resistors. Is it possible the Mundorfs sound better still? Could be but I am very comfortable with the choice of Mills.

There are endless combinations of parts that could be applied in a crossover upgrade and even a full time designer could not have time to listen to them all. Tom has given very careful consideration to the possibilities based on his own extensive knowledge as well as opinions of others with broad experience. Tom only has time for a subset of sonic comparisons. I will compare the sound with and without Multicap bypasses on the coax feed caps. I might also compare foil and wire coils. But I trust that Tom has made good choices, just as I trusted those of Jim Thiel.

@andy2 the initial build will replace coax board wire coils with foil. Woofer board coils will stay wire for now. Tom will make further consideration as he gains knowledge with his 2.2 and 3.6.

Pretty sure you can get outriggers from Coherent Source Service. At the least, they are part of the kit to upgrade 2.4 to 2.4SE (which also includes the Clarity SA caps for the coax feed).

@holco Regarding coils, as Tom noted, you need to verify whether your boards are point-to-point on masonite (made in Lexington) or PCB (made in China by FST). The coils values are slightly different for the latter to account for subtle changes in that environment. The layout you have is for the PTP and the PCB values are somewhat different.

I recommend upgrading all resistors to Mills MRA including that 16 ohm. Not sure why you have the one in parallel. Is it becuase you can’t find the correct value? Sonic Craft has all the correct 2.4 values. But note that the “Mills” are older and “Vishay Mills” are newer after Vishay bought out Mills. You’ll have to mix and match the old and new but that is of no issue. 

That 43 uF cap is a subfeed and deserves attention. That is a tough value to get in a quality cap. You can get that value in ERSE Pulse (Tom had this option on his short list), or run a parallel (eg 10 + 33) higher quality. Tom has a custom Clarity CSA for that cap, not sure whether/when that might become availability. Note that you can go with a lower voltage for that one as it is downstream of that 16 ohm resistor.

You might also replace those big 100 uF electrolytics with ERSE Pulse. Tom is getting a custom low voltage Clarity to replace those but, again, unsure of its availability. ERSE could also be a decent option for the woofer caps (33 and 56 uF).

@holco Your PCBs look a bit different than mine in that you have different brand caps. Mine are CYCs other than the Clarity SAs in the coax feed; yours might be Solen? Regardless, your cap quality looks superior to mine other than those Claritys. My CYCs are MKTs whereas your caps are labelled as MPTs. Also, the coils appear to be higher quality in that they are more tightly wound. Finally, the board itself doesn’t appear to have any labels.
Here is the backstory on the coils. When I upgraded my resistors, I noticed the PCB had the parts’ values printed on the boards. I wrote to Tom Thiel:

I forgot to mention an interesting artifact I noticed when I replaced the resistors yesterday. The PCBs have all values labeled. On the woofer board, instead of inductor values 0.72, 0.3 and 0.06 mH per schematic and layout, it has 0.65, 0.22, and 0.06. On the coax board, instead of 6 and 0.15, it has 5.78 and 0.13

Tom investigated this and discovered the PCBs were sourced from FST whereas Thiel traditionally made everything in house using point-to-point. Apparently, the modified values are to compensate for the PCB environment. But maybe it’s even more complicated given that you have a different generation PCB than me? My SEs are among the last built. The seller claimed they were built in 2012. I’m guessing your 2.4s are older. Perhaps Tom can add his thoughts about your coil values.
My rebuild will be point-to-point on Masonite and I’m going to use the coil values as indicated on the layout and schematic (I plan to build completely new boards other than I will reuse the MRA-12s). If you are keeping your PCB, you might need to use the modified coil values if upgrading.

Brand new 3.7s? Wow, nice!

CS3.7 coax with the CS5 sealed bass for me ;^)
Incorporate Tom Thiel’s ideas for crossover components.
Tom Thiel would make the diaphragms of carbon.
Anyone have $5M for a company start up?

@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.  

Sonic Craft has all the values for CS2.4, either Mills or Vishay-Mills. I imagine they can ship to Europe 

I am gathering the parts to start the 2.4 upgrade in earnest, including most caps, coils, and board from Tom Thiel. I plan to post a journal of the process, including pics. I don’t see a way to include pics on Audiogon, though. I might use audioasylum to host those, if not the whole thing. Anyone here have a better idea of how to keep it on a’gon but include pics?

@mr_bill All time best Thiels are 7.2, 3.7, and, maybe 5. What is your budget? Keep in mind that Tom Thiel is planning upgrades for crossovers of many models, including 2.4 and 3.6. Could get a superb, updated Thiel at a great price (ie, used speaker plus upgrade kit, tbd). 

@holco after you factor in extra shipping and VAT, maybe it wouldn’t be too much more to stretch for locally-sourced Path Audio resistors! They are said to be the very best available.

I have come to agree that quality can easily trump quantity. In my 2 channel set up, I drive KEF Reference 3's with a Pass Labs INT-60 which is "only" 60W into 8-ohms, the first 30 of which are Class A. Lemme tell you, the sound is extraordinary, and capable of volume far beyond levels I enjoy listening!

