Pair of CS2.4 for $1300 good deal?
How would they sound compared to Revel Performa3 F208?
How would they sound compared to Revel Performa3 F208?
5,507 responses Add your response
$1300 for CS2.4 is a great deal if they’re in good shape (clean drivers and decent cabinets). Pairs in good condition (eg, 8/10) more typically fetch about $2000. I haven’t heard the Revel 208. Years ago the M20 was on my short list and I auditioned it but ended up with Thiel CS1.6. I heard the top of the line Salon IIs at RMAF and was underwhelmed. Maybe it was the Levinson electronics but I thought their performance was pedestrian compared to the rave reviews. The 208 probably has deeper bass than the 2.4 but I’ll take the Thiel all day every day, all the more so with the possibility of Tom Thiel’s crossover upgrades. |
I took a look at Crutchfield website and the Revel F208's are retailed at $5K for a pair. The CS2.4 was about $4.5K but taken into account for inflation, it would cost quite a bit more than $5K in today money so in that sense, the CS2.4 is a bit more high end compared to the F208. The F208 uses SB Acoustic aluminum drivers for the 8in. bass and 5.25in. midrange. The SB Acoustic drivers are more or less quality budget drivers. As for the tweeter, although I don't have information on it, judging by the price of the mid and bass drivers, the tweeter probably is of budget type as well. Although I have not listened to the F208, I have used similar SB Acoustic drivers in my own design. For the price they are decent, but the drivers are not in the same league as the drivers in CS2.4. Also the aluminum drivers used in the F208 have very large break up so it's almost likely that a 4th order filter must be used to suppress the break up. And as I have said before, if you're into first order design, you probably won't like 4th order filter. In my experience, the quality of the drivers are very important and will establish the limit of the final sound quality. Some of these drivers will have decent sound, but they don't quite have the inner beauty of the more exotic, more expensive drivers even with well design xovers. I have used high end drivers from Seas and ScanSpeak and some budget drivers, and after judging the sound quality vs. price, I have decided it's not worth it to use budget drivers. Here are the links for the F208 drivers if interested: https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-5-woofers/sb-acoustics-sb15nbac30-4-5-black-aluminum-co... https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-8-woofers/sb23nbacs45-8-8-black-aluminum-cone/ |
Came across this review that had a short comparison between the CS1.7 and the F208. https://hometheaterreview.com/revel-performa3-f208-floorstanding-speaker-reviewed/?page=2 Thanks to its phase-coherent design, the $3,999/pair Thiel CS1.7 delivers an incredible (and natural) wraparound ambience, but it can't approach the Revels' dynamics and bass response. Interestingly enough, the F208 is sort of like what the new Thiel would have made. |
Jack - I second Dick Hardesty. When Havens & Hardesty was a hi fi dealer, he did justice to both Thiel and Vandersteen - we were both pleased. He visited Thiel's factory a couple of times and we got along very nicely. He preferred Vandersteen saying that the Vans were more musical on more recordings more often than Thiels. But he also zeroed in on what Thiel was doing, how we were approaching our work. Gone too soon. |
@tomthiel. I took delivery today of a nearly pristine pair of 2.3 in natural Cherry veneer today from a great local Audiogon member. serial numbers 4341 and 4342 They were original sold by Thiel to Fred’s Sound of Music in Portland, OR ( I have been a customer there every now and then.. ) even the shipping boxes are fresh hope to listen to them this eve missing the carpet spikes, what are dimensions? Or can I get those thru Rob ? |
I have heard the Revel F208’s in a Listen Up show room. Not a bad showroom, actually a good one. I have the 2.4’s at home. The Revels seemed kind of dull or uninspiring. Now when I have listened to speakers at a dealers showroom, the ones I liked best in the long run are the ones that didn’t stand out to me, but were balanced and slightly dull compared to so many others. |
I have a set of Sound Anchors that i have not used for years once i got the 2.4 series in 2007. however they will work with most of the earlier 2 series such as 2.0 and 2.2. might work with 2.3 but i never had those so not positive. anyone interested can leave a message here or email me at kent@thehubltd.com |
I might be interested in the sound anchors so I am 3 sides into Hypnotic Eye on Vinyl ( if you want to know what’s in the system look at my Vintage virtual system ) big fun, took two sides for the tube pre and power amp to smooth out..,, nice sound overrall , at this point glad I have the MX-110 Z tone controls.... my ears are 8’6” from coaxial driver as an aside get yourselves a Leica Disto 2 or Bosch, makes setup so much easier,,,, ymmv |
