Thiel Owners

Unsound - in developing the CS5, I evaluated a tapered cabinet, large enough for the woofers at the bottom and as narrow as possible at the top. We never mocked up or tested it. The 3-dimensional cabinet geometry would have added considerable cost and production engineering time-to-market delays. CS5 product development was on the fast track. I hadn't heard of Jim's "wider baffle" statement.

I lobbied for a CS5.2 with that tapered 3-D geometry, plus a frontally-contoured baffle to put all the drivers in their proper physical alignment. Half of that extensive crossover (dozens of parts?) is for time delay for the upper and lower midrange drivers. That requirement would vanish and the signal path would be enormously shortened, allowing ultra-quality components. And so forth and so on.

As a company we chose to concentrate on our core lower-price market, leading to home theater products and subwoofers and a lot of scrambling. A different Thiel Audio would have resulted from pursuing a 5.2 and other upscale products.

@tomthiel

Re the concept of accurate vs musicality, I don’t think they are opposed.But ultimately both sound systems and recordings are compromised and personally my main goal is to enjoy music through my system. I think the artist would also be happy that I enjoy his/her music too, rather than care too much if my system may have a bump at 50HZ or something.

But, I’m all for reducing distortion which very often has agreeable sonic results. One of the things I love about my Thiels is their even-handedness through the frequency range, but not doing so in a way that renders the presentation bloodless, but rather still has dynamic life and tonal richness.

I however have ALSO liked other speaker designs, even some that those seeking strict neutrality and the lowest distortion would denigrate or eschew. Because even some kind of wonky designs can bring some intriguing characteristics to the table.

For instance, one of the things that to me distinguishes real sound objects from reproduced (be it a voice or a sax) is the physical density and presence of the real sound. It sounds solid, occupying space in front of me. Whereas many speakers present vivid sonic "images" that are more wispy and weightless - hologram-like vs the solidity of the real thing.

There are some speaker designs that may be introducing canny colorations - e.g. thin-walled big box speakers that let the cabinet "sing" with the music - which seem to introduce that type of "density" in to the sound. It may come from some deviation from strict accuracy, but it DOES to my ears get by those methods to something sounding "more right, more like the real thing" in certain aspects.

Thiel speakers of course go the "remove cabinet sound" route, but get back some of that density in the presentation nonetheless, which could be attributed to the time/phase coherence perhaps.
Still, the little tiny Spendor S3/5 speakers I have can sound spooky accurate to real human voices. And at the recent Toronto audio show I attended, voices played via the Harbeth speakers (thin wall, wider baffle design) sounded more human than any other speaker system I heard there, regardless of price.

BTW, in regards to the performance of the 3.7 and 2.7...

I still think the 3.7 was probably the best overall speaker I’ve owned (among many), in terms of it’s near SOTA performance in many areas and it’s over all balance, tone, and lack of speakerly artifacts.

Though my recently acquired Joseph Audio Perspective speakers do give them a run-for-the-money in some areas, and I think exceed them in one or two. For a lack of "hash" to the sound, and for delineating instrumental timbre, I haven’t heard their better. Also, when it comes to the Thiel’s high frequencies (I think the 3.7s were a bit more refined vs the 2.7), I continue to laud the Thiels for the most part, with some caveats. The Thiels still have as coherent a sound as I’ve ever encountered from a speaker. And the high frequencies match to the rest is essentially perfect to my ear. I can’t hear out the tweeters at all, the sonic spectrum simply continues from bottom to top seamlessly disappearing in to the ether, with nice air and immediacy and smoothness (and importantly: the Thiels seem to maintain the "size" of the sound up in to the high frequencies - higher frequency instruments from cymbals to high flutes/woodwinds don’t dramatically thin out the way they do on many speakers).

My caveat is that although the Thiel high frequencies are truly excellent and coherent, they have never been quite as beautiful as I’ve heard from some other speakers. It’s a bit hard to describe, but the sheen of bow on strings was there...but not with the sophistication of texture and smoothness I’ve heard elsewhere. Drum cymbals too were...fine...but didn’t seem to have to tonal clarity, purity and timbral complexity I would hear in some other speakers. They didn’t really "pop" out and drive the music as much, almost like there was some slight scrim/veil holding those frequencies back.

This is put in relief in comparison to the Joseph Audio speakers I have now (no I’m not getting rid of my Thiels!). The high frequencies of the Joseph speakers are shockingly pure and grain-free, without brightness.Cymbals pop out of the mix like a scrim of hash has been wiped away, and ring with more of the beauty of the real thing. Same for orchestral string sessions - just a more finely rendered combination of vividness and silkiness. Basically, the high frequencies just sound "better," more real and sophisticated than from my Thiels. I think, no doubt, that the designer will say this is a result of the benefits that can be found in going with a higher order crossover, and (in the case of the Joseph speakers, at least purportedly having a steep crossover shelving), to allow drivers to operate optimally within their range with lower distortion and less crossover interaction.
I would leave it to people with more experience and knowledge to hash that stuff out. I’m just musing about my own experience comparing speakers.

Still, while I find plenty to praise in my new Joseph speakers, I think the Thiel 3.7s were still probably the overall more balanced, amazing achievement.

Unsound - wave guides might have merit in the right designer's toolkit. But I am not that guy. The famous "lobing" is caused by vertical offset between the tweeter and midrange as a function of wavelength and crossover slope mating. The 3.5 drivers are very close, providing a pretty large vertical window for any seated listener more than 8' away. I consider that set of parameters as baked in to the fundamental product design. Wide horizontal energy dispersion is also quite good in the stock product; I'm keeping stock geometry.I'm working with surface treatment to absorb the energy propagating along the baffle surfaces.

I do not know Bau's or Dunlavy's later work, but your near triangle makes good sense. Before I left Thiel Audio, I experimented with tapered cabinets, which require CNC router-cutters with differing angles per each taper angle. In a production environment, quite a bit of complexity is added, plus no matter how sophisticated the cutter, the sharp veneered panel edge is somewhat damaged. We stuck with rectangular panels where the CNC-mounted saw could cut precise, sharp mitres.

We have identified a replacement midrange, with a new tweeter in the works - giving me the courage to address this classic model, which sold more than 5000 pair in a 5 year run from 1987 to 1992. That in many ways was a high-point of connection with our audience and market. At this point, I cannot address the equalizer. And today there are good subwoofers to augment the 3.5's extraordinary sealed bass.

Prof - thank you for your thorough comparisons and commentary.I have read Stereophile's reviews of the Joseph Perspectives and admire the outcome. I am a big fan of magnesium as  a driver material - the SEAS Graphene material seems great to me. Thiel products never got to that level of refinement with their associated costs. But in my fantasies, I would develop a tweeter with such a diaphragm to take the breakup above 40K Hz without electronic intervention. My experience with microphones says that magic would flow.

For the record, we can improve the 3.7 performance with passive component upgrades (like Beetlemania's 2.4s) and a little baffle treatment. Don't sell them yet.