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!
So all this talk about room size, and placement theory, had me experimenting and moving the 2.4s around again. The room has absorption panels on the side walls, corner bass traps on the front wall, and diffraction on the back wall. Room is 13'6"W x 23'L x 8'H.
I ended up with them 57" from the front wall, 44" from the side wall, and 75" apart. Listening position is 100". All measurements are from the centre of the THIEL name plate.
So I lost none of the soundstage width (which often goes wall-to-wall), gained some depth, and a little tighter focus in the vocals.
I'm somewhat amused by this, because it seemed to fly in the face of the wisdom of most literature recommending an 8' minimum distance between speakers. I've been able to free myself of the head in a vice behaviour, as a result.
I've been running through my usual test tracks and have been pleased with the results. Painter's tape markings have been repositioned accordingly.
^I believe the most critical distance for time and phase coherence (an attribute that can only be found with classic Thiel's beginning with the CS series and a handful of other loudspeakers) is the 8' minimum recommended distance from loudspeakers to listener. The recommendation to start with an equilateral triangle has led many to perhaps over generalize that listener to speaker distance of 8' to a strict minimum distance between speakers. IMHO, still a good baseline from which to start. As rooms, and room nodes and reflections vary from room to room, other considerations might weight more heavily.
Have you considered long wall placement? IME, (and in a room not too different than yours) such placement, with absorptive room treatment directly behind the listener, has been the preferred placement.
It wasn't a serious consideration because the room doubles as a home theatre too; where we often add a second row of seats.
There's a structural telepost (masqueraded by a 16" wooden column) that interferes as well so it was better to have it off to the one side rather than directly in the middle of the seating.
Anyway I was just playing around with the Cardas golden ratios and such, and seemed to have reached a good sonic solution for 2-ch.
That reminds me to build my next house with floor trusses; and free up the space for even more flexibility...
I was moving my 3.7s to make room for the 2.7s I’m getting tomorrow. For the heck of it I set up my old Thiel 02s. For those who don’t know that model, it was before the time/phase coherence - just a regular box speaker, but engineered for a flatter response than most speakers at the time (even though it’s not perfectly flat - a bit of emphasis in the upper mids). Not sure I’d listened to them yet since I got my CJ Premier 16LS2 pre-amp a while back.
Unbelievably musical. So clear, alive sounding, yet warm, with more sparkle than the 3.7s. It’s actually my benchmark for the sound I’ve been chasing for years, which is why I can’t ever get rid of them. Every time I fire them up I end up thinking "maybe this is all I need" but I know after time I can start to crave some of the finesse of a newer speaker (and scale). But boy do I love those speakers, an unbelievably synergistic match with the CJ amps. (And my Eico HF-81). I actually prefer listening to them over the Harbeth SHL5 Plus I just sold!
I should have my 2.7s tomorrow so this will be interesting...
Finally getting your 2.7s. My benchmark has always been my 3.5s. Took me years to stumble into a pair of ProAc Tabelettes. Finally a midrange that could sing to me. Keep them in a 2nd system with a pair of Forte' class A monoblocks and a Velodyne sub. An incredibly musical system. Just mates perfectly. I could never sell these Speakers/system.
Just had an amazing leap in my recovery from my back surgery. Was finally able to tweek some of the tube traps and diffusers. Will be a Musical weekend; Hope yours is too.
Norb, congratulations on some nice progress on your recovery. Surgery is a b*&^$h! Awesome you can enjoy some tunes this Weekend.
I'll bet that second system of yours does sound great. I came so close to buying the little 50 watt Forte - class A amp when they came out - the one that got away!
Prof - curious to hear your impressions on the 2.7 - still cranking my 3.6 after 18 years of service!
I know that your excited. Take your time for many good listenering sessions before you make a final decision. Like I said earlier; a new speaker would need to satisfy me for a year, before I would give up my current 12year affair. Happy that it is a Wow !! Speaker. Can hardly wait for you to be able to give a more in-depth take on them. I sure others are waiting with me and will settle for short previews whenever you put them out.
Ok, so here for anyone interested is my initial first impressions report on the Thiel 2.7s:
As I've mentioned, I have the Thiel 3.7s and have considered downsizing somewhat, for space/ergonomic reasons, though not for sound - because they sound mind-blowing.
