Thiel Owners

Here's a thought from the archives about "bright Thiels". RonKent's observation re same system, different speakers . . . Within very close limits, the models represent nearly identical frequency response performance. But Ron's experience of increasing "smoothness" is correct. All sorts of hash accumulates in the high frequencies and coherent speakers permit the ear-brain to perceive that hash considerably more audibly than other speakers. I perviously alluded to this phenomenon . . . it is a deep and interesting arena where future psychoacoustic research will validate Thiel's approach (IMHO). Anyhow, the original CS2 is the last model that used fundamentally off-the-shelf drivers which we tweeked in-house to suit our purposes. That Audax soft-dome tweeter was highly regarded, but had far less sophistication and produced more "sonic edge" than than any future Thiel-designed driver. Similarly, many audiophiles removed the CS2 grille (just because.) That grille frame contained the anti-diffraction machining and the fabric tamed the resonant peak of the dome. Furthermore I might venture a guess that Ron may have upgraded cables and/or other equipment as he upgraded his series 2 speakers.

From the beginning Thiel chose to produce the most authentic reproducer of the signal supplied to the inputs. Most companies pull some punches to make the listening experience more palatable. I find it instructive that in all the years of exhibiting around the world with all manner of associated equipment, I never experienced these artifacts of "brightness, hardness", etc. We and our various associates vetted ancillary equipment against both technical and listening tests.

hi Tom Thiel,   thanks for writing.  It is great to have you on this forum.   I think us Thiel owners are an especially devoted and passionate group regarding their beloved speakers.  I had the CS 2s from abut 1985 to about 1991 and enjoyed them but was not totally smitten.  Back then its major competition was the Vandersteen but i found them too muddy.  However based on what i had read at the time, the 2.2 series was a big improvement and i went that way.  after that,  i really never looked at other brands as i knew that as i transitioned to a newer generation of the 2 series,   the sound would get better.  Loved the 2.4's and the 2.7 series are the best ever.   I told my girlfriend the other night that it was sad as there will not be a next generation and i for one,  do not know of anything remotely close in price that can touch the 2.7's.   Heard a pair of the amazing speaker by Carver the other day driven by PS Audio mono blocks, and there is no way it was better though the system was a lot more $$$$.  The cabinetry on my current speakers is gorgeous and i think i have you to thank for that,  so a big thank you.

That "getting out of the way" quality of Thiels is awfully addictive.

 

Over the last 25 years, I’ve heard speakers from Wilson (W/P 7, W/P 8, Sasha, Maxx), TAD (Reference One and CR-1), Revel (M20, Studio, Salon Mk 2), Avalon (Eclipse, Ascent, Eidolon, Idea), Vandersteen (Seven, Treo, Quatro, 3A Sig, 2Ce Sig II), Aerial (5 or 7?), B&W (DM12, 804), Paradigm (100), Vaughn (Triode), Vivid (Giya G3), Vienna (Klimt), Thiel (CS1.6, 2.4, 3.7, 7.2) and probably many others I’m forgetting. My favorites are, in no particularly order, TAD Ref 1, Vandersteen 7, Avalon Ascent, and Vivid Giya (Thiel CS3.7 and 7.2 just miss the list). Now, these were all in different room with different electronics and over many years of sampling. But I have a good handle on what good sound is.

I’m here to tell you that my CS2.4SEs (driven by Ayre electronics) deliver nearly all of the neutrality, resolution and transparency – my sonic priorities - of the very best speakers I’ve heard. I would have to spend an order of magnitude more money to get significantly better performance in these areas and I suspect there are only a handful of designs at closer price points that can approach or equal the sound I am getting. I suspect the Thiel’s superb coherence is due to similar materials used for all diaphragms. And the resolution and transparency is probably due to the pistonic driver behavior over the intended range of each driver. Jim Thiel did a masterful job to ensure that driver break-up modes were well-suppressed despite the slow roll-off filters.

The only shortcomings I’ve noticed are the lack of low bass (which requires much larger drivers and cabinets and $$$), image density is not quite on par with the best I’ve heard (maybe my placement is not yet optimized?), and the highs are, maybe, not quite as airy and pristine as the very best. Should I be satisfied with getting “only” 90% of a Vivid Giya for $3000?

I think I have my “last speaker” (altho’ I may upgrade the crossovers at some point).

I am interested in what caps are chosen by upgraders among you. I am presently researching my cap upgrades for the two pair of PowerPoint 1.2s I use for my mixing and mastering monitors, due to space limitations. That 6"x 1" coaxial is the same as the SCS 4. And in that near-zero diffraction ceiling-mount sealed cabinet, their performance is surprising. Mine are late, Chinese-made, printed circuit, non Acousta-coil, etc. with lots of room for improvement. I have high hopes for the upgrades on outboard point-to-point boards. Note that the 2.4 SE only replaced two Solen mylar feed caps with Clarity SAs. Today there are much better caps available today from Clarity, Mundorf and other brands. My personal experience (via consulting for other brands) is that the upper end of the woofer circuit is sonically important, especially with Thiel's first order filters, and that budget is the only limitation to sonic improvement in a high-resolution system. I'll keep you informed as I finalize and test my conversion. I suspect that hot-rodded Thiels of many models might make beetle's list. My apology for using the "B" word regarding caps. I meant esoteric high performance, not snobbery.

Speaking of Esoteric. A real eye-opener for me was hearing the newly introduced CS3s at the 1983 CES, paired with Esoteric Audio Research (EAR) tube amps. Astounding 3-D performance. Jim didn't like the under-damped bass that is hard to overcome with tube designs, especially with the increased demands of the CS3 equalizer. I love big tube amps with well-damped bass, or side-stepping the issue with a powered subwoofer. Of course there is the cost to consider.

Note that the 2.4 SE only replaced two Solen mylar feed caps with Clarity SAs. Today there are much better caps available today from Clarity, Mundorf and other brands. My personal experience (via consulting for other brands) is that the upper end of the woofer circuit is sonically important, especially with Thiel's first order filters, and that budget is the only limitation to sonic improvement in a high-resolution system. I'll keep you informed as I finalize and test my conversion.

This is great information, Tom! Is there a particular cap you think sounds best for the 2.4? Please keep us (and Rob Gillum) informed of your findings. My understanding of the CS2.4SE is that the Clarity caps only involved the coax feed. Care to share any details regarding the woofer feed?

I suspect that hot-rodded Thiels of many models might make beetle's list.

Yes, I think I wrote this very thing earlier in this thread.

My apology for using the "B" word regarding caps. I meant esoteric high performance, not snobbery.

Yes, I was admittedly nit-picking. "Boutique" is too easily interpreted in different ways. I simply wish you and Jim had used more direct phrasing to indicate the sonic benefits of the more expensive passive parts.