Thiel Owners

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.

For the passive radiator, how solid are the threads on the screws?  How many times do you think they can be removed?  Ideally I guess you only need to remove only once but it would be nice to have a bit of margin in case of errors.