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

I've been using my 3.5's with eq on full boost in a moderately large room (15' ceiling peak) and play music at the volumes which were intended, scaled back for domestic room size, in other words; fairly loud on peaks, with an amp capable of 500 Watts (and double that for a couple of minutes at a time) per channel into their 4 Ohm load for many years now, without a hint of problems. Though, I do wish they could play even louder on dynamic peaks with less strain. My 3.5 midranges drivers were rebuilt by Thiel shortly after I purchased them. The previous owner used what IMHO was an underpowered receiver to drive them. Again, no problems since.

Not using the eq would be an anathema for me. Even on steadily loud rock music, I would use the eq at least on the 40 Hz setting. With more lowered tuned 5 string basses and synthesizers being used, there's too much music below 70 Hz where the eq kicks in to compromise without it . That coherent sealed box deep bass is part of the reason I like the 3.5's so much. Without it, I might have kept my old CS 2's. I still prefer the 3.5's  to the later Thiel offerings, except of course for the only other sealed box Thiel's; the CS 5i's. The amplifier requirements for which are the only obstacle towards my ownership.

That  up to 12 dB eq boost might seem a bit extreme, but it is mitigated somewhat but the concurrent rise in impedance.



@thielrules, while I agree with what you've posted, I think there are few things to consider.

The 3.5's as supplied only have single amplifier inputs. What you are suggesting is not possible without modifications to the speakers, which could depreciate their resale value. Sending a separate signal to the eq and then to the woofers, and a separate signal to the rest of the drivers could present a time lag to the woofers compared to the other drivers. Time is after all really what makes speakers like Thiel different and special. Of course in the digital domain it could be compensated for fairly easily, but in the analog domain, well that might take someone like Jim Thiel to figure that out. Also, 6 dB may not be much compared to say what a port rolls off, but it still is rather significant. That 6 dB is per octave, and there are two octaves to cover.

Unsound - Regarding impediments to CS5i ownership, I am confident we can address the primary shortcoming quite easily - and that the amplification problem would be reduced significantly. The impedance drops to 1 ohm in the deep bass and doesn't rise above 3 ohms till 200 Hz. That severe bass load drains the amp of ability for transient response in the upper bands. By adding a second input for the 3 woofer/ subwoofer drivers, we can sequester the "amp problem" to the bass.
From history: Jim was aware of the problem and the solution. His personal make-up caused him to avoid the fix due to the potential chaos of cable and amp interactions in the field. However, if you used 2 identical amps with identical cable runs, you could successfully vertically bi-amp each speaker with its own channel for each band. As was mentioned earlier, each amp could sit close to its speaker so the 4 cable runs would be less expensive.

While in the XO we could easily upgrade some caps and resistors if desired.

^That sounds most interesting. Though, I not sure doubling the amplifier budget comes across as quite easily fixed? Two short runs of cables cost more than one run of cable of equal length.

Still interesting.