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
tomthiel
To followup on jafant’s question regarding the hot rod updates, are you able to provide some details regarding your progress on the 3.6 upgrades?
Are you planning to release “complete hot rod kits” for each model, or generic suggestions for updating the various models?
Any update regarding when 3.6 designs may be ready, and when Rob G. will be able to offer them?
Many thanks!
rosami

I'm honored to be asked for my thoughts, especially from the master artisan and craftsman himself and the very knowledgeable Jafant, but I'm afraid the tech eludes me and I know nothing other than what I hear and feel. It explains why I'm still running them on an underpowered integrated. I knew I had to get my 2.2s when I got chills listening to exerpts of each of 3 pieces of music I knew very well, 1 rock, 1 classical, 1 jazz. Same for the 3.5's. The music made not just an artistic impression, but a much rarer visceral emotional one also through the Thiels. The music spoke to my soul, which is what Jim Thiel was likely hoping to accomplish for himself with his ultimate God speaker. Neither of mine will ever be sold, but one day they will find their way to my kids. 
Although I never play that loud, my wife begs to differ but our musical tastes rarely intersect, rarely a max of 85 db at peak, the 2.2s needed to be played fairly loud to realize the bass and soundstage, either because of lower sensitivity or lower resistance levels or weak integrated. In addition, the tone and separation are not as sweet, 3D, or separated. 

Continued,
The 3.5s immediately revealed themselves. Obviously they played louder and deeper, I use the EQ. They are not as position dependent, and I'm somewhat limited in placing them, so it will never be ideal. But positioned where the 2.2s were I was center orchestra at Carnegie Hall with the 3.5s, with the 2.2s I was rear balcony. 3.5 - much wider and deeper soundstage, deep bass rising up from the earth, tympani reverb palpable. Nonsibilant crystal clear highs, the notes of the triangles sparkling and shimmering. Every instrument where it should be and its sound coming at you and expanding like a cone as it should. The flow of the rhythm comes at you like the waves of the ocean. The notes fading into the absolute void of space, utter darkness. Tones as sweet as Jerry Garcias notes, real organic maple syrup, not sterile sugar or sickly sweet saccharine. The Beatles Let it Be was like hearing it for the first time again, and I was a fan ever since Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery. The voices on Beethoven's 9th and Mahler's 2nd are ethereal, sublime and poetic.

I still love the 2.2s, but with my integrated they have a little less of all the above, especially imaging and sweetness. They are still wonderful, but less vivid, color rather than technicolor, cotton rather than silk. It almost seems that you have to invest more of yourself to get the emotional connection to the music while the 3.5s offer it up immediately if you are open for it. Perhaps the 2.2 is more technically proficient or analytical and the 3.5 more visceral or impressionistic. As I said when I started, it is the way I experience the music that I can share, the technical aspects I know nothing about other than what I learned from you here, and for that I am very grateful. For me the gear is a means to the end - MUSIC! 
It may help to know my gear, but … if I haven't given you a chuckle yet one will surely follow soon, unless I get kicked off Audiogon first.

Just added 3.5s

1992
1. 2.2s
2. Linn Intek integrated
3. Linn Mimik CD player
4. Magnum Dynalab FT 11 tuner

Late 1980's Sony CDP C67 ES

1980 Dokoder R2R, discarded late 1998 or so


Circa 1973
1. Dual 1228 turntable with Pickering V15/1200 cartridge, recently refurbished after lying dormant for 15 years
2. Kenwood 5400 receiver, now idle since the DCM Time Window 1a speakers a friend gave me years ago had a driver go out, the impetus to get the 3.5s although the Kenwood can't run either Thiel
3. Cerwin Vega speakers, ? model #, driver gave out in 1992, hence the upgrade then


Christmas 1967
A transistor radio from my uncle started this interest in audio equipment to listen to music, with the Beatles Hello Goodbye clip on the Ed Sullivan Show a month prior really shifting my musical journey which started with Sgt. Pepper's into high gear. 

My musical choices have also developed some over the years, although they still tend to be more instrumental, improvisational, and even more eclectic now. 
RW - your story strikes the core of our inspiration to "do speakers". Thank you for sharing. That emotional connection you reference is what we identified at the core of the minimum phase presentation. I have subsequently studied aspects of auditory neurology and psychoacoustics to enrich my understandings. Most of the world and nearly all of the technologists dismiss that very element (which you feel) - or at least its connection with phase integrity. You get it.

My present task is a rather difficult one - so many technical aspects go into creating what you have experienced; some are known, some are surmised, some are mysteries approached through trial and error, and some are unavoidable or changeable. I must unmask the limiters without reducing the successes. Of special help is your comment about the added volume needed to unlock the 2.2s. I will contemplate clues around that idea . . .

Of interest to users is that a large part of the puzzle resides in amplification. The 2.2 presents a more demanding load, and your listening experience sounds a lot like signal veil from a straining amp. That load is baked in to the 2.2, and gets worse with many subsequent models. I hope that you can borrow a "great" amp and report your findings to us here.