Thiel Owners

Prof - Yes, we assumed grilles to be on, which affects final frequency balance, knocking the upper octaves down perhaps 1dB. Some grille frames are also inherent to diffraction management. Some reviewers and individuals have used them bare and then take pot-shots at that extra 1dB of treble and/or diffraction effects which they have directly caused by mis-use of the product. End of rant. Good to see you here.
Tom

Thank you Tom. The cabinet seems to be the most time consuming part of making a speaker at least in the DIY world. I suppose with CNC equipment then maybe the process will be much faster. Personally for me the cabinet takes about 70% of the time and the rest for the electronics. But even with CNC, I suspect the cabinets will always be the most expensive part of making a speaker, especially with the high end speakers. One of the most understated part of Thiel is in their cabinetry in term of being "furniture friendly" as most people usually talk of Thiel as just "first order coherent".  

I’ve assumed (or maybe read somewhere) that Thiel designed their speakers to be used with the grills on (as in the sonic effects of the grill were accounted for in the design).

I used to listen with the grill off and I notice the upper frequencies were a bit more "open". Also just like most first order design, the sound balance of the Thiel is a bit sensitive to "toe in". I listen with the speakers pointing straight forward. With "toe in", the upper frequencies were slightly more pronounce than I would like.

I wonder if the grill only affects the sound pressure to the affect of about "1dB" as Tom said. It’s possible that the grill also affect the "resolution" as well and ultimately the "openess" of the sound. My thinking is that the grill may affect more than just "1dB" less. That is even if you fine tune the treble energy to account for the "1dB", it still may not be the same as with "grill off".

There have been some claims with respect to "audible transparent" cloth but I doubt it though, especially where a system has a lot of resolution that will high-light any characteristic of the equipment chain.

Fabric, even polyester made to be sonically transparent, does have multiple effects, as you say. Many Thiel models use the grille frame to fill the cabinet corner with a rounded continuation of the baffle round-over and as such that frame is an important component of the wave launch. And, as I mentioned, the treble reduction of the fabric is part of the intended balance. But many audiophiles dislike grille fabric. Many have gotten good results by removing the fabric from the frame and using the frame as intended for diffraction control. Pointing the speakers straight ahead puts the listener a little off-axis to reduce high frequency beaming. Thiels are designed for straight-ahead pointing, but it seems a majority toes them in, which puts too much energy in the brightness region. The straight-ahead orientation often requires wall treatment at the first reflection point, which solves many imaging issues, while keeping a flat on-axis and power response.

While you're on the subject of grilles, I'll hop in this forum for the first time. I've been lurking on it for a month or two but haven't read all 143 pages! I've been on Audiogon forever, but haven't done many transactions or forums here in the past decade. I have owned 2.3s since 2002 and 2.4s since 2006, probably one of the first owners to install the SE capacitor upgrade, though going to a higher-spec Clarity Cap.

What has always 'baffled' me is the 2.4 seemingly putting form over function by recessing the baffle with sharp edges all around for the magnetic grille cutout, and the grille itself having metal discontinuities around the perimeter of the coax. The 2.3 coax is mounted in a modest waveguide and the entire baffle back to the sides of the cabinet is a smooth rounded surface with zero discontinuities. The grille is a sock stretched tight over this that has no effect on diffraction.

With the 2.3 and 2.4 side-by-side, with the right source material, the 2.3 always throws a more-effortless and dimensional soundstage. After years of listening in the same acoustic and much the same equipment, and with listening material that has enough soundstage information, this has always been consistently repeatable. I can only believe the visibly far-less diffraction off the 2.3 baffle is why.

(With either speaker pair, I always listen with the grilles on and perhaps 5 degrees of toe-in in an optimal acoustic for these speakers)

I use my 2.4s 95% of the time because they're better than the 2.3 in every other respect, and their soundstaging is still 'sufficient.' Poor Gary Dayton had to field this question from me at least once after I got my new 2.4s side-by-side with my existing 2.3s. But the evidence here is still clear and the question remains, how did the 2.4's multiple baffle edges and discontinuities not offend Jim Thiel's fundamental design goals? And make it past all the factory listening tests to confirm the 2.4 was to be an improvement on every aspect of the 2.3?

I hope to hear discussion about sdecker's observations. I have heard neither speaker, but share his thoughts. Bring it on, please.