jackskyThank You for the audio perfectionist tip. Happy Listening!
5,507 responses Add your response
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. |
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/ |
$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. |
Regarding differences between Thiels and Vandys, I only had brief demos of vandy 3’s, 5’s and my newly acquired CS5’s. my impression was the vandys offered a wider sweet spot but the Thiels have greater clarity. Granted I only have theThiels a short time so I am still moving them around getting to know how they react in my room. from a design perspective, I read Richard Hardesty’s journals and it seems both Thiel and Vandy pursue the most measurably flat responses. So in short showroom listening sessions some people may opt for other manufacturers non flat responses because they may simply sound exciting ( read: as if the loudness button was pushed on an old 70’s receiver). other differences I noticed between Thiel/Vandy is that on some models Thiels went the coax route to get single point Source while Vandy went open air mid/tweeter to give some openness (if that’s a word). i don’t see that Thiel ever applied a rear firing tweeter nor incorporated any of the adjustment mechanisms Vandy used ( settings for rear firing tweeter, multi step equalizer for bass on the Quatros, 5’s). Whoops, just noticed thiel 3.5 have Bass equalizers. on the note of rear firing tweeter, I don’t get it. Here I am taping blankets to the wall behind the speakers trying to eliminate everything other than what is coming from the front of the speakers To tighten the imaging. So why throw the highest notes ( shortest wave that dies most easily) against the back wall ? I remember the 70’s Bose speakers that were meant to fire most of their output against a wall to give a wall of sound, hated the way those sounded, like listening to music coming from a neighbors apartment. |
replacement parts are pretty much nonexistent Not quite that bad. Some parts yes, some no. In the case of my CS2.4, Rob Gillum said replacement drivers are not available but he can rebuild broken ones. And he does have some drivers for a few models. He did supply some of the coils used in my new crossover build. Sounds like that 3.5 midrange, however, is a conundrum. |
I agree, Thiel end is a real crime against the meaning that Tom Thiel expressed and summarized so well two posts above mine. I became a Thiel owner (cs 3.6) only around one year ago and love so much what I can hear, the whole Thiel's history, the unbelievable professional approach to every single detail of the project that to me doesn't matter if Thiel company is no more, doesn't matter if the genuine spare drivers start to be hard to find. Hard but not impossible, recently I bought a complete new set from Rob Gillum and due to the fact that I live in Italy it costed me also a big amount for the shipping and customs, but my aim is to preserve the soul of this wonderful loudspeaker as Jim and all his staff intended to be. It's a piece of artwork, not easy to replicate, who nowadys is able to offer this kind of knowledge? Which company do invest so much to develop custom drivers as Thiel did?(for this reason I bought a genuine full set as spare, because similar are not the same , specially with first order XO design). So, thank you America, americans, doing this. I also appreciate some our good italian loudspeakers maker, for sure ,excellence has no boundaries. |
It has been said many times that a Thiel speaker is an Apogee or Magnepan with Bass. Having owned both Thiel and Magnepan, I could not disagree more! I'm sure the later speakers were much better than the 3.5s, though. I would love to hear some better models at some point, but because the company doesn't exist anymore and replacement parts are pretty much nonexistent, I'll never own them again. What happened at Thiel is a crime. |
Andy - from my experience, I see no way that any individual, no matter how brilliant or talented, could execute the process that led to the final Thiel speakers. It's hard for people to imagine the immersion, the dedication, the drive and stamina required and expended over decades of full-time work with the inputs, support and sacrifice of a good team of 50 or so people collaborating with external vendors and thinkers and researchers, all working toward the same goal - to substantiate a particular vision. The 2.4, along with additional dozens of Thiel products, represents an incarnation of that actualized vision, physical evidence of an extremely focused creative process applied to the real world. From an unattributed plaque in a Dallas art gallery:"Love instilled into solid materials by loving craftsmanship is the only creation of mankind to defeat time." And all of this in the service of, for the love of music. Isn't life a magnificent journey? |