He preferred Vandersteen saying that the Vans were more musical on more recordings more often than Thiels. But he also zeroed in on what Thiel was doing, how we were approaching our work. On the flip side, Vandersteen's were always been criticized for being dark and slow :-). He ended up having to defend his design saying that other speakers tend to have the tweeter running a bit too hot at 2-3db more than they should be. |
@jafant System is Denon DP-35 F , Nakagoka 110 cartridge into a Croft RIAA-RS ( single chassis w NOS tubes ), into a Richard Modeferi hotrodded and restored McIntosh MX-100 Z also NOS tubes, into a Mike Samra hotrodded McIntosh MC240 ( paper in oil, modern regulation, etc, running NOS... cables a haphazard mix of Chord, Blue Jeans and Audioquest..... CD source is McIntosh MCD205 Monday will switch our table for newly rebuilt SOTA Sapphire/Sumiko FT-3/Grado Reference-Platinum.... fun |
Andy - that point of "hotter than they should be" is of great interest. It amazes me that there are no real standards regarding target speaker response - "what should be". The scientific work being done at JBL, the Canadian Research Lab, etc. centers on user preference. Think about that. Record producers second-guess end user equipment and preferences and . . . it's sometimes called "the wild west". Jim's position was philosophical as much as anything else: that the speaker just like other components should replicate its input signal. At the time that position was quite novel, even controversial, but over elapsed time it has become fairly standard practice with the largest deviations being bass level. I am not a Vandersteen expert, but it seems that over the years his products migrated from very full bass and steadily falling treble toward flat frequency response, along with KEF, the Canadians and many other design houses. I suggest that a Thiel compared with a modern Van would measure quite similarly, which was not true in distant years past. The puzzle is not solvable until everybody makes recordings balanced for flat system playback, like Audioquest, Chesky, Reference Recordings and similar knowledgeable producers do. Until that time, it is far safer to balance a speaker rich and forgiving so it doesn't exacerbate recording problems. Jim actually disdained making such a compromise, citing its irrationality, and Thiel took it on the chin in many ways. |
as i mentioned above i have a set of the Sound Anchors for earlier Thiel 2 series. i had to use them because the speakers did allow me to level them or adjust the spikes up and down. with the 2.4's they were not needed. however i never had an outrigger set for the 2.4's but found great success in sound improvement by using the big brass feet from MapleShade. I use those feet under all my electronics but the speaker feet allow for them to be physically attached to the speakers. remember that with those feet, the bigger they are, the better the sound. |
Hi Tom, It was very well said. I understand the nature of the problem completely. I guess all I can say is that in a world where we have equipment makers such as DAC, preamp, amp, and last but not least speakers, and of course recording studios, each have their own ways of doing things. All I can say is how to try to fit in given all the variables. As for how to voice a speaker, it's interesting that we have brands such as Sonus Faber, Spendor, Vandersteen who in the past tend to have a sound that is some what warm and musical, but have since become a lot more neutral in their sound lately. In my personal design, when I design speakers with very flat frequency response, in order to pull that off, my external components have to be of fairly high quality (such as xover cap, front end electronics, cables ...) otherwise the sound will be somewhat on the harsh sound. I have heard stories in which people have demoed Thiel speakers at the show room which sounded fabulous, but then they were very disappointed when they took the speakers home using their less than optimal equipment. The brands which I have mentioned above whose sound has gone a lot more neutral lately may be because the quality of the ancillary equipment is now so much better than before, that they feel comfortable to be much neutral now without sacrificing sound quality. |
flat frequency response is just part of the work time domian, energy storage and release are also important.... yes i am a Vandersteen fan for sure... but as I dial them into my room the 2.3 are quite good i will remove the bottom larger access plate.....if required, removing the passive radiator to access xover is not imo a good design tradeoff....especially mounted from backside of baffle as it appears to be...... as for no standards....true....so to learn where in the chain..things go wrong.....built a pretty good mobile recording rack.....let me tell you it is microphones..... fun |
