Thiel Owners


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!
@thielrules, Thanks again. Excellent information. The price of the drivers doesn’t seem unreasonable. The required cabinet work might be more than I bargained for. Not to mention the crossover tweaking.
@sljhigb, the original 3.5’s  mid’s 50 Watt rating was an 8 Ohm minimum recommendation. It was capable of handling 500-600 Watts into it’s 4 Ohm load.
Hello rules - I suggest that the 3.7 chamber is probably larger than the 2.7 because the 3.7 XO frequency is lower than the 2.7 judging by the larger capacitor bank at the infeed of the 2.7.

Redesigning a speaker is a massive undertaking. Budget a man-year more or less depending on your knowledge, skills and hardware.
I assumed that chamber for the coax in the 3.7 and 2.7 were about the same and as Rob had the prototype of the 2.7 available, I used that to compare to the chamber volume of 3.5
Unsound - I like seeing you think outside the lines. Indeed that coax is a work of art that should find additional uses. To add some perspective, let me summarize Jim’s design process.

•The drivers are developed against their optimum criteria.•Each driver is measured thoroughly in an infinite baffle, and in the cabinet.•The cabinet including baffle shape, chamber parameters are optimized to align the driver to its infinite baffle state (as much as possible).•Driver anomalies such as resonances, enclosure effects, etc. are evaluated regarding which ones can benefit from electronic (shaping) circuitry.•Iterative process of driver changes (surround compliance, mass, etc.) with XO circuitry to bring each driver closest to its 6dB/octave slopes.•Continual comparisons of components, layout, etc. for optimization within the cost constraints.
It may be clear that changing a major element such as the driver, chamber size or baffle geometry for a different will have interactive effects on most of the design parameters. It was common for a speaker in development to get cabinet changes during development. It is likely that the new coax driver would have required different cabinet geometries, enclosure volumes, etc. to ’work’ as a colorless transducer at a level to satisfy Jim.
Indeed with much smaller changes such as replacing the original CS2.2 midrange with the ScanSpeak 10F, there are significant XO changes required because all the resonances and T/S parameters are different from the original. In steep-slope designs a driver can be ’dropped in’ because most of the anomalous behavior is in the extended overlap zones which are attenuated by the steep slopes. We don’t have that luxury.

Just my little peek behind the curtain regarding how everything is hooked to everything, nothing is simple, and no good idea goes unpunished.