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?
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?