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
With Thiel closed,does that make our speakers more desirable,valuable?Kinda like Trans Ams did when Pontiac died?
Hello folks. I've been scanning this thread as time permits but life is short. By way of introduction, I was a founding partner and for the first 20 years was the director of manufacturing of Thiel Audio. I was intimately involved in all aspects of product development and company-building. I hope to contribute some elements of perspective to this conversation, especially where speculation lacks sufficient knowledge.

I want to clarify Jim's attitude about passive parts quality. From the beginning in the mid 1970s, we became very aware of the subtle but significant improvements via better parts. In fact we were an early innovator re film caps and bypassing with small values of better caps. We introduced long-crystal, six nines wire for our air-core inductors to the industry. I'll spare the details, but Thiel understood that landscape before it was considered an issue. So, the speculation that Jim was strictly a measurement-guy is incorrect. The reason for less-than-best caps is that they can be cost-prohibitive for highest value per cost engineering.Thiel was always about finding the optimum point on the cost-performance slope so that real music lovers could afford our products.

Regarding the measurement tells all idea, we found our way via intense, systematic, long-term music-listening and then Jim engineered solutions that had to also pass scientific rigor. Once the understanding about any particular issue was in place, the measurements contained the information; and the chosen solution was always closer to the scientific optimum. We could see the results of our work in the measurement data, but the converse was not true: the improvements could not be made predictively via the data. By the way, Jim designed and built test equipment that was way beyond what was being used for the purpose.

On the issue of hot-rodding existing Thiel products. I wholeheartedly recommend it, knowing the value / cost parameters of Thiel products. Rob hopes to offer upgrade services. Madisound is also a resource. I upgraded my (original 1989 prototype) CS2.2s with boutique signal-path caps. Wow. Keep in mind that the original caps were all carefully chosen for type, geometry and manufacturer and often bypassed by even higher grade capa. So, don't indiscriminately change everything. The best bang for your buck is in tweeter feeds. Note that (real) Thiel inductors are air-core (contrary to someone's post) and the wire is as good as it gets. Resistors are likewise selected to be very good. But improvement can be made there also. Solder is silver/tin, which requires more care than usual. Hookup wire is six nines with teflon jacket and proper twist density.

Another thread here has been the electrical vs acoustic first-order crossover. By "acoustic" Thiel simply means the net resultant system performance. That final slope of that driver in that cabinet with that insulation, wire lengths and other factors including eddy-currents, reflections, propagation distortions and other factors . . . all end up on a slope of 6 db per octave to produce a phase and time coherent crossover that passes a square wave and/or impulse - intact right through the crossover frequency. That fact of coherence allows the ear-brain to consider that signal as real rather than as puzzle to be interpreted in the fore-brain. I mention that because small system changes are more easily heard in a first-order system than in any other system. So, when you change caps, resistors and the like, be careful not to inadvertently change system parameters. As an example, some types of resistors exhibit different induction and capacitance than other types. Some capacitors exhibit different induction . . . and so forth . . . everything matters.

Take care with your upgrades and I believe you'll be amazed at the improvements in rendition of subtle detail.

To close, be assured that Rob is doing his best to ensure the best care of all you supporters who kept this little company producing these extraordinary products for all these years.

Best regards, Tom Thiel  
Wow!  Terrific information Tom!  Thanks so much.

As I've written, when I hear so many other speakers they still haven't seem to have caught up to what Jim achieved.  And it's wonderful that Rob's service will be available to us Thiel owners.  Now you have me pondering upgrading parts!

I understand if you don't have the time to answer any more questions, but just in case you do:

1.  As far as setting up the speakers to preserve the benefits of the time/phase coherence, as I understand it the coaxial driver design essentially solved the issue of listener distance, orientation; the coaxial signal will remain time/phase coherent if you are six feet or 12 feet away, slightly lower or higher than that driver in seating position.

The issue left would be the coherence with the other drivers, e.g. the woofer.  If one wants to preserve the time/phase coherence of all the drivers, it's the mix with the coax and woofer signal that suggests more care in listener orientation.  Would that be right?

I'm about 6  1/2 feet from my Thiel 2.7s and they certainly "sound like Thiel" from this distance, and as far as I can tell from stereophile measurements, I should also be realising coherence with the woofer as well, with my ears just below the coax.  Does this make sense?

2.  Subwoofer integration.  Some of us trying to integrate subwoofers worry that doing so takes apart some of the time/phase coherence of the system, insofar as a sub can't be placed right next to the main speakers and will therefore have a delay.  Phase can be achieved with the Thiel speaker, but the sub would be around a cycle behind in terms of time arrival.  I'm wondering about the likely effects of this on the time/phase coherence.  It seems to me one would at least be still getting the coherence in the midrange on up.  And if one were using, say, an 80 or 60Hz crossover point, the Thiel's woofer will still be playing part of the signal in time/phase.  I just wonder how much a subwoofer could cover this up, and whether that recommends a lower than usual crossover point for sub integration?

Outstanding! tomthiel

it is an honor to have you aboard. We all look forward in reading your thoughts and insights related to our beloved loudspeakers.

Kind Regards.


Happy Listening!

Thanks for joining this thread, Tom! My apologies for my role in incorrect speculation.

Thiel was always about finding the optimum point on the cost-performance slope so that real music lovers could afford our products.
I certainly appreciate this attitude. Thiel's top models were out of my budget, so I was glad to afford CS1.6 and, now, a used pair of CS2.4SE. Still, and I intend no offense, I've never had the impression that the CS3.7 and CS7.2 were a full-out attempt to deliver the ultimate in SQ. And, IMO, the area where these came up just a bit short was in the passive parts. As I've written elsewhere, it's also my opinion that your brother engineered some of the best drivers around. I suspect a tweaked CS3.7 or CS7,2 would sound pretty much as good as anything available.

I am stoked to read that Rob is planning upgrade service! Please make him aware of this thread. Thanks for taking the time to post.