Thiel Owners

JA - I want to express my appreciation for the group you have assembled here and its productive and cooperative form of engagement. Life is an interesting journey indeed and some gathering of energy such as here can change its course. As most people know at some level, family business is a peculiar beast; rarely is it simple. This group has provided a focus for me to re-approach unfinished business. I thank you all for being here.

Beetle - what a pleasure it has been to have you behind the curtain, questioning, researching, sharing . . . as we have made progress in this delicate matter of re-imagining this product statement of another person and circumstance - especially one's deceased brother. I am pleased with our progress and our results and now approach my own modifications and further investigation with the concrete knowledge and feedback that you have provided. Onward.

Andy - I wish to honor the classic Thiel naming system where a new numbered generation is accompanied by new drivers, generally all of them and usually a new cabinet - a new product on the shoulders of its forebears. Beetle's product remains firmly a CS2.4 with a twist allowed by changing circumstances of time. I don't know what to call these modifications and I welcome all ideas. The working IDs have been Level 1, 2, 3, etc. Beetle's upgrade is at level 3. Functional but oh so prosaic.

All - the presence of an audience here has encouraged me to devote focused time and resources to this project which simply would not have otherwise happened. This group has produced a pair of CS3.6s and an SS1 and SW1 and another SW1 on the way. I'm picking up a pair of CS1.6s this Sunday and have bought a pair of beater MCS1s for research and parts - these pieces in addition to the 4 PowerPoints which were motivated by the project. And my design studio now has a fairly well tricked out electronics and measuring nook for the ongoing work speaker. And it all feels right. Thank you all.

  

Ken - The CS5i is for Improved. The 3 bass drivers were re-engineered and the two low woofers were loaded with a central plug rather than damping mats. Crossover changes also smoothed things out in the lower midrange and reduced the upper frequency impedance rise for an easier electrical load. At the time there was an upgrade kit. Rob reports that the CS5i has virtually zero problems in the field. With proper amplification to drive the 2-ohm bass load, and a room big enough for proper integration, the CS5i can be wonderful.

The CS5 tweeter was our first completely in-house design with fancy motor tricks and an engineered aluminum dome - on the shoulders of new technologies first developed and tried in the CS1.2 tweeter. (The CS1 series became a trial horse for new technologies, much as the CS2 series became a trickle-down beneficiary of upper-end solutions. The late 80s is when our co-development relationship with Vifa flowered which served both of our companies very well for over a decade. We conscripted the CS5 tweeter for the CS2.2 and 3.6 for a very productive R&D cycle.

Thiel lovers and leaders, I just swapped out my C6 for my beloved 3.6 for fun.  I do this on occasion.  I am retired so I can play with the system when I have the urge.

What a different animal!  Just so transparent and open, not that the 6 is a slouch and once again confirms my preference to the driver scheme in the 3.6.

Keep up the good work Tom and Team Thiel!  Reading and following with great interest as I will no doubt need to update my XO’s at some point.  

Pops - It's interesting that the CS6 has not come up in conversation or as an upgrade candidate. I learned that there was an internally designated CS6.1 with an upgraded midrange (?) and XO. Rob might know what you have. And I, of course, would be interested in what you find out.

Pops - I have not yet made serious direct comparisons, but the two driver scenarios both have trade-offs.

The 3.6 vertical stack makes the listener vertical ear position more critical, the constructive and destructive lobing affects the frequency response. But, each driver gets a controlled wave launch from the stationary baffle.

The CS6 along with the 2.3 and up and 3.7, etc. with the coincident driver greatly solves the first problem. The tweeter is where it is designed to be regardless of the listener position. But, the tweeter sees the midrange cone as its wave launch. Even though its cone shape is engineered as a tweeter wave-guide, that cone is nonetheless moving. I don't really know whether that launch is more or less problematic or just different. I know that the coincident PowerPoints are uncannily integrated. And I also know that the CS2.2 tweeter (3.6 and 5) sounds different and lovely.

Who knows? I hope that by this time next year we will all know more.