Thiel Owners

Tom,

Great info about the older Thiels and the importance of the grills.Audiophiles often seem to take it as a matter of fact that "all speakers sound better with the grills off" so you almost always see audiophiles using their speaker without grills.

I've noted how grills have often enough made a speaker sound more coherent.  Especially of course when they are designed to work with the grills on.

As to the design of the 3.7, I find them quite nice looking but also figured they would be off-putting to "normal folk."   Thus I was greatly surprised - when I was trying to find a replacement for the 3.7s just out of interest I'd show people pictures of more "normal" looking speakers and ask which they would prefer to see in our room, and most said they preferred the look of the 3.7s!   That went for my wife and her friends, even when I got the 2.7s which to me are about as subtle, contemporary and beautiful a design as speakers get, and my wife STILL said she preferred the looks of the 3.7s.  


As I said, I found this all quite surprising.

Even though I myself find the 3.7s to look quite wonderful in my room, and in many other rooms I've seen them in, especially if the room has a more modern look.

Also, FWIW, as I have mentioned before:  The 2.7s don't float images away from the L/R speaker locations as well as the 3.7s.  There is more of a "U" shape to the 2.7s soundstage in that respect.  Not exaggerated as that, but instruments panned towards either speaker tend to "stick" to the speaker a bit more vs the 3.7s that seemed to completely vanish as a sound source.  I think the last time I brought this up, Tom suggested it may be due to the heavier-duty front baffle on the 3.7s.

Prof - Cabinet stiffness including the baffle helps it disappear. I am experimenting with "stiffening" the MDF cabinets, especially the driver mounting recesses with Minwax Wood Hardener. Also that 3.7 cap is far quieter than the 2.7 top. I am extrapolating from how surprisingly active the small top of the 1.6 is. Column ends accumulate pressure and the 3.7 is both very strong and shaped to handle the job.

Prof and you other 02 fans - I just now got my old 02s on line - received from my brother from their life-long use in our parents' system. Drivers are good, coils are good - within their genre. These speakers were made in 1978 before we discovered high-purity wire and baked fusing. These are normal ETP "magnet wire", still the industry standard. We wound these on "Ol' George" - hand-fed with a timer. We then tweaked each coil via weight on a triple beam balance and DC resistance. I checked these today with my inductance meter and they're within 2% of target.
They are considerably better wound than Beetle's Chinese 2.4 coils.

Back to the XO. The resistors are 5 watt carbon composition - all burned to a crisp. The caps are all 50 volt electrolytic - about half of them are blown out, the other half are + 30% out of spec. I replaced all with original grade parts and fired them up.
I haven't heard 02s for at least 30 years. I am impressed! The sonic signature / tonal balance is pure Thiel and they don't screw up the music. They lose a little in direct comparison to the PowerPoint1.2s and the CS1.6s, both 6.5" 2-ways, but really, they aren't shamed.
If we had chosen to take this 2nd order route with our developing company, life would have been immensely easier. However, we may have failed because the territory is so much easier - everybody entering the game played there and it is unknown whether we could have differentiated ourselves.

Anyhow, thank you Prof. Your enthusiasm for the model inspired me to consider it. After hearing it, I am addressing it and will learn a lot in this relatively simple sandbox. The 02R will live. I hope you guys can snag some on the cheap. Rob and I think we made fewer than 1000 between 1976 and 1984 and they would be concentrated on the East Coast and in Germany - go figure.

Can’t say I’ve noticed this trait, Andy2. Some songs with the mix in one channel seem to emanate well outside the bounds of the speakers. The CS2.4 does this at least as well as the CS1.6 and Vandy 2Ce Sig II.

bettlemania,

I suppose it could be recording dependence. Also, although I am not a recording engineer, there are two types of hard left/right mix. One type there is still a phase relationship to the other channel so you hear the image well to the left or right of the speakers (for example at the beginning Welcome to the Machine from Pink Floyd which the CS2.4 does very well). The other type is just a pure left or right without any phase relationship to the other channel so you hear the sound basically directly from that channel speaker.

I think I was referring to the latter one. If you could find some old recordings especially from the 60’s where the sound mix is basically left or right. In this regard, I was wondering if you could compare how the image "flows in the air" compared to other speaker design.

As for the TAD Ref One, it has quite bigger bass drivers and midrange driver so I would expect it has more image density vs. the CS2.4. As I mentioned in my previous post, the 2.4 has a small mid so it does not sound as weighty in the lower midrange sound vs. speaker with larger mid driver such as the TAD Ref One.