Sandy - Here's a recap of model strengths and upgrade strategy. I hope those interested find value and that others can allow an old man his remembrances. The model 3 was our first best guess of addressing the most things required of a loudspeaker. A long-excursion 10" 3-way to fill a decent sized room at decent sound levels. On the heels of the success of the CS3 (1983), there was an expressed interest by supportive dealers for a little sister at lower cost for smaller spaces, larger than the 04 / 6.5" 2-way. The CS2 was developed in response and in communication with dealer feedback, much like the 02 / 04 had been. Now, in the used market, cost is no longer a differentiator, but, the personality is distinct. The smaller diameter drivers produce a more delicate, intimate presentation, and tend to excel in low-level conditions.
As to which generation of each model to upgrade, there are real issues of driver availability to consider along with technology maturity considerations. Rob and I discussed driver repair and replacement options. The CS2's drivers are no longer available, plus they were prone to destruction by over-driving, and they were basically customized, ordinary drivers. Also, the solutions developed for the CS2.2 system were qualitatively more successful than the original CS2; each generation stands on its predecessors' shoulders. The 2.2's drivers are quite special. The tweeter was developed in-house for the CS5 and includes the first generation of shaped magnet structure, copper sleeves, custom dome geometry and so forth - a breakthrough driver in its day. The midrange also contained significant customization including its fibrated, poly-coated cone. The woofer was the first iteration of the dual cone which graced future drivers up to the x.7 star geometry, as well as other leading edge motor developments. As the production designer, I love the 2.2 as the first product designed in conjunction with our in-house CNC capability. Previous products had been partially migrated onto CNC, but the CNC-native 2.2 went all-out with interior bracing, in-house milled passive radiator, flared mounting rings, interior driver relief machining, and matched grille / baffle contouring - all things previously unfeasible via manual methods. I also gravitate toward the final iteration of separate (non-coax) drivers for their place in history and wave-launch characteristics. For the seated listener the discrete drivers produce wave-forms free of the "moving waveguide" effect of the coaxes. And, personally speaking, I own the pre-production prototype CS2.2s and have used them in my work of recording evaluation for nearly 30 years, in comparison with other mixing and mastering systems . . . I know the 2.2s very well, allowing subtleties of changes to be readily apparent to me.
To summarize, the 2-series is preferable to some listeners over the 3-series, noted by the long-standing audiophile affection for the 2s. And, there are a lot of them out there. And the 2.2s are the oldest (1990) product with reliable driver availability. (I had dismissed the older 3.5 (1988) due to driver non-availability, but would love for suitable replacement drivers to emerge . . . but lots of ground to cover there.)
Each generation developed its technologies as the company developed its capacity to implement the products of Jim's creative mind and relentless experimentation. I think you would be pleasantly surprised to hear an original CS2 from 1985, or any of the further developments. I hope you'll be blown away by the 2.2s now in the works. The foundational knowledge and solutions developed from their upgrade process will apply to all the models we might eventually address.
I know this post is long and some of it repetitive of previous postings. But I hope it adds some value to the conversation.
Tom
As to which generation of each model to upgrade, there are real issues of driver availability to consider along with technology maturity considerations. Rob and I discussed driver repair and replacement options. The CS2's drivers are no longer available, plus they were prone to destruction by over-driving, and they were basically customized, ordinary drivers. Also, the solutions developed for the CS2.2 system were qualitatively more successful than the original CS2; each generation stands on its predecessors' shoulders. The 2.2's drivers are quite special. The tweeter was developed in-house for the CS5 and includes the first generation of shaped magnet structure, copper sleeves, custom dome geometry and so forth - a breakthrough driver in its day. The midrange also contained significant customization including its fibrated, poly-coated cone. The woofer was the first iteration of the dual cone which graced future drivers up to the x.7 star geometry, as well as other leading edge motor developments. As the production designer, I love the 2.2 as the first product designed in conjunction with our in-house CNC capability. Previous products had been partially migrated onto CNC, but the CNC-native 2.2 went all-out with interior bracing, in-house milled passive radiator, flared mounting rings, interior driver relief machining, and matched grille / baffle contouring - all things previously unfeasible via manual methods. I also gravitate toward the final iteration of separate (non-coax) drivers for their place in history and wave-launch characteristics. For the seated listener the discrete drivers produce wave-forms free of the "moving waveguide" effect of the coaxes. And, personally speaking, I own the pre-production prototype CS2.2s and have used them in my work of recording evaluation for nearly 30 years, in comparison with other mixing and mastering systems . . . I know the 2.2s very well, allowing subtleties of changes to be readily apparent to me.
To summarize, the 2-series is preferable to some listeners over the 3-series, noted by the long-standing audiophile affection for the 2s. And, there are a lot of them out there. And the 2.2s are the oldest (1990) product with reliable driver availability. (I had dismissed the older 3.5 (1988) due to driver non-availability, but would love for suitable replacement drivers to emerge . . . but lots of ground to cover there.)
Each generation developed its technologies as the company developed its capacity to implement the products of Jim's creative mind and relentless experimentation. I think you would be pleasantly surprised to hear an original CS2 from 1985, or any of the further developments. I hope you'll be blown away by the 2.2s now in the works. The foundational knowledge and solutions developed from their upgrade process will apply to all the models we might eventually address.
I know this post is long and some of it repetitive of previous postings. But I hope it adds some value to the conversation.
Tom