The 2.7s are in a high class ebony which matches the room really well and they are one of the most beautiful pair of speakers I've seen. That's huge because part of my move has been for aesthetic reasons.
At first the 2.7s didn't seem that much smaller than the 3.7s when taking them out of the box. But once set up the difference is really noticeable. They are much less room-dominating and more sleek than the 3.7s. (Though I ultimately like the look of the 2.7s better, my wife slightly prefers the 3.7 design). And certainly moving them around is much easier in terms of their size and weight.
I've had the 2.7s up and experimenting with positions for 2 days, and for the moment have found a nice position that seems to maximize their soundstaging, precision, tone, dynamics. (They are close to the same set up as my 3.7s ).
Having lived with the 3.7s for years, how do the 2.7s sound? First impressions: almost exactly like how I thought they'd sound: just like the 3.7s. That same immediately identifiable tone and presentation, just a bit smaller. And the bass seems quite satisfactory - a lot of the times it seemed to be going as low as the 3.7s.
But it wasn't long, in going through many familiar tracks, before some sight differences started to emerge. The first is the soundstaging. The 2.7s do that wonderful Thiel thing in disappearing as sound sources. Very "un-speaker-like" sound emanating from all around the speakers. (Far cleaner than, for instance, the Harbeths I recently had). Images have amazing precision all around the speakers. That said, it's not the same soundstaging as the 3.7s insofar as the 2.7s present a more forward, more present and less deep and wide soundstage. This is something that would not be noticed if I hadn't lived with the 3.7s which are just about the most phenomenal soundstaging speakers I've ever had. The 3.7s just can cast an enormous soundtage, almost life-sized feeling for jazz and even classical with the right set up. It's almost like the depth and width can keep going and going.
In contrast, the 2.7s soundstage pulls all the musicians closer. I can hear all the reverberation cues and spaces, but the instruments aren't placed as far away.
Also, in favor of the 3.7s, the big guys sound a bit more relaxed and sort of softer than the 2.7s, with a bit more carved out "air" around instruments and voices. Plus, not surprisingly, instruments and voices can be a bit smaller on the 2.7s.
The other differences are that the 2.7s sound very slightly more forward and present than the 3.7s, with just a bit more sparkle and shine in the upper mids/lower treble, giving cymbals, brass, and anything with a "leading edge" such as guitar picking or piano notes a bit more presence. It's not an incoherent "tweeter sticking out" sound at all; they are incredibly coherent like the 3.7s, but somewhere just a very slightly different tonal balance.
Then there is the bass/midbass/lower midrange. Voiced for the smaller woofer, this aspect of the sound changes as well. It's sort of like taking the 3.7s deep weighty sound and shifting and squishing that energy upwards more into the midbass. The 2.7s have just astounding "punch" and density - and control! - in terms of bass that goes up into the lower mid range. There was a thread on audiocircle where the fellow who did some design work on the 2.7 chimed in:
His comments on the bass are right on. Bass drums and stand up bass are so dense and punchy.
So what this all combines to on the 2.7 is a presentation that seems more forward, more exciting, more alive, and even more "dense" than I get with the 3.7s. Everything just vibrates the air as if it's really there, in front of you. I had wondered about the specs of the specs of the 2.7s because they are rated as quite a bit less sensitive than the 3.7s. Though my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks (140Wside) have driven any speaker I've used, I wondered if I still might here a bit of dynamic reticence in the 2.7 vs the 3.7. No, just the opposite! These things utterly kick ass with the CJ amps! Incredibly punchy, ballsy and more dynamically alive than virtually any non-horn speaker I can ever remember hearing. That is their main virtue thus far: the way the field around the speakers is populated by particularly dense, air-moving voices and instruments. Drum solos have more pop, snap, punch, thereness and I'm more aware of the sounds and variations in how the drummer is playing (or bongos or anything percussive). Stand up bass panned to one speaker sounds like it's in the room, moving air.
Vocals? Thus far what I'm hearing gives some ground to the 3.7s, takes away in others. I'm getting more focused sound, more density and "thereness" and a bit more presence, so vocals can sound quite astonishing. On the other hand, the 3.7s seem to have a sightly smoother, more subtle, softer and organic texture for voices. I can enjoy both.
