^please accept my apologies for this disjointed post. Dang phone keyboard.
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!
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!
Showing 50 responses by unsound
tomthiel, Wow, I just love this insight! Would Jim have put the cross-overs before or after the amps in a self-powered speaker? If I may humbly suggest considerations for revised 3.5 eq's: Mono operation for those with dual mono pres and mono-block amps, as well as for use in home theatre applications. Industry pro standard AES pro true balanced operation. Perhaps a return to the dual speaker terminals of the earlier CS 3's, to restrict the eq's input into the upper frequencies. If a digital option were to be considered, direct digital input and output, preferably with IS2, perhaps with DSP room correction for actual rooms. And of course anything else that you guys might deem worthy. Thanks again! |
oblgny, Let me guess; you bought an eq for Thiel 3's instead of 3.5's? The 3.5's eq was a nice upgrade over the 3's eq. I have admit, considering how the eq works, the bi-wireable binding posts on the 3's would appear to be a good option with eq. On the other hand, Audiogon member Lrsky, who used to work at Thiel around that time has claimed that the eq works beyond the bass spectrum, which would negate that consideration. While I don't doubt the sincerity of his assertion, I haven't seen anything that would confirm it. Have you reached out to Pass Labs or Thiel yet? |
richardp01, I some how feel somewhat responsible for causing you some level of neurosis over the eq. Every room is different, and as Jafant has wisely noted, we all hear differently. Keep the eq in case you move. In the mean time, as I'm not in the habit of arguing with success, if it's working for you sans eq: enjoy! |
tomthiel, I couldn't find any images of the dual binding posts on the CS 3's, but reference is made here: https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/684cs3/index.html |
tomthiel, "...signal-shaping was done within the amplification envelope..." Wow, that seems quite ambitious, especially when considering it probably would all have been done in analog then. In today's digital era development time an effort would probably be dramatically reduced. I remember just before Jim's passing that he thought that Class D was best limited to sub-woofers. Much time has passed, and perhaps Jim might have come to appreciate the current status of Class D more, or, perhaps not. I agree with you regarding perhaps moving to a higher impedance. Though at the risk of appearing petty, I think moving the minimal impedance to 4 Ohms would be most interesting. The required amplifier budget has scared me off the CS5i's. |
Jafant, I don’t know anything about this particular unit, or the seller: There are plenty more that know plenty more about Krell’s than I do. I have enjoyed various Krell’s on various Thiel’s many, many times. Amongst my favorite combinations. The only models I didn’t care for where the integrateds, the KAV and home theatre series. I’m not familiar with the post D’Agostino Krell’s directly on Thiels. While the KSA 250 wasn’t one of my favorite Krell’s, I’d still put it on my short list to use now. If I were in your shoes; I’d be investigating this option. Then again, perhaps my 10 EE’s wouldn’t fit.:-) Sorry, I don't know why the hyper-link keeps failing. There is a listing for a Krell FPB-300 here on Audiogon. |
Jafant, are you sure about that short list for the Thiel 2.4 SE's? http://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurements#0RqHTvKEMC4Xqcgd.97 |
Jafant, I would recommend an amp capable of a minimum of 300 Watts into 3 Ohms, and I would personally prefer double or more than that. The combination of a sub 3 Ohm minimum impedance and challenging phase angle is likely to make most tube amps less than comfortable. Thiel recommends at least 100 Watts per channel for the 2.4's. Bear in mind that recommendation is based upon quality ss amplification that can double down, and in this case almost double down again! If the amp can't double down as such then you'll need to increase the power output of the 8 Ohms rating accordingly. There is an old audiophile rule of thumb that I have found to be excellent guidance: buy at least twice the minimum power recommended. With speakers like your Thiels if using tubes double that again, and then again. As for your apparent preference for an integrated over separates, there are some things that you might want to consider. While it's true that the case work and especially the face plates are amongst the most expensive parts of amps, so minimizing those costs would appear to value laden. And there is something to be said for shorter signal paths and the elimination of an extra set of interconnects that integrateds provide. On the other hand, I think you'll find that most intergrateds due to reduced size and corresponding heat sink real estate will have to run cooler than their separates counterparts. Very often that is accomplished by reducing the amount of Class A bias and the advantages that can come with that over the now increased Class AB output. Furthermore, you've probably noticed that many manufacturers top of the line pre's come with separate power supplies so as not to contaminate the delicate low level signals that pres work with. If these manufactures find the relatively small power supplies of pre-amps an offense, imagine what kind of insult power amplifiers might induce? |
