Thiel Owners

tomthiel
Thank You for addressing the query regarding 1.7 model. Very interesting history around this particular loudspeaker.  I, for one, am looking forward to more Thiel Audio history lessons in 2020.
Happy Listening!

The story of the CS1.7 from Tom is very interesting since it told a story of what is superior - the fourth order xover that allows for better power handling and "smoother" treble response, but of course it is not time-phase coherent which some view as having technical superiority.  I was wondering whether the reason it was not well-received by the Thiel loyalists because it was not a time-coherent design or of some other reason?  Is it possible that even if the CS1.7 is "better", it would not have been embraced by Thiel loyalists no matter what because it was not time-phase coherent?  

I guess it could be viewed under the lens of a philosophical debate between first order vs higher order, and not based on the technical merits?  I am just asking since I don't know the details, but it seems like a perfect example of what has been arguing within the audiophile communities: first order vs. higher order.  

Andy - the debate hinges on the criteria for superiority. The mainstream represented by Mark Mason include some aspects at the exclusion of others. Jim’s approach was that everything matters.

Jim’s approach was that everything matters.

First thanks for your insights and I don't mean to play the "monday quarterback" game, since that could offend others, but it would be interesting to see "what if?" without being too negative.  

Is it possible that if Thiel as a company was not so strong in its insistence on first-order coherence, that is if Thiel product portfolio was a bit more inclusive, was more open to other point of view, it could be more financially viable even after Thiel?

I think some of the speaker companies who are more currently successful have a wide range of products - if for nothing, it is to stay financially viable since one product can be used to support others and so on.  Having only one product or having only one philosophical point of view may restrict oneself to the potential buyers, who whether we like it or not, will determine the success of a company.  

Had Thiel had been more flexible, it is possible that Thiel would still be in business, and that means not only more people would have access to Thiel time-phase coherent products, but Thiel other products will be made available to the a larger group of buyers, and ironically, it would serve to what you stated as "everything matters".

I don't know ... I guess I am more flexible as opposed to your point of view.  If it was possible to go back to the past, if you had known the road Thiel was going would eventually lead to the current situation today, would you still?

Anyway, this post makes me want more beers ... something I guess most people would agree :-)

@andy2 Thiel Audio found a formula that sounded good to them and they pushed that vision as far as they could. No doubt they considered and listened to alternatives but first order filters became their cornerstone. Tip of the hat to them for finding something good and sticking to it. You can decide whether it sounds best to you. All designs have trade-offs. My ears quite like Thiel’s solution.


I have a lot of respect for that. I mean, look at Magico. Their models are all over the map in terms of design philosophy. I think their main skill is throwing gobs of money into the company, trying whatever design element they can think of (well, mostly borrowed from others). IMO, they’re mere hype from TAS.

From my perspective, Thiel Audio had two main problems: 1) Jim Thiel didn’t train an engineer to carry his vision forward; and 2) New Thiel owners had almost no experience in high end audio.
Do you really think Thiel Audio folded because of adherence to their design principles? I sure don’t. Quite the opposite.