for those of you w access to live unamplified music consider your own experiments in the chain.... for analog get a Revox A-77 and a couple of decent microphones....hint check out the excellent recordings made by the late ( RIP ) Charley Hansen of Ayre....for his list of relatively inexpensive gear....all told this analog experiment will set you back about $2k....with good headphones, this will rival just about anything..... for simple digital a Zoom H6 can be amazing...wayyyy under $1 k otherwise get an Ayre A to D, and of course microphones.... then start comparing to what you heard.... a fun journey....your results may vary.... |
Yes, recording one's own or otherwise knowing intimately the nature of your source material is necessary to not get lost in the woods. When setting up my studio this time around, I began with my analog bias built on a vintage Ampex deck. But all things considered, I landed on archival digital. My mics are Earthworks QTC40s (3Hz to 40kHz ruler flat x <50 microseconds settling time) in a coincident stereo array to Metric Halo ULN-8 conversion and stored via ethernet on a Mac solid state drive. MH SpectraFoo is my primary analysis tool with real-time listening (live and/or playback) and visual tools. The simultaneous multi-input environment helps integrate the analysis with the auditory experience, and playback in the recording room minimizes excess variables. |
@andy2 and @tomthiel. Its good to hear that Vandersteens are now voiced more similarly to Thiels. People also used to say Vandersteens had a shelved midrange which helped simulate lots of "depth" and some folks believe that has NOT changed. What is still an issue for me is how the pricing of the product has really climbed to rather crazy levels, with the 5a at the time it was discontinued, at $30K....it sure didn't start out at $30K. And the Quattro is $15K. |
model 2 have just now with recent price increase caught up with inflation..... but my sense is both Jim T and Richard frugal engineers where cost and target price points are paid attention to. The Quattro is a stunning value and with carbon tweeter outperforms the 5 a in every way except maybe the bottom 40 HZ I know, I owned 5a for years...even the new Treo Ct has better mid and up performance than the vaunted 5a i would LOVE to see Thiel get back in the time and phase fight..... |
Jim and Richard were both extremely frugal engineers and approached the work very similarly in broad strokes. The largest budgetary difference was the cabinet, which gave Van significant sonic-budget advantages. People compare and contrast sonic particulars; I find it more fruitful to contrast either or both of these product lines against all the other serious contenders such as Wilson, B&W, or the planars and hybrids that completely side-step coherence. Their task is perhaps a couple orders of magnitude simpler and solvable than the time and phase game. They out-sell and over-price Thiel-Van by large multiples, and get plenty of respect from reviewers and the marketplace. It serves us well to remember that our perspective is peculiar; what some call a cult, what most say is unimportant and un-hearable. Those who 'get it' (appreciate the time and phase aspects of music) generally don't go back. I am pleased that you guys are out there enjoying what took blood sweat and tears to create. |
tomthiel - as always, thoughtful perspectives. On my first listen to a Thiel, I certainly "got it" or was "it got me"? As luck played its part, I had heard the Vandy 2 series a few times previously. To my ears, any differences between these (2) brands were not subtle. I found my loudspeaker brand on that Spring day. Not only was the weather beautiful there in Baltimore MD so was the aural experience. Testimony, is the highest compliment. Happy Listening! |
I don't know if I get the time/phase coherence thing or not. I don't think I could describe it but maybe it's why I find Thiels so relaxing. When I changed from B&W to Thiel there were some obvious differences that I could describe but also a sense of being able to sit back and relax without being tempted to lean forward or put other effort into listening that I hadn't experienced before. Maybe that was me getting it without realizing what was going on. |
Jon - as I've mentioned before, I have made a study of auditory neurology and experimented with who hears what how. I would say that you 'get it' and in a manner that was formative to Thiel taking on the challenge of coherence way back when. We experienced and observed not only your "relaxing", but also emotional, memory and other musical connections in the coherent presentation which were not present in the phase-time-scrambled (normal) presentation. So, as a subject, your experience would have supported our study, even before we knew what we were studying. One reason "it" is hard to explain is because "it" is not analytical. In fact the analytical brain prides itself at the descrambling task and a different kind of pleasure built around that cognitive success of restructuring a cohesive sound from its parts. I am drifting toward epistemology - how we know what we know - which is via very a broad count of different mechanisms. I say that the phase-time thing connects us to the music in a more direct, primal, whole manner. And you are experiencing that as relaxing. I call it 'coming home'. |