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!
128x128jafant
The matter of music and its production and reproduction is very complex, and not readily solvable within real-world constraints. FWIW a story comes to mind. The story doesn't solve or settle anything, but it may shine some light on the depths of the conundrum.

Thiel often displayed with and/or next to Threshold at shows, before Nelson Pass migrated to his self-named smaller operation. Around the mid 80s Jim and Nelson were trading bets at a Las Vegas CES where they bet each other that they could design the other's product better. Jim's first impulse was toward amplifier circuit design, and Nelson's was toward loudspeakers. Jim took it as a joke and went back to work, in the typical Thiel workaday mode. Nelson didn't. Next year he showed up with his Pass Transparent Transducer. The PTT never got publicity, in fact entry to its exhibition room was invitation-only and never more than 5 minutes, and sealed lips promised. You see, Nelson's ultimate solution to distortion (diaphragm and cabinet resonances, thermal compression and all that) was to have none. The air-moving driver was ionized air which moves when excited by an electrical field between wire screens. One driver (air) for the entire range (near DC to whatever upper limit of air's compressability (let's say 100K). Pretty close to no artifacts. The sound was thoroughly enrapturing. Sweet, clean, diaphanous - images hanging in 3 dimensional space, at once solid and ethereal. It was unbelievable.

This was the same time-period when Dr. Hill was showing his Plasmatronic speaker which "burned" helium gas, modulating the plasma in a high-energy electromagnetic field. You can't make this stuff up. Anyhow, Nelson's TT was in its own league in my experience.
There were some "difficulties". Efficiency was low. I don't remember how low, but his custom amp delivered something like a megawatt per channel with special consideration to the seriously low impedances. Maximum sound pressure level was less than 50dB. Another "difficulty" was that it required positively ionized air and produced ozone. So, an ultra quiet exhaust fan came with the territory. And, program material was length-limited, since more than 20 minutes' exposure could lay a listener out with Welders' Fever and worse.

Even though Nelson "stepped outside" the room during demonstrations, he eventually came staggering into our room and , long story short, I accompanied him in the ambulance to the hospital to explain the nature of his illness to the ER doc, who "recommended" to CES that the display become passive.

The point of all this is that the interplay between trade-offs and the depth of required understanding, and the limitations of physical reality . . . make ultra-quality music reproduction extremely complex and difficult. By solving part of the equation, other parts are compromised. Even the One and Only Nelson Pass must make compromises. In our real workd, the listener's assessment is the final arbiter because you really can't get it all.
Andy2, Really? Is that where this is going? I suggest that you either offer more constructive posts or work on your cleverness.

This thread has been taken hostage by unsound lately :-)
That’s a great, and funny, story, Tom! And a good reminder of the compromises designers must make. Throwing money at the problem helps but even with unlimited budget, consumers will not have a “perfect” system.

For myself, I most value transparency, resolution, imaging . . . musical immersion. Those are the very qualities improved with the CS2.4 XO upgrade. And I have assembled a system that addresses those priorities within my particular budget. I have zero interest in recreating SPLs of The Who in my room.
Great story about Nelson Pass and his "dangerous" speaker design!

In terms of amps for use with Thiel speakers, I've been very happy with my PS Audio M700 Monoblocks driving Thiel 2.2 speakers. These amps put out 700w per channel into 4 ohms and can handle peaks at 2 ohms if necessary. Fortunately, the 2.2 runs mainly at 4 ohms or higher and only rarely drops into the 3-4 ohm range (per JA's Stereophile measurements).

It's clear that some of the later Thiel models are harder to drive than the 2.2, but folks on the PS Audio forum report great real-world performance of 2.4's and 3.7's using the M700's or the BHK signature designs. I don't think anyone should be hesitant to at least demo Thiels with PS Audio amps.   
@Beetlemania, I’ll say this one more time. IIt’s not about ultimate volume levels!It’s about dealing with impedance!
Look at the graphs of distortion levels in the previously posted links.
Your correct, if it was about ultimate volume levels, I’d have very different speakers.