Strings, similarly, have a somewhat more subtle, softer sheen on the 3.7s, just a teeny bit more rasp on the 2.7s, but also more dense on the 2.7s, more "moving air."
Overall thus far I'd describe the 3.7s as sounding more relaxed and cinematically scaled, the 2.7s bring forth more life energy, impossible not to be tapping my toes through pretty much every song.
I'm going to take a while in making my decision (as much as my wife is putting the pressure on!). Thus far I love aspects about both the 2.7 and the 3.7.
And for anyone wondering about the 2.7 (who thought about grabbing one)...it seems they are pretty rare on the second hand market, but I can't recommend them highly enough if you think the Thiel sound is for you. I've been auditioning plenty of more expensive contenders recently, but I don't know if I can think of a better bargain than second hand 2.7s.
Thanks for taking a break to give us your 1st take of the 2.7s and comparisons to the 3.7s
Yes, I know that your wife thinks you have a lot of gear. The Speakers are heavy and a lot of work to move and adjust. She should be used to it by now and know that you are hopeless. Take your time. I don't think she will leave.
I have been able to visualize your comparisons and would concur with them; have gone through the same drill.
Do not want to voice to much to influence you even at a subconscious level.
You said, that you do sound work for film, so I know that the HT part is important to you. Personally, the HT is just Tricks & Treats for me.
Prof Happy Day! Glad to see you are enjoying your delivery. Glad you found the bass satisfactory and noted differences between the two. Just curious though - how is the tilt as compared to the 3.7?
Do you mean how much have I tilted them? I haven’t tilted either the 3.7 or the 2.7. Simply set them down without spikes (I’ve tried spikes before and they didn’t make anything better about the sound). So they have whatever tilt is built into their shape.
I often experiment in terms of my head height when listening - sometimes sitting up, slouching, lying more reclined. Thus far I found the tonal balance changes a bit more with the 3.7 when doing so, vs the 2.7. There’s a slightly richer, more mellow balance the further I go below the 3.7 tweeter height. But the difference may be that the 3.7 tweeter starts out higher than the 2.7 given my listening position, so slouching in front of the less tall 2.7s means I’m still more in line with the 2.7 mid/tweeter, so the frequency balance doesn't change as much.
I’m going to get used to the 2.7 for a while longer and continue experimenting before I put the 3.7s back to compare.
Last night I spun some vinyl, Niel Young at Massey Hall. While it didn’t have quite the cavernous scale as on the 3.7s, there was a more solid sense of the performance, which made it remarkably realistic.
I think the very slightly more forward upper midrange - a more incisive leading edge - combined with the upper bass/lower mids density of the 2.7 (due to it’s different tuning for the smaller woofer) tends to give piano notes in particular a more solid presence. Pretty nifty stuff.
I was thinking back to the times I auditioned the CS 2.4, 2.4SE, 2.7 and 3.7 models. Ultimately, I chose the 2.4SE. I must say that it was a close race between the 2.4SE and 2.7. To my ears, the 2.4SE won out based upon the facts of cabinet, cross-over, binding posts and included outriggers (necessary w/ the CS 1.6, 1.7 2.4 and 2.4SE).
The CS 2.7 offers the best in JT last designs. These are getting harder to find in the used/demo markets. It would be interesting to learn about the number of pairs built? I concur, the Ebony finish is special.
I actually find the 2.7 sounds a bit more like the earlier models vs the 3.7. The 2.7 has that slightly tighter, denser, focused concissive quality I'd always heard from Thiel - the 3.7s being a bit more of a departure - smoother more lush. This is fairly subtle stuff, though.
Thank You Prof Your in-depth evaluation is fantastic, Its to bad the the " professional " evaluators couldn't be as precise as you. You've help me get over the regret of not moving up to the 3.7s I purchased one of the last CS2.7 pairs available from Thiel, I had to purchase the speaker spikes used on the 2.4SEs and 3.7s in order to penetrate the carpet. I love the sound and the looks and they aren't so heavy that I'd need help to move them.