andy2 Absolutely! The CS 2.4 is a true marvel, at least for my ears.The CS 2.4SE is a measure better across all frequency ranges. Last month's visit and session with pwhinson served as a strong reminder. Hope you are close to Beetle or Tom to hear their improvements upon final configuration. Happy Listening! |
ketchup Much Thanks! for citing a portion of your Audio journey. It has been said many times that a Thiel speaker is an Apogee or Magnepan with Bass.A long time ago I wanted an Apogee Slant 8 model. It was heavily criticized for not having enough Bass output. The ribbon/stat midrange, tweeter panels sounded beautiful to my ears. I could not get into the sound of a Maggie nor Martin Logan though. Happy Listening! |
Bluetone - please pardon me, I hadn't remembered that the original 3.5 was from Scanspeak. The most likely source of comparative data would be from Madisound. Can you get a datasheet on the original 3.5 midrange from them? If so, then we could compare the two and there are folks on this forum who might propose valid XO compensations. As far as I know, Rob doesn't have the original driver specs, which were lost in the ownership transfer. For my part, I am working with a user who is providing information for me to reconstruct a 3.5 crossover schematic, which will serve as a platform on which to build. |
Tom, I don't any info on the original Vifa 3.5, here is the link to the Madisound website / product page for the Scanspeak speaker. I don't have the info for the original, maybe someone more literate in these things could chime in. https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-4-woofers/scanspeak-discovery-12w/8524g-4.5-fiberglass-cone-woofer/ |
Thank You for sharing your 3.5 story. Which loudspeaker replaced Thiel in your system? Happy Listening! Magenpan 3.6Rs. It was a huge step up. Earlier, I said that they are at least four times better than the Thiels 3.5s, but I have to retract that statement because I never liked the Thiel midrange or treble. The midrange was always really shouty and the treble was extremely bright, harsh, and fatiguing. It didn’t matter how the speakers were placed. I tried everything from pointing straight ahead to various degrees of toe-in. I could never listen to the speakers without being on-edge. Due to all of this, I consider the Maggies infinitely better. The Magnepans have a sweet, lush midrange and the highs are super soft, airy, extended, and life-like with absolutely no boxiness at all. The soundstage depth and width kills the 3.5s, and everything just sounds completely transparent and real. The Maggies are just a totally different animal. They also open up more amplifier choices because they are a relatively easy 4 ohm load unlike the Thiels. The only way the Thiel might have been a little better was in the low frequencies. They could go lower than the Maggies, but I could never turn the volume up high enough to enjoy it without the woofers slapping and the midrange and tweeters pushing me out of the room, so it’s a moot point. I don’t know if more amplification would have helped with the woofer slapping, but they were already getting 400 watts @ 4 ohms, and at the time, I thought it was a much better idea to get different speakers than more amplification. Making a speaker move paid off big time for me. I’ve had the Maggies for a few years now and they still amaze me. They have been completely trouble-free, but if I should happen to fry a ribbon tweeter or require any other kind of repair, it’s no problem. |
bluetone - and all you 3.5ers - the driver quandary is significant; the lack of suitable replacement drivers is why I have shied away from addressing the 3.5, which is otherwise perhaps the central iconic product that Thiel Audio produced. My caution when substituting drivers is this: Thiel products correct and control for resonances and anomalies for 2+ (sometimes 3!) octaves below and above their crossover frequencies in order to produce proper slopes to blend with their mating driver slopes for first order phase, time and amplitude results. Thiel drivers are extraordinarily specific to their end use and their crossover is extraordinarily specific to the exact peculiarities of its original drivers. On the contrary, a higher order crossover can cope with a generic driver as long as its basic parameters of impedance, sensitivity and so forth are similar to the original