Thiel Owners

lrsky, Thiel has used air core inductors since the very beginning. And since the development of the 03 in 1978 and going forward, we used six 9s copper in all chokes and internal wiring. At the time we were an innovator with film capacitors and even in the woofer section we used or bypassed with film types. If Jim were redesigning that product today with its same cabinet configuration, I believe he would use six nines copper in the voice coils or replace the drivers with 3.7 type updates, but add titanium to the tweeter alloy and extend the response past 30K. He would source the best modern caps, not available or affordable then, and (I believe I would and he might) take the crossovers outboard. Jim wanted to have powered woofers in the CS5, if cost were no object and development resources were available. Jim wanted to make powered speakers from the beginning (our early pre-market prototypes were powered, more on that another time). By the way, that cast marble baffle requiring abrasive diamond machining could have been kept at a higher price, probably adding some damping component to the casting process. The CS5 bass drivers (first and third from the ground) could benefit from SmartSub technology, with an outboard amp and crossover to clean up EMF interference for higher pristinity (how's that?)

As an aside I would explore a 6 ohm nominal system impedance (rather than 4) so that more people could get better performance from less than stellar amplification, which was the biggest limitation to that product.  I would add some cabinet damping material to the wood panels where identified via Chladni Pattern testing which I now use in guitar design. Stuff like that. Do you still have those speakers Larry? Weren't they Brazilian Rosewood?

Tom 

Nice to see you- tomthiel

Much Thanks! for the insights on these vintage loudspeakers. I know many of the gentlemen here are grateful for your contributions as well.
Happy Listening!

unsound - Please note that I am not in a position to actually transform these ideas into reality, although I am dreaming some dreams . . .

Regarding multi-amplification, the signal-shaping was done within the amplification envelope, wherever it made most sense. The line-level signal was handled as two or three (depending on driver configuration) discrete signal paths, each with its own power amp. My vagueness relates to Jim's ability to manage different aspects (voltage vs current, etc.) in different amplification stages. Signal shaping including driver heat compression, etc. is integral to the whole system design. Jim was a uniquely talented circuit guy before we hit on the "let's do loudspeakers" idea.

As an aside, Jim's first patent was for a lovely head-amp circuit. Thiel developed, manufactured and Monster Cable marketed that unit. Variable capacitive loading via faceplate buttons allowed the user to "find" the best load for his particular cartridge / cable set. But higher output MC cartridges and then the digital revolution buried that product.

Back to speakers, thanks for those ideas. Fully balanced operation would certainly make most sense. Regarding high-frequency clarity, you have a point; even though the EQ has no active HF circuitry, there still exist jacks, circuitry, wire, etc. . . .

I could be mis-remembering (only 35 years), but I don't believe any Thiel product had dual binding posts from the factory. We tested extensively and found the waters far too mudied by bi-wiring. Cable interactions with the amp and crossover-drivers are extremely complex. Compounding that complexity via multi-wiring always caused more problems. Investing in better single cables always won hands-down for better sound. Controversial  for audiophiles; unanimously clear for our development team. Do you have a picture or brochure of bi-wired Thiels?