Thiel Owners

Phew! Thanks, Tom.
Curious to read your impressions of ERSE v Jantzen wax foils. Not that I think or feel I’m missing anything.

@andy2 

 It’s above my pay grade to speculate whether you’re onto something regarding the XO design and JA’s subjective opinion, but I am confident higher parts quality will improve transparency for the CS6. It also seems relevant that Tom has told us Jim T’s CS7.3 was likely to include a mechanical XO for the coax unit albeit perhaps for entirely different reasons.

Hi beetlemania,

I guess I was just speculating and mostly was out of curiosity.  I have not personally heard the CS6 so it would be hard for me to form any conclusion.  Hopefully someone here who had listened to the CS and would offer his or her opinions on the CS6 to see how their opinions are compared to that of JA.  

Andy, FWIW Brian Damkroger did *not* hear the midrange reticence during his audition:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs6-loudspeaker-brian-damkroger-october-2003

My experience with the CS2.4SE included a “glassy” quality in the midrange that was mitigated by replacing the sandcast resistors with Mills MRAs. And the Clarity CSAs (plus better coils) removed veils that I didn’t realize were there (sorry not sorry for the cliche). So, it’s easy to imagine better parts would improve, if not cure, the “reticence” that JA heard.

The CS6 is an interesting model that I considered before settling on the 2.4s. Not as big as the massive 7.2 but still with good bass extension and sensitivity on par with the 2.4. That said, Tom Thiel’s comments about the 2.4 coax driver mass leave me wondering if this is the sweetspot (even including the 3.7) for my priorites of resolution and transparency.

I think it not improper to point out that JA seems to hear what his measurements tell him. At 50" there is a midrange suck-out and some spikes. Notice that he wonders in print if that is what he is hearing. However, those ARE measurement artifacts; they are caused by too-close microphone distance, and disappear at about 8'. Notice that they don't show up in the room-averaged measurements. Nonetheless, he treats them as real.

What we are learning from Beetle's 2.4s and my budding experiments matches what we knew from the beginning - passive parts quality is audible. So I believe the "reticence" is more likely that parts veil rather than the false frequency response artifacts.