oblgny, jafant, well not exactly. Nelson Pass worked at Phase Linear before co-starting Threshold where he developed amongst other things the acclaimed Stasis and optical bias designs which he sold with the company when the economy had a downturn, though not before licensing the Stasis design (though not application!!!) to Nakamichi. After departing Threshold Nelson Pass started Pass Labs. Some individuals that previously worked at Threshold started Coda. Coda also made gear for Legacy, Sanders Sound and others. Wayne Coburn who was with Threshold as Nelson Pass was leaving Threshold went onto Pass Labs where he is credited with much of the Pass Labs preamps designs. Though not really as much part of the Nelson Pass continuity, Mikael Bladilaius was part of the post NelsonPass Threshold team (including Wayne Coburn) that developed the T series and later Forte' gear, went onto Classe' amongst others. |
Jafant, as for recommendations, well it's just so personal. I've given you considerations from Thiel 2.4's perspective. Your room and the desired volume potential, as well as what you might have proceeding the amplification should be considered. I'm not sure if your dead set on an integrated or if not, have specific preamp considerations in mind such as ss, tubes, balanced single ended, impedance, sensitivity, etc. The recommendations I try to provide should help one avoid technical pitfalls, and narrow down the selection list to a manageable size. After that it still comes down to personal preference. If your more specific I can offer you gear I'd consider based on those parameters and if you like; stuff I like within those parameters. |
re: Stereo Exchange in NYC, before the net and Audiogon, et al, my friends and I would get excited as we came towards Presidents day; as Stereo Exchange would have their annual sale, great prices on everything, but especially used gear, and they stood behind their sales. The last time I was there it seemed as though it was mostly home theatre stuff. When I inquired as to why this was, I was told without the home theatre stuff they probably couldn't exist. |
Jafant, Not all Pass Labs and Krell's can keep doubling down to 2 Ohms. Furthermore, even if a manufacturer suggests that they can, it might be prudent to check third party testing results such as those found in Stereophile, etc.. I quite often find that manufacturer claims, even from some of the more popular and respected brands frequently don't measure up to expectations. While I don't have a lot of confidence in all of the loudspeaker measurements, there seems to be little to fault with regard to their electronics measurements. |
Larry, It's been a long time, and I might be mistaken, but I thought the late "Bud" Fried also thought 1st order cross-overs were "all wrong". I seem to recall that some of his designs were supposed to be based on transmission line cabinets, yet none appeared to be suitably ginormous enough to be actual transmission lines. Also, wasn't there some sort of brouhaha with Stereophile over the measured bass output of his speakers vs. Thiel's, wherein Stereophile reexamined their procedure; to find that they were in fact correct. |
With regard to balanced operation; with adapters or conversions, one could still appreciate that the cables themselves would still have the advantages of superior noise rejection. True balanced would be better still, maintaining the advantages of full balanced through put throughout the circuitry, and voiding whatever pitfalls might be introduced through superfluous conversions. As for my recommendation for Oblgny to have two separate stereo 3.5 eq's converted to mono balanced operation, I assumed (always dangerous!) that described as such, that I was not attempting to suggest, as dlcockrum has wisely pointed out, that the eqs might merely be superficially converted to balanced operation. One would not need a second eq to do that. But, rather converting the previous stereo eq units to 2 mono units would permit true balanced operation. Oblgny would be wise to be quite specific when having this work done. Also, should Oblgny ever decide to go with mono amps in the future, the now mono balanced operation of the two eq's would help towards the greater stereo separation that mono amplifiers provide. |
