Thiel - Inventors and Tinkerers All

IMHO, Thiel would be better off trying to keep the impdeance load at or above 4 Ohms, maintain the current sensitivity,and maintaining or better yet lowering the bass response. I would also suggest placing the drivers closer together. This might allow for easier driver intergration and ergo, closer speaker to listener placement. While the smaller speakers allow for appropriate bass reductions in smaller rooms, they don't take into consideration the logistics of placement. As it stands now, Thiels smaller speakers require nearly the same distance from surrounding walls and listener as their larger ones. While allowing for closer surrounding wall proximity, might compromise imaging, it might also economicaly improve bass response. Improved bass response might shed the reputation Thiel has for "brightness" (an opinion, I don't subscribe to). I know its hard to bend the rules of physics, but, if anybody can, Jim Thiel can. I would love to see the return of sealed boxes. Perhaps a fresh (digital?) approach to the brain child that was the 3.5. All the recent research that went into the new subwoofer should help to keep development costs down. Heck, they could just slap a powerpoint on top of the subwoofer. Maybe, just for giggles, they could slap two of them on top, back to back, and play with a dipole?

Unsound: Thiels, at least as I have gotten the impression, have long been thought to have excellent bass no matter any other perceived shortcomings, and I concur with this view. I don't personally believe that the line's bass response is at all connected with the charge of 'brightness' that has been leveled at them over the years, and don't think generally that a speaker's true low-end performance has much bearing on the perception of mid- and upper-range listenability.

As far as driver spacing goes, it seems to me that Thiel speakers' time-aligned construction dictates the driver spacing based on the angle of the baffle slope-back. If the baffles were angled back more steeply, the drivers could be more closely grouped, but would also aim upward more severely, requiring even lower placement overall with respect to the listener's seated ear height (Thiels already feature slightly lower-placed upper-frequency drivers than many other brands, presumably due to this angled-baffle factor). A more steeply-raked baffle would also require a deeper-dimensioned cabinet to enclose the same volume, though Thiels as designed are not especially deep-cabineted speakers by today's standards.

Regarding in-room placement, great soundstaging and imaging are always harmed by close wall proximity, including the front wall. I have found my Thiels to be balanced, bass-wise, for optimal placement of at least a couple of feet out into the room - much closer and they're too bassy, which is as it should be. For really big rooms, you'd have to go with one of the bigger models. I don't think any speaker can sound its best in a really small room, and don't think a near-full-range floorstander ought to be designed to try.

I'm not as down as you about the bass-reflex vs. sealed-box evolution of the line, considering the trade-offs of greater driver mass (less speed and controlability), and of system cost, complexity, and possibly lowered ultimate transparency involved in employing the latter in combination with outboard active EQ. But you would get no argument from me if JT started turning out designs that didn't fall below 4 ohms at any frequency - or even if he introduced an 8 ohm design, heaven forfend.

To me, the next step in the advancement of the line should logically come in the cabinet arena: away from single-baffle, square-backed, parallel-sided, MDF-built cabinets, and toward something more radical and high-tech (and unfortunately more expensive, along with less furniture-looking) in the way of materials and shapes. (However, their spotty history of flirtations with exotic molded-baffle variants, and their clear orientation as a wooden-cabinet manufacturer offering a moderately-priced product for the quality, both argue against any sudden leaps foward on this front.) Thiel's drivers, crossovers, and basic design concept are all near as good as they could be while eschewing large multiple-driver arrays; it's only their cabinets that hold them back a bit in the no-holds barred sweepstakes, even for all their strengths (such as the rounded baffle edges, acoustically-designed grilles, and relative ease of room integration) at the present price points. This is the area in which I would like to see what JT can do taking a page from the Wilsons, B&Ws, and Kharmas of this world as his inspiration, but of course those companies are either much larger or much costlier than Thiel.