driver - because the out of band regions are steeply attenuated and therefore not very important to net performance. It is possible that someone could find a replacement 3.5 (etc) driver, possibly better than the original, and then re-engineer the crossover around the particulars of the new driver, and produce a wonderful solution. In my imagination, such a solution would appear. But in real life, I caution anyone messing with these speakers to be very aware of how much the considerable and particular driver variables matter to the resulting performance. Bluetone, have you overlaid the response graph of the ScanSpeak8525 on the custom Vifa 3.5? Please share the similarities and differences of those two drivers. Does anyone else have guidance for a replacement midrange for the 3.5? Thanks,Tom |
My 3.5s have already had the mids replaced with Scanspeak 12W/8525G00, probably as close to original as I can get without calling Rob and paying up for NOS pieces. I'm hoping the 250 wpc @ 4 ohms will be sufficient to drive the 3.5s, don't know why it wouldn't at my listening levels. I'll see how the eq works out when I get my Peachtree. Rob could probably rebuild it if it needs it, we will see. Who knows, my Thiels may just be another step in my hifi journey, but right now I'm pretty pleased with them. |
I used to have 3.5s and drove them with a Classe CA-200 amplifier that is 200@8 and 400@4. I don’t think it was enough power. Keep your eye on the EQ box. Mine would periodically go out of whack and put the amp into protection mode. Each time it got temperamental, it had to go back for adjustments. I think I had to send it back three or four times. Then I had a mid driver go, so both of them went back for a rebuild. The drivers are not an off-the-shelf part and they’re no longer available, and with Thiel gone now, I’m not sure if they’re rebuildable anymore. I’m just sharing my experience and not trying to scare you at all. You may have good luck with yours. Due to all the issues and with Thiel (the company) going to crap, I decided that the only option was to send them on their way. It was the best move I ever made as I have at least four times (maybe more) better sound now with all the same electronics. My new used speakers were about 4 times the cost of the used 3.5s, though, but they were still relatively inexpensive and totally worth freeing myself of the 3.5s. |
I've enjoyed reading this thread. I jumped into the Thiel world several months ago when a pair of CS 1.2's popped up locally. Up until then I had been trying a variety of vintage speakers including Ohm Walsh 1, Original Large Advents, B&O RL 140, Avid 330, Cerwin Vegas, etc. When I listened to the Thiel's, I was hooked. My plan was to eventually work my way up the Thiel food chain. About 3 weeks ago a pair of 1.5's popped up, so after conferring with Rob Gillum, I figured I would have an incremental improvement over the 1.2's. And there was. So I retired my vintage Dynaco ST 150 amp and bought a new Yamaha A-S701. All was good, was loving the combo, when a pair of 3.5's popped up somewhat locally for a good price. They came with the original boxes and the eq, so I bought them. But my Yamaha doesn't have a pre-out or loop for the eq, so fortunately I was within my 15 day return period and back it went. I ordered a Peachtree Nova 150. It should be here in 2-3 weeks. In the interim, the honking 3.5's are being powered by a vintage Kenwood KA-5700 integrated I had in the basement. Can't wait to feed them some real power and see how they sing. |
MAGICO A3. Just a quick note for those who have been following my speaker selection odyssey: I listened to the Magico A3 today and while its a fine speaker the overall tonal balance is decidely on the dark side of neutral. NO ONE is going to feel like this speaker is bright, trust me. Its good textured tuneful bass and the speaker goes REALLY surprising low too but on an absolute basis it is just too much bass and obscures things the speaker might be doing right farther up the frequency spectrum. The top end also sounds rolled off to me. This was driven by a Constellation integrated - a pretty refined piece of gear, and setup properly. As a matter of fact it sounded SO dark to me I began to wonder how it would measure in absolute terms which also makes me wonder why its not been subject to a review which might include measurements. While bass heads will probably love this speaker it was suggested that for the demographic the speaker is pitched to presumably younger obviously fairly well off urbanites I suppose, its been said that perhaps it was voiced this way for modern spaces that have a lot of hard surfaces and large expanses of glass. For me it is definitely off the menu. I was also told that the Mark II versions of the S3 and the S5 are "somewhat" similarly dark and that Magico dialed back the tweeter levels in the Mark II versions of those two speakers. Of course I haven't heard those...only the A3s. The A3 is definitely not a speaker for me. It feel good to be so certain of something! |
