Dspr - I’ll jump in and ask for any and all detail you might develop around this exploration. The ’come alive’ characteristic is something of considerable note in Thiel’s history. After "New Thiel" bought the company in 2013, long-time industry supporter Steve DeFuria came on as sales manager and acting general manager. He experimentally stripped down the XOs of some models (don’t know which) to lose the tight tolerance control that Jim applied to all his drivers. Those simplified crossovers had less stringent frequency response tolerances with less than half the parts count. The listening panel results included "more alive, especially at lower volumes".
In the case of the CS5(i), there are 32 elements in the time delay circuits for the lower and upper midrange drivers. I speculate that removal of those bucket-brigade lines would make the speaker more responsive, but at the cost of time focus. In the 1988 development of the CS5, I wanted to sculpturize the baffle to geometrically time align those drivers. Jim liked electronic solutions - that being his wheelhouse, and we got bucket brigade delay - with 32 extra coils, caps and resistors.
I recall the first Stereophile review by John Atkinson and Larry Archibald who made the 'not alive' complaint. I recall (vaguely-perhaps another product) that substitution of Goertz flat wire raised the veil, as did short cable runs.
I will speculate that bi-wiring would help this problem. Those 3 woofers take tons of current to nearly 10Hz. The electromagnetic propagation effects of that current on the higher frequency time domain reactivity would be substantial. If you split the signal, I suggest ganging the 3 woofers separate from the other three drivers. Jim would disapprove only if you used disparate cables for the two runs. Of course the ultimate configuration is with 4 amps - two pairs of Benchmark AHB-2s would do nicely. We can always dream.
Your present experience points to a big disappointment in Jim’s career and a prime motivation to adopt reflex bass alignments in the upper end products. From the peanut gallery, I see serious merit in further development of his first approach - sealed bass with various means of augmentation. Perhaps a more refined equalizer? Please keep us informed of your experiments and comparisons with other gear.
In the case of the CS5(i), there are 32 elements in the time delay circuits for the lower and upper midrange drivers. I speculate that removal of those bucket-brigade lines would make the speaker more responsive, but at the cost of time focus. In the 1988 development of the CS5, I wanted to sculpturize the baffle to geometrically time align those drivers. Jim liked electronic solutions - that being his wheelhouse, and we got bucket brigade delay - with 32 extra coils, caps and resistors.
I recall the first Stereophile review by John Atkinson and Larry Archibald who made the 'not alive' complaint. I recall (vaguely-perhaps another product) that substitution of Goertz flat wire raised the veil, as did short cable runs.
I will speculate that bi-wiring would help this problem. Those 3 woofers take tons of current to nearly 10Hz. The electromagnetic propagation effects of that current on the higher frequency time domain reactivity would be substantial. If you split the signal, I suggest ganging the 3 woofers separate from the other three drivers. Jim would disapprove only if you used disparate cables for the two runs. Of course the ultimate configuration is with 4 amps - two pairs of Benchmark AHB-2s would do nicely. We can always dream.
Your present experience points to a big disappointment in Jim’s career and a prime motivation to adopt reflex bass alignments in the upper end products. From the peanut gallery, I see serious merit in further development of his first approach - sealed bass with various means of augmentation. Perhaps a more refined equalizer? Please keep us informed of your experiments and comparisons with other gear.