Absolutely! I don't think you can well predict the sonics of an amp/speaker without listening to it, although many Thiel models should probably be mated with 4 ohm rated amps (or lower for something like the CS5). And personal preferences as simple as desired SPLs are not accounted for when amps are dismissed out of hand for being "too low powered".

From the CS2.4 owner's manual:

It is important to have enough power to play at the level you desire without distortion. If high sound levels are desired, the CS2.4’s are designed to be used with amplifiers rated up to 400 watts per channel (into 4 ohms). If you play the speakers more loudly than the volume the amplifier can cleanly produce, the amplifier will produce overload (clipping) distortion.
. . .

Keep in mind that sound quality is usually much more important than sound quantity. There can be large differences in the sonic performance of two amplifiers of equal power, and this is more important than large differences in power. Most everyone will be happier with a 100 watt amplifier of high sonic quality than a 200 watt amplifier of mediocre sonic quality. For this reason, we feel there is no substitute for listening in making your amplifier decision.

Charles Hansen (RIP; Ayre):

At some point, you just have to let go of the specs and trust your ears. It's the only way to get something that sounds good.

link to full post

2.7 as it was the last speaker Mr. Thiel designed and built.

Yesterday I posted false information about who completed the CS2.7, which was finalized and released after Jim Thiel passed. I have since deleted that post. From Tom Thiel’s PM to me:

The project was engineered by Warkwyn / Canada - Tim Gladwin leadengineer. . . . The development job was actually directed by the Thiel Team and every engineering step was approved and/or re-directed by Thiel. The job would have been a minor one in Thiel-land because the actual-same coax was used and FST-China developed the 8" woofer as a near clone of the 10" 3.7 woofer. Virtual piece of cake transplant job.

Tom included some information regarding how Jim Thiel would have created a passive coax for the 2.7 had he survived to do so (the 2.7 shares the 3.7’s double-motor coax).

On this site many believe the 2.4 is the best sounding

I don’t recall reading those opinions here but I see that Tom Thiel considers the 2 to be Thiel’s sweet spot. That said, the "hot-rodded" 2.4 should push performance to the next SQ tier. In the context of Stereophile's rating scheme, the upgrade might be considered as "Class A - restricted" (ie, limited low frequency extension). Stay tuned . . .

Seems like an amp list might be heavily biased to simple measurements, and it’s tough to meaningfully measure either speaker or amp, never mind their interaction. Most Thiel models drop below 3 ohms over part of the audioband but what can you say about how phase angle confounds that? Might be even worse with amp measurements. And to predict the interaction from measurements? Good luck!

I drove my CS1.6s with an Ayre AX-7e, 60 W into 8 ohms, doubling into 4. The 1.6 impedance drops to about 3 ohms over part of the audio band. AX-7 has 66 1 dB steps on the volume control. I usually listened at about 30, maybe low 40s if I had the house to myself and wanted to rock out (my room is 18 x 19 with a vaulted ceiling and two large openings on the rear wall). Much louder than that and it became painfully loud. I found out later, when I switched to the low efficiency Vandy 2, that my combo of amp and source would result in clipping starting at about 45 on the volume control. That little amp had plenty of balls to drive the “low” impedance Thiels.

Yes, some Thiels are tough loads. The CS5 comes to mind, dropping to about 2 ohms in the low bass and even lower where musical content peters out. So, extra care is probably a good idea for some models. But most any amp that is comfortable at 4 ohms can probably adequately drive most Thiels. 

The extra headroom from more power is certainly audible and desirable but less so, IMO, than the SQ from a superb amp regardless of its measurements. As it says it Thiel’s manuals, most users will be happier with a great 100 W amp than a mediocre 200 W amp. If a list must be done, I suggest maybe categories of amps: clearly underpowered, probably adequate depending on user/room, and fully adequate. I would not dismiss out-of-hand a “mere” 100 W amp. Just look at the many reports of good results with tubes!

I investigated the Vivid speakers. They are seriously competent. But I can't find anything about their filter alignments; I strongly suspect they are higher order, whereby they can more easily solve all the other design aspects and produce convincing music.

If I had deep pockets, Vivids would surely be on my audition short list. But until then, I'm plenty happy with my 2.4s and anticipate being even happier soon!

My short list of best-ever speakers includes those with and without first-order filters, so uncertain how important that feature is to my ears. But I notice that since I moved up from mid-fi to hi-fi that I've only owned either Thiel or Vandersteen. Hmmm.

To be fair, domestic production and affordability were also factors in my decisions but I did prefer the sonics of the CS1.6 to the widely acclaimed Revel M20s, among other contenders. FWIW

@tomthiel Happy Birthday! All the best to you - have fun! Thanks for sharing Thiel history here and encouraging our XO mods.

Thielrules is the owner of that last pair of 3.7s.

Thank You for the continued research and development on Caps, Drivers and XO upgrades.

Just received caps, coils, pre-drilled boards, and other parts from Tom Thiel. Something of a pre-cursor for what the kits might look like. I am impressed by the quality of parts and the attention detail Tom lavished on the boards/layout. Probably some bumps in the road await but this is a good starting place.

