You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Thiel CS 2.4

Being the slow, lip moving, long digesting reader that I am, I am just now really thinking about the November review of the Thiel CS 2.4.

I am finally starting to have the light-bulb-over-the-head feeling about the impedance curves and how they can reveal so much about a speaker's design and the effect of these impedances in reflecting the sound of a speaker. Thanks for that!

When perusing the speaker's frequency response curve, though, I had a vivid 70's flashback...that stepped up bass and treble response had the same pattern as what we used to call the "car equalizer smile." The equalizer slides would be up at the upper and lower ends of the spectrum and left alone in the middle. I've sen many a home system set up that way, too.

The frequency response curve of the 2.4's fit that old pattern!

Rereading the review, I'd venture to say that the treble peak was where Wes Phillips' preference for the Theil's "crisper articulation, especially of incisive guitar tones" comes from.

Those peaks may also be reflected in his comment about the Thiel's "just the facts" presentation. An exaggerated high frequency, for me, gives me an overly analytical, "just the facts," feeling, as well.

I also wonder if the frequency response curve is responsible for Mr. Phillips feeling that the Thiel "commits itself to music." Maybe that's the feeling lay-listeners go for when they do that to the sound with their equalizer settings!

That sort of "U-shaped" frequency response has been created artificially by so many lay-listeners in the past, that I reckon there is surely some subliminally satisfying thing it must give to a listener. Why else would we see that setting appear over and over again? It's more than "flattening the in-room frequency response."

Wes also noted that the Thiels "get so much right between those extremes," which does fit the response curve, with the Thiels being nicely controlled in that region. In the review, it's the frequency extremes that drew almost 100% of the reviewer's commentary. In fact, there was almost no midrange commentary - which is entirely in keeping with how that frequency response curve would direct a listener's attention! Interesting how the flattest or most even part of what the speaker does can be sussed out by lack of criticism in this part of the audio band.

All in all, I think the review matches the measurements here, strikingly so! The match between the subjective and objective here is in the details of the emotional reaction to the speaker, where "intellect bypassed by emotion" actually does lead right back to intellect by inference. The subjective can insightfully describe the objective, it's just hard to put our finger on sometimes!

dcrowe
dcrowe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:39am
Re: Thiel CS 2.4

J. Gordon Holt expounded on this frequency response effect in speakers years ago (http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/138/). I personally prefer the speaker to be suppied with a flat anechoic response, then it is up to me to make it work in my room.

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm
Re: Thiel CS 2.4

This brought back memories of how I used to set my EQ in my car as opposed to how most all of my friends would set theirs. It also got me to thinking about the old Jensen Coax vs Triax debates we would have.

I must have installed at least 10 pairs of Jensen speakers in 10 different Camaros during the 70s.

We should have a poll, Coax or Triax? I was a Coax guy.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading