Thiel Owners

Andy - regarding your last paragraph on the 3.7 charts. Those charts would indeed FAIL my definitions of both "time coincidence" and "phase coherence". BUT I don't buy the charts. Note they are taken at 50" and on the tweeter axis, both of which meet Stereophile's MO, but are illegitimate for the system under test. At 100" and 35" ear height, those measurements actually yield clean triangles without those false anomalies.

I am really not the guy to try to explain this stuff. It's pretty deep and complicated by real and imagined factors, and my knowledge is real, but not fluent. Here is what I can say: Jim was an engineer's engineer, and an honest mathematician and physicist. He pursued the problems to their root causes and engineered thorough solutions. I have only conversational knowledge of what he knew to his bones. That said, I was in the lab every day for 20 years and helped devise and implement the test set-ups and cross-checks. For frequencies lower than our chamber could reliably measure (100 Hz±) we had a roof system (100'x 500' flat roof) which we correlated with both straight and ground-plane techniques. It is germane that our test system included impulses for step responses at 1/3 octave intervals from 10Hz to 30kHz. Thiel speakers pass those pulses from bottom to top, including through the crossover regions. I don't know of a more stringent test for coherence, and to my knowledge, all speakers from the 03 in 1977 meet that requirement.

Hi Tom,

Actually I appreciate your timely feedback and I have said many times I have a lot of admiration for Thiel’s products.

I’ve looked at a lot of Stereophile measurements it seems like there are speaker manufacturers that pursued "time phase coherence" but at too much expenses at other parameters that I think are just important. And some are using the term "time phase coherence" too loosely as a marketing gimmick than from actual engineering.

Thanks again for your feedback. I was going to ask you if you would care for another theoretical discussion but my guess is you probably have had enough for one day :-)


PS: As for measuring step response at 8ft, my guess is although the step response will show valid result, but the frequency response may suffer because the tweeter at 8ft distant may exhibit dips or bumps at some frequencies because the phase will not be at same say at 4ft for example.  Anyway, just my 2cents.

I'm off to a dinner meeting. I agree that the terms are used pretty loosely.BTW: Thiel considered in-room power response to be the number one parameter.

T

Tom,  you wrote:

snip >  A lot of the confusion revolves around magazines/reviewers not being able to measure in those real-world situations.

snip >  I don't buy the charts. Note they are taken at 50" and on the tweeter axis, both of which meet Stereophile's MO, but are illegitimate for the system under test. At 100" and 35" ear height, those measurements actually yield clean triangles without those false anomalies.    

Amen!

Soundstage (NRC lab) measures speakers at 2 m - 79”. Their CS2.4 frequency response looks *much* better than that measured by Stereophile. In fact, the 2.4 has the flattest measured response of any in their database (actually, there is a Magico model that was similarly flat). There was at least one test by JA of a Thiel (or was it a Vandy?) wherein he acknowledged the problems around measuring the speaker at only 50”. But he ignored that issue thereafter.