All else is never equal. Bass inhabits its own world. I haven't seen a 2.7 FR graph, but the 3.7 goes perhaps 5hz (more or less) lower than the 2.4, perhaps 1/6 octave - that's not much. But the tuning of the smaller model 2 enclosure to reach that deep induces more reactivity and therefore more difficulty for amplifiers. The 3.7 bass is an electrically more resistive load than the 2.4, but its absolute impedance is lower, therefore requiring more current. Jim was expert at weighing the interlocking trade-offs to arrive at an optimized system functioning. But each system has its quirks. All those factors are pretty subtle compared to how much piston is pushing how much air to produce how much bass before bottoming or running out of juice. That bass magnitude factor is the hard limit of each model format. 2.4 more nimble, 3.7 more authoritative. Another ugly part of bass is that deeper bass, especially when louder, triggers room resonance modes. Deep bass causes problems which can overwhelm that extra few cycles of extension or visceral impact. All things considered, I would personally pursue (if I were in a position to pursue) a sealed bass solution which rolls off more slowly than ports. Reduced amplitude bass is still audible and can add musical foundation while exciting fewer room resonances and harboring less phase shift. CS3.5 lovers come to mind. But the cost of an additional crossover and driver in place of a passive radiator is far from trivial. That's where the well-integrated subwoofer comes to play. A Thiel sub with present-day high-performance class D or H or Benchmark-type THX amp could be very nice. I like Vandersteen's built-in subwoofer - serious cost of entry. A slice of Thiel history is that we developed a huge folded horn woofer before we developed any salable product. I think I outlined it previously. We were all tuned into the importance of the bass foundation and how the musical harmonic structure develops from the fundamental. But pulling it off within our chosen price constraints was another matter entirely. Also the prototype powered speakers, which I mentioned months ago, produced sub 30 Hz bass with its own woofer-dedicated internal amp. But amplified speakers were unfeasible for us, especially when starting out in the late 70s. Here's a speculation which I will try to confirm or refute over time: I suspect that Jim's final 7.3 project would have incorporated a smaller-diameter midrange section into the wavy driver, since it crosses to a 6.5"lower midrange. That smaller coax would have been the natural midrange for the 2.5 - remaining consistent with the model development protocol established over the years. |
beetlemania Tom raised an excellent point on the smaller driver weighing less, moving less air and being more nimble. During my comparison(s) between the 2.4SE, 2.7 and 3.7 models, delicacy, is the precise conclusion I reached (without knowing these masterful details). To my ears delicacy, micro dynamics and subtleties, are inter-changeable. Sublime can be substituted as well. Happy Listening! |
tomthiel very interesting developments circa 1979/1980. Good to learn that more people are entering into the equation for you DIY guys. There are a few 3.5 owners here that would like to see/hear an improved XO in addition to the ones already staged. Keep up the outstanding work and have fun! Happy Listening! |
jafant Purchased the 17cubed last October (S/N 215) and ran it about 8 - 10 hours a day through mid-December. I'd guess it settled in after about 280 hours use. Changed to a BP-26 I had bought for my son, and ran it from mid-December through late January while assembling his 2-channel system. Then back to the 17 cubed ever since. Clear difference between the BP-26 and the BP17 cubed, especially in mezzo and soprano voices and choir articulation. Also, significantly less listening fatigue - - almost none. Sticking with the 17 cubed! (If finances permit, I might change out my 4BSST2 for a 4B cubed later this year.) |
But a subtle difference between the 2 and 3 is that the smaller woofer and midrange of the 2 gives it an advantage in delicacy; since smaller drivers weigh less and move less air, they are slightly more nimble.