I have owned 2.4s and currently have a pair of 3.7s. To me they sound best with a high quality tube preamp and a SS power amp. They really need 250+ watts and you need an amp that is stable down in the 2 to 3 ohm range.
Prof, Very interesting evaluation. My thoughts on the 2.7 as compared to previous models was that is was "smoother and more lush" as you say about the 3.7 in comparison. This is good stuff....I am appreciating your evaluation as are all reading this. (Who has this opportunity in their home!) I still think, that it would be beneficial to compare the tilt of the 3.7 and try to match the same on your 2.7. it may give you a different impression, but maybe not - as I recall you were nearfield in you listening position.
I had a pair of 2.4's before my 3.7's.I think you can't go wrong with either the 2.4,2.7 or the 3.7's!i think the 2.4's do everything well!While I do like my 3.7's,I can't say they are many 1000's of dollars better sounding then the 2.4's I had?Maybe keeping the 2.4's and investing 1000's more on better electronics would have been a better idea?I have noticed that my movies are more cinema like with the 3.7's.My problem is that I mess with my system too much,and never really let it break in before I change this or change that!Im definitely OCD!
I have a different take on spiking Thiels. I don't know if the 2.4, 2.7, 3.7 have a better system/ outriggers as mentioned earlier, but the 3.5s just had holes in the base that accepted the provided spikes. Shortly after getting my 3.5s; "Sound Anchor" came out with dedicated stands for the 3.5s. I bought a pair and never looked back. You could use the new threaded spikes that came with the stands or use any spike you desired or Stillpoints of today. The benefit was not subtle. The other benefit was that you could finally level and plumb the Speakers. A not subtle benefit.
I tried tilting various speakers over the years but the Thiels are time aligned already. You can try it as robinbarbour suggests. Personally I think Speakers are designed to be setup symmetrically, level and plumb. The more precise; The better. Hence, my use of a laser since Jim Smiths book. 1/16" accuracy. Another; Not Subtle benefit. Any height difference due to spikes plus stands can be made up at the listening position.
Sound Anchor is still in business. I also had a pair of their stands for a pair of Wilson "Cubs" Anyway, very well made and beneficial to bass, soundstage and imaging.
A lot of listening and moving Speakers and more listening is enjoyable work , but still work .
Nice of you to ask , nothing as lofty as what is sold on Audiogon. Thiel CS2.7 ( only because I got them for less than 1/2 price New ! ) McCormack DNA-250 ( Conrad Johnson ) Gold Point passive preamp Carver SD/A-490t CD player ( only because there is some music not available on Vinyl ) Sim Audio Moon LP110 phono preamp thru a regulated power supply Merrill Heirloom TT with an upgraded RB300 tonearm and a Grado Sonata Reference cartridge. all thru Cardas Neutral Reference interconnects and speaker cables, and arriving any day now a TT speed control from Mr. Merrill, so I can finally play my favorite album David Crosby If I Could Only Remember My Name a 4 sided copy at 45rpm that I've had for over a year now.
the future upgrades planned Tube phono preamp, Decware I think Origin Live Illustrious Tonearm and Soundsmith Aida or the Voice or maybe another Grado The Statement ? Used /Demos most likely due to their prices.
As a true Audiophile or want to be , always looking to upgrade.
Jafant,thanks!Its nice to talk to people who can relate to his hobby and that have similar equipment!I am using a xpa 5 with my 3.7's instead of my xpa 1 monos.I made the change because of ease of use for the family.While I don't think there was a big difference going from monos back to a 5 channel,I didn't a/b the change.Do you think you still get good sound from a 5 channel amp with the Thiels?
I know Emotiva aren't the best,but I had to save somewhere because 3.7's were so expensive.While I wasn't thrilled with the amps,they were affordable.The Xpa 1 amps really sound better with my B&W 805 in the basement?I had a Adcom 5500 ,and both emos were better.I guess that's not saying much though!The only thing that's helps using the xpa 5 is that I don't listen too loudly.Ive never heard my 3.7's with a really good amplifier,haven't had one yet.
I look forward to your impressions, thoughts and listening preferences on all things Thiel. You are in for quite a ride. Sure, a 5-channel amp is fine. The more robust, the better. Do not forget about power amp(s) that support high current as well. You own a nice system.