Zaikesman, thanks for your typical well thought out reply. I personally find the bass of most Thiels very good, but, think they could be better. The bass doesn't seem to have the same quality transient response of the (albeit superb) middle and upper frequencies. The Thiels seem to be better on bowed bass than plucked bass. Of course this is less of an issue as you move up the line. Unlike some other manufacturers less expensive speakers, Thiel rolls off the bottom, but not the top. Upon casual listening they may come across as "top heavy" or "bright". I believe that the smaller two ways would benefit most from close driver proximity. I don't believe getting the extra cabinet volume due to the more severe baffle slant would be too difficult to accomodate. Earlier Thiels and more recent (port outputs aside) Meadowlarks seem to have managed this. It seems that bass response usually comes at a cost. Using close wall proximity to compensate for the cost of bass along with closer driver proximity in their less expensive/less bass producing speakers would alieviete some of that expense and permit better/more flexible use in the smaller rooms that they would most often and more appropriately be used in. A room that can accomodate more bass can probably accomodate more distance from surrounding walls and listener(s), and visa versa. I don't think that the 1 series would be considered "near-full range", and weren't intended to be. Unless JT or someone else has any other ideas, I think you are right on in saying that the speakers would have to be lower to accomodate more rake. This might(?) cause problems with ceiling/wall reflections. I think most (certainly not all) listeners would prefer more complete musical content over imaging. Thiels more expensive speakers are already on the large side. I don't believe that at the upper end of the range, the extra size and perhaps price would not be so much of an issue, for the advantges of a sealed box. Perhaps, passive radiators in the lower end and sealed boxes in the upper end would be the best compromise. Its note worthy that Thiels most recent work in developing a subwoofer produced an active equalized sealed box. As far as more advanced cabinets go, it appears that many of your suggestions may already be, somewhat in place internaly. On the other hand seeing how Thiel has been in the fore front of in house computer designed and laser manufactured cabinets, perhaps your ideas will come to fruition, sooner than later.

Hmm...we must just differ in our perceptions of Thiel bass. I've found their stuff in general to excell in LF transient definition, but perhaps at the expense of some utlimate bass weight and slam compared to competing designs in similar price ranges. I attribute both factors at least partly to the dictates of first-order crossover design, something which pushes the bass-to-midrange handoff higher in frequency than is the case with higher-order designs (at least as it applies to a 3-way speaker with a moderately-sized cabinet).

About driver spacing, I would really love to see an attempt to create a triaxial simulated point-source time- and phase-coherent near-full-range driver system, so as to eliminate frequency lobing in the crossover regions throughout the range and place all the drivers (except maybe a low-bass augmentation driver) at ear height (I personally am bothered by feeling as if I am 'looking down' into the soundstage when listening to speakers placing the upper-frequency drive-units noticably lower than seated ear-height). This pursuit would seem to be a logical extension of the coaxial mid/treble drivers JT has been designing up 'til now, but it would also be a tough design job that would possibly have to compromise somewhat in the area of treble dispersion. (Cabasse has already made a driver system incorporating this type of physical layout, but I don't think theirs is a time- and phase-coherent first-order design.) The other main option to avoid lobing irregularities is of course some type of vertically-symetrical array, which Thiel currently offers in their large stand-mounted MCS1, but hasn't used in a floorstanding design. Maybe with Dunlavy gone (for the moment, anyway), it's time to try something along these lines in a near-full-range design.

Zaikesman, I'm not surprised to see that after further discussion we seem to be agreeing more and more and disagreeing less and less. I agree with you that Thiels lower priced speakers seem to lack a bit in bass weight and are quite good in transient bass for their "price range". How ever I think the opposite is true for their upper end speakers. Perhaps you can understand why (though for secondary reasons) I think their lower priced speakers could be designed for closer wall proximity. As for the "looking down perspective", I too have expereienced this. Having moved my speakers into 4 different rooms and using a variety of gear, I can confidently say that this a room and associated gear phenomon. In your case I'm quite sure that your VTL's are NOT the problem. May I humbly suggest some ceiling room treatment? I too think a tri-way is intriguing, but, was embarassed to mention what I thought would be such an engineering challange. Maybe MCS1's and Thiels subwoofers might be the ticket? As always thanks for sharing your appreciated and respected thoughts.