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

duegi

 

Good to read about your positive experience with Rob at CSS.

 

Happy Listening!

sdl4 - unsound has a good handle on the factors. But there are even more complexities. Jim did a lot of work on that balancing act including the unusually low reactance of his early bass tunings. The phase angles are quite low and at higher impedance where the amp can handle it better. But to your question: not quite even in today's world.

This afternoon I drove the system up to flickering clipping lights on the stereo AHB with Chris Thile - Edgar Meyers 'Bass & Mandolin' album. The calibrated Benchmark preamp clipped the AHB @ 2dB lower with the 20Hz equalized signal compared with straight-wire / no equalizer. I got similar results with Patty Larkin 'Strangers' World' cuts which are mixed for 'impressive' bass impact.

Jim's intent was to get that extreme and excellent bass extension without significant penalty. And it worked in the 1980s. Remember that vinyl was still the standard which is bass limited by cartridge tracking ability. But the landscape changed not only with digital, but with showcase albums from David Wilson and others which were engineered for 'unbelievable' bass. The Watt/Puppy could handle the real cannons in his recording of the 1812 Overture, but Thiel's model 3 would bottom out because they actually reproduced those deep frequencies. Similarly digital bass could go deeper with more power, and was therefore no longer predictable. So, even though Jim took great care, and his parameters balanced out to require little to no more power in the bass than that required by midrange transients, when the signal landscape changed, the elegance of his solution became practically less safe.

@tomthiel, thank you. I’ve always wondered about the phase angle, measurements for which weren’t published back when these were released. I’m in complete agreement, I’ve always thought the area of dynamic range / ultimate loudness was where the 3.5’s could use the most improvement. Fortunately for me, it’s one of my lowest priorities. Still, it would be nice to be more completely relaxed when knowing volume peaks are pending. I am a bit surprised that Jim wasn’t prepared for the dynamic range of CD’s, they had been out for about a 1/2 dozen years by the time the 3.5’s were released.

tomthiel

 

The Thile/Meyers disc is excellent in diagnosing any system.

 

Happy Listening!

It's not that Jim didn't know about CDs dynamic peaks, it's more like he was trying to cope to keep the equalized bass viable. That woofer was the first driver with his magnetic shorting rings for a more stable magnetic field and it had a huge overhung coil to handle the required excursion. The overhung motor requirement was the largest cause of the end of eq. He figured out the drastic distortion of reduction of underhung motors and powering long gaps was virtually impossible because rare-earth magnets weren't yet in the mix. Long excursions and underhung motors contradict each other.

Phase angle was not a thing in reviews at that time. In fact Jim goaded JA / Stereophile into measuring phase at all. JA and Larry A came to our factory in 1988 to spend a day in Jim's lab learning why he thought it mattered, how he measured it and so forth - and they gradually entered the arena of phase and time.

A promising solution to the dynamic limit would be to match a powered subwoofer with probably a second order crossover at 80Hz to limit the woofer excursion while getting true integrated bass to 20Hz.