I talked to a Thiel rep just after I bought the 3.7's.He told me how special the Les Paul Editions are and that he said to find the best amp possible for them!No Emos he said!I had already ordered the Xpa 5 a week before.Thinking the Xpa 1 s would be a lot better,I ordered them the next Christmas.They are really not bad for the price but played much better with my 805's.On good recordings my 3.7's sound great!On average to bad recordings not so much!My B&W's are much more forgiving!I do have a vintage Halfler 280 xl left over?Was thinking of trying it but only 140 per channel and no balanced inputs.Probably a waste huh?
Can you elaborate on what makes the Les Paul 3.7s special? Different than standard production 3.7s?
Better X- over parts? More closely matched drivers? , ????.
I would heed dicockrum's advice. Under powered is probably one of the things that causes the most damage to drivers. Don't know your amps but worth avoiding damage in the 1st place.
Les Paul edition speakers sonically the same as regular 3.7 's.The difference is that they were finished by Gibson,just like a sunburst Les Paul.Each speaker was signed on the back by Les Paul.Only 13 pair were made total.3 pair went to auction,leaving 10 pair left for sale.5 pair in sunburst,5 in tobacco sunburst.Thiel rep told me msrp was 18k.All of this and I'm using Emotiva? Unfortunately,they will have to do for now.I do like the idea of trying a class d amp with them?
There was a pair of 3.7s Les Paul Edition speakers on USAUDIOMART a few months ago for sale for $6800. The ad expired (never said sold). Does anyone know if these ever sold? They were a nice looking pair. I can no longer respond to the seller, since they're expired. If you go to the website and enter 649304777 in the search line, you can see them.
There was a pair of 3.7s Les Paul Edition speakers on usaudiomart a few months ago for sale for $6800. The ad expired (never said sold). Does anyone know if these ever sold. They were a nice looking pair. I can no longer repond to the seller, since they're expired. If you go to the website and enter 649304777 in the search line, you can see them.
Undoubtedly unsound will offer wise advice/suggestions regarding powering the 3.7's appropriately; his past advice regarding my former 3.5's was useful and utilized. Toward that end I have to once again offer my opinion on Pass Labs - if the cost is in your wheelhouse. Right now there's an X250 up for grabs here for $2500 - pretty much the same amount I paid for my two, on separate occasions, X150.5's. I believe the X250 is 250 into 8ohms, 450-500 into 4ohms. Pass was by far and away the most neutral or colorless amplifier I've owned to date, IMHO a perfect match for Thiel loudspeakers which share the same sonic descriptions - colorless, neutral, accurate.
Per unsound's spot-on remarks, the 3.5's were/are possibly the easiest Thiel model to drive without stressing the amp, 300 watts into 4 ohms and I never stressed a hair remaining on me head.
Funny how we evolve our systems around these excellent speakers, ain't it?
oblgny, I have tried other solid state amps including Krell and Bryston with by Audio Research tube preamps, and ended up selling and going back to AR tube amps, now with a Ref 150. I'm always looking for better. Do you think the X250 would match up with my AR Ref 5E preamp and my 3.6s?
The add was mine!I had a lapse in judgment!At the time I was sick of b.s. offers and was ready to give them away!Im keeping them and would no longer let them go for that! I was ready to back to b&ws,not any more!I haven't ever seen another pair like mine yet!I think someday I'll leave them to my son.
I'm currently using a Simaudio integrated with my 3.6's and find it pretty damn good, 200 watts into their 4ohm load. I sold off my second X150.5 and a BAT VK3i preamp simply because I grew weary of all the wires and what not.
I started out with a First Watt M2(?) ss amp and almost immediately moved to my first X150.5 when I got my first pair of 3.5's. I've had a few AR preamps and they pair exceptionally with Pass and Thiel. The X250 for sale here is an early model, followed by the 250.5, and the 250.8. From what I've discovered, at least with the 150 series, there is no manufacturer upgrade path from one to the next. Obviously, Pass commands a pretty steep entrance fee - the 250 for sale here is as much as a used X150.5 goes for currently, but with a LOT MORE power on tap.
Yes, I'd say the Pass 250 is more than well suited to your 3.6's.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
