Thiel CS 5i, 7.2. and others

Danhirsh,
When I said that about THIEL, I was sort of saying it about all loudspeakers. We all have our favorites--maybe a function of our hearing.
Being overly sensitive to the high frequencies, I neverthless loved the articulation of the THIEL Loudspeakers as well as the scientific approach that he employed in his designs, that, plus Jim was my mentor in High End Audio, got me involved in the industry in the early '80's. Plus, he was a giant of an intellect regardless of one's personal tastes in loudspeakers. His work was brilliant in so many ways.
When I worked for him, I found him to be much greater than I could even have imagined. Oftentimes, at a distance, those we admire, become less through daily contact--the opposite was true of Jim--he was as hard of a working person, dedicated, that I have ever known--AND a really great and gentle man too--and for all of his personal gifts, the most humble genius I've ever met.

One day in his lab, while discussing his designs I told him that I liked the CS5 above all his others, and thought that it had to do with limited bandwidth that the drivers were asked to cover--a fact which I felt gave the speakers a more effortless sound. Plus the overall, 'brightness' that some people did not like in the THIEL's was absent in the CS5--likely due to midrange offset. We were in total agreement on these points.
For those who don't know, the CS5 was his first and last Cost No Object design, done in late '88--a project which lasted many, many months. It was designed, in part, if I recall correctly, due to the Asian market asking Jim to design a 'no holds barred' product.
Crossovers, (by memory here) of 70Hz, 400Hz 2K, 3K gave the speaker a really great image density (that's what I meant when talking about midrange 'offset') that some first order crossovers don't seem to possess, perhaps due to 'lobing' and other cancellation issues consistent with that design. To me, it was a GREAT SPEAKER...and a wonderful Birthday present that year from my wife.
For anyone who's thinking of this price (about 3 to 5K perhaps) a well taken care of used pair is a real bargain.

Larry

Larry, all excellent points! I've always thought that Jim's best designs were his sealed boxed ones. I suspect his sealed boxed speakers were better able to maintain the time and phase coherence that were at the very least part of Thiel's hallmarks.

Unsound,
You might consider, (if your significant other, assuming you have one, I DO NOT at this point in my life) has not probs with a speaker of that size, selling the 3.5's and getting the CS5's.
They really are quite wonderful--and I can only imagine what they'd sound like with Auricaps and better air core inductors, resisters etc.
Its a shame that Jim only had time to build ONE model with parts of this ilk before he left this mortal coil.
Though I haven't heard the 2.4SE, I am convinced they are remarkably better than the standard versions.

Larry

Larry, my "significant other" gives me carte blanche on such matters, except of course for expense:-). I've heard the CS5's often, and think they are amongst the best I've ever heard. Unfortunately the amplifier requirements scare me. I am thinking of going to something similar, but easier to drive; Dunlavy SCIVa's

Unsound,
One of the salient points I made in other posts was, I used, as a retailer, the Adcom 535 Amplifier, which was rated at 60WPC into 8 ohms. Highish current, but not a HIGH current amp which doubles into progressively lower resistance.
What amp do you have now?
I CAN tell you, and this is opinion based, that the Dunlavy's you mention, don't really compare in terms of resolution, deep, deep bass or imaging density.
AND, as I mentioned previously, if you read it, that one can only imagine, what the CS5's COULD have sounded like with Auricaps or Mundorf Oil/Gold/Silvers in place of the generally mundane parts found in this incredibly heavy crossover that Jim used.
Call me or write, so we can discuss this, lrsky@insightbb.com
Larry