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
prof

Have to agree with you with the sound of the 2.7 vs the 3.7. I auditioned both before choosing the 2.7s; however, I added a SmartSub 2.2 to the mix. (PX05 passive crossover.)

brayeagle

Good to see you. Hope you are well and enjoying the music. I am in the process of setting up the Bryston demo 2-3 weeks out due to my vs. the dealer/retailer's conflicting schedule. Stay tuned.


Happy Listening!

Guys - I should add something to the 2.7 vs 3.7 comparison. I have many unknowns in my knowledge equation - piecing together facts of history for better understanding. Beyond yesterday's thoughts, there are some manufacturing matters that may flavor the stew.
As you suspect, I have been comparing and contrasting various components. My workhorse is the PowerPoint 1.2. I know it well, it is simple (6"x2way), its room interaction is simple and predictable with its 45° launch which eliminates floor bounce, and its crossover has very little compensation due to the maturity of its drivers: styrene fillet in the woofer and total Thiel motors in both drivers. I have been auditioning 3 versions so far:
A: Original made in Lex with classic Thiel components = best of form developed over the years and used in higher-model traditional Thiel products.
B: FST1, made in China with a mix of Lex (caps) and FST (coils) parts.C: FST2, made in China will all FST parts and assembly - tested in Lex.Note: the FST components were co-developed with Jim and are intended as clones of Thiel's traditional parts. But later FST coils are known to be physically inferior, and the FST caps have migrated from propylene to polyester via Beetlemania's 2.4 experience and my PowerPoints. I would be most interested in examining XOs of Prof's and Brayeagle's rejected 3.7s. But, alas, such rigor is ethereal.
However, our listening tests are controlled, double blind and results are consistent among listeners. Results may apply to the 2.7 vs 3.7 discussion, since similar manufacturing history applies.
First, there is no clear winner of Lex vs FST. There are differences which stack up as FST being more incisive, cleaner and detailed - leaning toward cool and analytical. Lex possesses more cohesive solidity, naturalness and ease. Listener's preference varied. These results were surprising, but true and withstood swapping drivers and multiple tests. For discussion let's let the results stand and apply them to the 2.7 vs 3.7.
Flash back September 2012 when I heard final 2.7 samples compared to 3.7 at Thiel. Both of those were made with Thiel parts; both were tweaked engineering prototypes, the reference standard of each model. I, along with all others present, heard differences which I summarized previously, which I have been projecting on Prof, Brayeagle and others here. My projection contains flaws. Namely, the 2.7 manufacture never left Lex with traditional parts and the 3.7 gradually went to China much like the PowerPoint described above. So, I surmise that the 2.7s among you are potentially more similar to the 2.7s I heard than the 3.7s among you to the 3.7s I heard. I don't know your 3.7 serial numbers, but I project that the lower the numbers, the more likely they are to perform like the reference prototypes. One of these days I hope to compare an FST 3.7 to the original Lex 3.7 to evaluate differences. Until then, who knows what to believe.

Good morning, gents.



@tomthiel
I am surprised by your Lex v FST listening results. And this seems to confound the upgrade path I imagined. On the one hand, FST owners will be relieved that their sound is not necessarily diminished by those parts (good news). But on the other, Lex owners may be looking at retaining fewer parts in the upgrade, increasing costs (bad news). Perhaps the Lex coils are the only parts worth salvaging?