CAVEAT: I have no relationship to the seller, and this is not an endorsement of this particular unit. For those looking for a very high value, fairly inexpensive amp that would work very nicely with those older Thiel's that have a minimum impedance doesn't drop below 4 Ohms, you might want to consider this: https://www.audiogon.com/listings/solid-state-conrad-johnson-mf-2300a-240-watt-mosfet-amplifier-2016... Obviously this amp would mate well with c-j's own ss or tube pres, that many Thiel owners of that vintage found to work well with. |
As Oblgny has already suggested the 3.5’s work best with the 12 dB boost compensating for the natural (and superior) sealed box roll off. Allowing the speakers bass extension that only much bigger and more expensive speakers are capable of. Though perhaps without the ultimate loudness those bigger, more expensive speakers can provide. Yes, the 3.5’s don’t dig below 4 Ohms, and the impedance actually rises at the lower frequency range, which should offset to some degree that rather large 12dB drain on the amplification. Still 12 dB is considerable draw. With their shallow cross-overs, under powering this range can suck power further up into the critical mid range and even beyond. Enough power is required not only for ultimate loudness but for overall linearity and coherence. I wonder if anyone has tried the eq options on the full core Roon platform? This might be a modern inexpensive (free?) option/upgrade to the OEM eq? It would at the very least now offer balanced connection options. Furthermore, the full core Roon platform also offers room correction, which might alllow the bass boost to be customized to one’s room rather than to a theortical anechoic model. Such room correction could even offer consideration of different room placement. As in the customary positionig the room correction could negatively effect the all important direct sound to correct the reflected sound. But....if the speakers were placed directly against the back wall, the correction would be more uniform, and proved natural bass boost requiring less amplification demands. Of course for the pure analog crowd this might be an anathema. I am still wondering how viable it would be to convert 2 single ended stereo OEM eq’s to mono balanced units particularly for those with digital phobias. |
jafant, your quest has been on my mind for some time now. While I only heard samples of Dan Dagastino's amps briefly at a show, so I really don't have an opinion on it. On the other hand, knowing a bit about the designer's history and looking at the specs; If I were looking for cost no object reference quality amplification for Thiel CS 2.4 SEs, I would put seeking out an audition of his gear towards the top of my short list. http://dandagostino.com/ |
^The input impedance of the FPB 250 M's is passive friendly, but the sensitivity might be a concern at 2.4 V for full power output. You paid for that power, might as well get what you paid for. It might behoove you to make sure all your sources are up to that, and don't forget to consider your interconnects too. CD red book calls for 2 V, though many DACs put out more. Tuners, etc. are not likely to be fully up to it. |
Jafant, yes I have seen both the 2.4's and 3.7's. I think this might be a matter of perception rather than reality, or perhaps a visual aesthetic concern. All of Jim Thiel's CS designs have basically the same dispersion characteristics.. Though the footprint varies a small amount, all the Jim Thiel CS models have the same basic placement guidelines. In my conversations with Thiel regarding placement, they said that the recommended distances should be measured from the back of the woofers. As the Thiels are time aligned that would be nearly identical to the more obvious tweeters. Even if we were to get especially persnickety; though the 3.7's have larger woofers, with perhaps a larger magnet and motor assembly, those woofer faces are also by design shallower in depth. The distance from the back of the woofer, back wall, side wall, and listener should be nearly identical with either 2.4's or 3.7's. The only other concern regarding room capability would be bass output; again they are nearly identical. The difference in weight has no bearing on room compatibility, unless of course the floors are can't bear the extra weight, which to my thinking would be cause for a different and much more important concern. |
Small rooms can only handle so much volume before becoming overloaded, but 88 dB doesn’t really come that close to presenting the dynamic range of so much music. With appropriate amplification the 3.5’s are capable of presenting a much better presentation of this musical characteristic. Thiel’s sensitivity ratings as presented, and as independently measured are accurate, but perhaps misleading/confusing. If one takes the actual impedance into consideration, the sensitivity decreases about 3 dB with each halving of impedance below 8 Ohms. |