Last few parts from other suppliers are on the way but I am going to start assembling the new boards this week. If all goes well, one channel will be live next weekend. I plan to share a journal of my process. I wish this forum had a way to include pics. Anyone know if audiogon’s TOS prohibit cross-posting? I might double-post over at audioasylum which allows image uploads.

We chose the Chiquitano because of their protected generational custody of their land, factually safe from the intrusion of MacDonalds slash and burn farming. Poverty with Gringo beef practices is the root cause of tropical deforestation. When you buy Thiel Morado or Amberwood, you are buying a significant and unusual piece of integrated ethical policy.

That is fantastic! Yet another reason to own Thiel speakers!

Pick a dozen brands / products at $20K and compare your new 3.6s toe to toe. I bet you'll be thrilled.

Yes! There are 2, maybe 3, speakers south of $20K that I would *consider* trading my CS2.4SEs for. And that's before I finish my XO upgrade . . .

the relationship between price and performance is extremely weak

Indeed, I can think think of a few models as high as $40K that I would not trade my 2.4s for. But I can also think of a handful north of $40K that I would pick over any Thiel (maybe I would change my mind after a Tom Thiel XO upgrade?). But they damn well should sound better given the chasm in pricing. The bottom line is an audiophile can be *really* happy with a pair of used Thiels and not have to worry about how to get some incremental SQ improvement . . . until after winning the lottery.
:)

If they need help, Rob will help you. If you want to take them to the next performance level, we'll have an upgrade path for you.

 

IMNSHO, buying a nice pair of used Thiels might become the most-cost-effective way to get near SOTA sound. For starters, the stock versions are already excellent (as Tom noted), sonically competing with new models many times their price. Buying a used Thiel is not worrisome given the available service and parts from Coherent Source Service.

Tom Theil’s crossover upgrades should push sonic performance to the next tier. We’ll soon know. If that’s true, you can buy a nice used pair and upgrade the passive parts to get something that approaches SOTA sound. As a bonus, you have speakers that look really good in your listening room.  

Craigslist is also a place to find strong, young movers!

@andy2 The CS2.4 goes down to about 30 cycles in my room and I have them well away from walls. That’s enough to reproduce all but the left most one or two keys on a piano. Not much music down there. My previous speaker was Vandy 2CE Sig II, useful output into the mid 20s. My collection includes a single song wherein I noticed the deficit via the 2.4s. If you can afford Vandersteen 7s, go for it. They are fanatstic *and* have full output down to about 20 cycles. Or, if you really want those last couple of notes, you can add a subwoofer or pair to the 2.4s. I seriously considered subwoofers when I had the CS1.6 but that model quits at about 50 cycles. I have zero desire to add subwoofers to my 2.4s.

KEF is highly regarded and Andrew Jones is a hall of fame level designer but I would stay with the Thiel. You *know* it’s beyond mid-level good, matches your stuff, and is made in US.

Jim does not add the customary underdamped bass hump, so Thiel bass is honest.

Teeheehee. I think I know which brand you're referring to ;^)
Soundstage's loudspeaker measurements are done in a true anechoic chamber and, therefore, do not suffer the compromises of quasi-anechoic measurements done by Stereophile. Anyhow, if you look at their measurement library, the CS2.4 is down 6dB, relative the level at 1K, at ~31 cycles. This compares very favorably to other much more costly designs such as the Wilson W/P 8 (~38) and KEF Blade2 (~31). Nevertheless, some of the other designs with slower roll off can benefit from boundary reinforcement to increase low bass in an actual room.

When I got the CS2.4s, the first thing I noticed was improved bass definition relative to the otherwise well-accomplished Vandersteen 2Ce. I listened to many tracks before noticing the 2.4s don't go quite as low (specifically, a Tracy Chapman song with organ tones).

Too bad they don't measure at distances that allow for proper driver integration, time accuracy or actual listening positions.

Most Thiels measured by Stereophile (at 50") show a suck out at the mid-tweeter XO point. Sometimes the text would explain that this was likely a problem of distance and sometimes not (but kudos to them for even trying!).
Soundstage measures at 2 m, about 79". If the CS2.4 was disadvantaged in their test you can't tell by the "listening window" graph. +/- 2 dB from about 33-20K! I've only noticed one other speaker in their database that can match that! (A $$$$ Magico - no thanks)

• Bad (compromised) information is in some ways more harmful than no information. Real anechoic chamber or outdoor measurements are expensive and Stereophile et al choose to side-step that expense without, in my opinion, proper contextualization / education for their readers.

I agree that JA often fails to include a few simple statements that can help the reader interpret the graphs, including how the measurements might be misleading of actual performance. IMO, the quality of that publication has slipped over the years.

It is impolite for manufacturers to raise such issues in print, thereby becoming complicit in the misleading measurements.

I recall at least two examples where Stereophile printed measurements provided by the manufacturer (Vandersteen and Avalon) but, yeah, risky for manufacturers to push back.

@prof 
Tom Thiel described Thiel Audio’s measurements earlier in this thread, maybe February-May?