That’s an interesting point, Tom. I venture to guess, all other factors equal, that advantage *could* result in relatively better dynamics/transients and resolution. But this would be countered by the X.7 coax with breakup modes further out of band, a notable benefit when using low slope filters. Would be interesting to compare my modded 2.4s to the 3.7 (I’ve only heard the 3.7 once, at RMAF in the Rowland room). And the low frequency extension of the 3.7, judging from Stereophile’s measurements, reaches “only” 2-3 Hz lower than that of the 2.4. Yet another example of the tradeoffs in speaker designs. |
pwhinson - I concur with the answers you have gotten, and can add some additional long-view perspective. The 3 moves more air as noted above. Also, the x.7s are more recent and as such include further learning / problem solving in their evolutionary DNA. Each new product stands on the shoulders of all previous work. But a subtle difference between the 2 and 3 is that the smaller woofer and midrange of the 2 gives it an advantage in delicacy; since smaller drivers weigh less and move less air, they are slightly more nimble. That assumes all else being equal, which is never the case; I point it out because over the decades that observation has often arisen. I have not yet heard a Thiel x.7, but I expect to be moved if it occurs. Life does not provide the opportunity for most folks to own such expensive tools. I expect to remain happy with my 2.2s and look forward to what their upgrade brings . . . and then there is the 3.6 cooling its heels at the back of the hot-rod garage. Someone called me yesterday out of his memories of sharing time at CES in the day. He is now an AudioNote, etc. dealer. He has his original 03a which he still loves. He also has 3.5s. He is collaborating with me to create a schematic. Who knows where that will lead. Did you know that those 03 cabinets were FinPly? Would you believe that in 1980 I experimented with bending those side panels for increased rigidity? There was no way to incorporate such sophistication into manufacturing in the garage shop. But 25 years later the 3.7 made it happen. Did you know that Jim discovered the dual cone solution in 1979 developing the 04 woofer? . . . a magnificent solution which was dependent on available cones, curved in front x straight in back with identical depth. One went extinct and the project died. But by 1990, we could order a custom molded front cone for the 2.2 - and it happened, and continued to be refined over time, in various models. Such continual cumulative improvement is everywhere - I am pleased to have personally experienced it. I among many consider the x.7 coax to be a leap forward in that evolutionary cycle. I wonder if or when it might continue its journey. |
james63 your memory is on target. The CS 3.7 will play louder as it is a larger, heavier, loudspeaker that can easily handle an extra 100 watts compared to the CS 2.4 / 2.4SE models. The CS 3.7 requires a little more current as well in order to fill larger space correctly. It does feature the same house sound or tonal balance that we all love so well. One can count on an appropriate, wider soundstage. The 2.4 / 2.4SE will not fill the same larger room as a 3.7 model. Happy Listening! |
pwhinson73 I heard the 3.7 and 2.4 in the same room same system one time. It was a long time ago so I can’t talk to specific details and keep in mind audio memory is poor... The most noticeable thing is the 3.7s is more detailed in the mids and highs. The 3.7s did not seem to play any deeper to me but probably have more over head to play louder if needed. I did not play them loud as I don’t listen that way but I am sure with the aluminum front and top the box is less noisy. Not that I noticed noise from the 2.4. All in all the tonal balance is about the same so going to the 3.7s will not give you “move” bass unless the room gain is giving it or the 2.4s are simply just playing too hard due to a big room. The 3.7 might have more bass texture but I don’t remember. The 3.7s filled a big room with no issues but did not have the bass authority of the Sophia 3 I heard in the same time (same room/system). The sound stage was crazy stable and wide on the 3.7. The width almost seemed endless. This was a very large demo room with great acoustics. It made the 2.4s sound a little small in direct comparison. |