Thiel Owners

I'd like to add a few comments re: the discussions just a bit earlier in this thread.

Tom Thiel was asked what he found so fascinating as to make the 3.5's a special speaker to him.  Beyond his personal involvement, he mentioned the seamless deep bass.   I have never listened especially to the higher members of the Thiel line (due to economic reality) but of the three and two series, the 3.5's simply are the only ones to have a smooth, fully fleshed out frequency response throughout the upper bass and lower midrange.  As this is where most voices exist, voices through these speakers simply sound fuller and "real-er" than any of the others.  It doesn't matter whether you are listening to Louis Armstrong, Eric Clapton, Judy Collins, Ella Fitzgerald, the Eagles, the Carpenters, or  Allison Krauss.  As good as the 2.2's sound which I also own, the 3.5's sound "real", the 2.2's and others in the line I've heard sound "light".  (I attend a lot of live concerts of both jazz and classical music which also provides an excellent frame of reference for instrumental sounds.).  Also perhaps because of the care Tom describes, the 3.5's have a coherence top-to-bottom that excels even the other members of the line.  This exhibits itself most forcefully with full orchestral music where the entire orchestra sounds "just right" and "of a piece" whether playing loudly or softly, whether strings, brass, or percussion, etc.  It is also easy to forget how much an underlying bass line is part of the classical orchestral repetoire.  Except, when you hear the 3.5's you realize what is missing from many, many speakers including the 2.2's.

The 2.2's have extraordinary transparency, and as part of my second system I listen to them a lot.  If I didn't have the 3.5s I wouldn't know what I was missing.  But I do, which is why they are in my second system.

I'd also like to comment on the home theatre discussion.  For about a dozen years I had a 5.0 system in a near-exact ITU setup.  It was all analog, consisting of three 3.5's (front, rears) and two 2.2s (L,R).  It sounded excellent except for the midrange discrepancy front middle-left/right.  More recently I've moved and have a smaller listening room.  In this room I've set up a more traditional stereo front (with 3.5s) using bridged left-right channels, as well as rear 3.5s.  

These surround setups have taught me two things. 

For one, placed alongside and touching a side wall, angled about 30-40 deg forward, full range Thiels make excellent surround speakers.

And second, three or four (or five?) 3.5's in anything approximating an ITU placement will neutralize room standing waves, and if they are 3.5's, also eliminate any need for a subwoofer.  Everything is there, even on the loudest explosions on film.  (Of course, it helps that I am using five Outlaw M200 monoblocks.)

Just for what it is worth for fellow Thiel lovers.

harry - regarding 2 vs 3. The target frequency response is identical, including the upper bass x midrange. I suspect the difference you hear is based on power response in the room. The 3s go deeper and move more air. The 3s have a larger diameter midrange with a lower crosspoint, so room fill can sometimes benefit. Also, the top end of the 10" woofer breaks up more than the 8" in the 2 - that breakup adding more "meat" in the lower midrange. Some folks like that even though Jim considered it a flaw - less than accurate. Both the 2 and 3 have a first-order hand-off from woofer to midrange.

The bass rightness I was referencing is the deep bass. The sealed bottom end of the 3.5 and 5 allow a 12dB/octave bottom end which makes a gradual phase shift as it rolls off, supplying a natural sounding foundation.

The ported / reflex models (1, 2s and news) add a pole for 18dB, and much steeper below the port tuning for significant phase shift at the bottom. (Remember that the industry judges this phase shift as of no consequence. Most modern products and subwoofer crossovers produce 4th order / 24dB/octave slopes.) Nonetheless, real acoustic instruments played in live spaces and recorded carefully do benefit, in my experience and opinion, from more shallow rolloff with greater phase integrity. There's something less hi-fi and more real.

Yes, I would say the coax feed cap upgrade removes a slight coarse veil over the mid- upper frequencies. The MRA-12 Mills resistors add some ease. The drivers / cabinet have enough inherent quality to support considerably better XO parts. Keep up the good work.

Regarding wire. I suggest leaving it as is. Thiel pioneered great wire before wire was a thing. I believe I alluded some details in a previous post earlier this year. Summary is that Thiel hookup and coil wire is world-class and most attempted "upgrades" would in fact downgrade the wire. Our first wire in the late 70 resulted from cousin Teddy's recommendation for ITT aerospace 6-9s pure long crystal in teflon twisted 2/inch right-hand. ITT abandoned the wire business after aerospace contracted and similar wire is now made by others. Thiel wire is all certified at least 4-9s+ twisted in teflon. The coils are of the same wire and the gauges are optimized per use. Don't think that larger diameter, lower gauge coil wire is superior. It is not. The exception is late-stage 3.7 XOs from China with CYC caps which have Chinese wire that claims the same specs, but which can't be verified and industry insiders doubt its purity.

Our upcoming upgrades will add gauge to some input and driver runs, and replace series-feed coils with foil for extant wire. All certified 4-9s+ best-of-form. 

Thanks, Tom, for the explanation.  I think we hear the same things, but you know why whereas I just hear.  In any case, the 3.5's give me music .... I've mellowed in my old age.

BTW, I was part of a small group of audiophiles who formed a listening group for Jim once.  A mutual friend in Louisville where I was living at the time asked me to join in ..... he had a baronial place in the far suburbs beyond where I lived, and when I arrived the large living room was set up with an oracle turntable and Audio Research gear.  I believe the speakers may have been early prototype 3's (this was probably 1982).  In any case, the superior imaging and fulsom frequency respond were immediately apparent.  Once I got back home, the flaws in my own Audio Research gear driving IMF TLS-80's made itself known, although I kept them for another ten years.  Finally, after moving to Burlington, VT in 1989 I snagged a pair of 3.5's that served as dealer demo's.  Been happy ever since and later added the additional 3.5's and 2 2's for surround.

Thanks Tom for clearing out the wire quality