Thiel Owners

The story of the CS1.7 from Tom is very interesting since it told a story of what is superior - the fourth order xover that allows for better power handling and "smoother" treble response, but of course it is not time-phase coherent which some view as having technical superiority.  I was wondering whether the reason it was not well-received by the Thiel loyalists because it was not a time-coherent design or of some other reason?  Is it possible that even if the CS1.7 is "better", it would not have been embraced by Thiel loyalists no matter what because it was not time-phase coherent?  

I guess it could be viewed under the lens of a philosophical debate between first order vs higher order, and not based on the technical merits?  I am just asking since I don't know the details, but it seems like a perfect example of what has been arguing within the audiophile communities: first order vs. higher order.  

Andy - the debate hinges on the criteria for superiority. The mainstream represented by Mark Mason include some aspects at the exclusion of others. Jim’s approach was that everything matters.

Jim’s approach was that everything matters.

First thanks for your insights and I don't mean to play the "monday quarterback" game, since that could offend others, but it would be interesting to see "what if?" without being too negative.  

Is it possible that if Thiel as a company was not so strong in its insistence on first-order coherence, that is if Thiel product portfolio was a bit more inclusive, was more open to other point of view, it could be more financially viable even after Thiel?

I think some of the speaker companies who are more currently successful have a wide range of products - if for nothing, it is to stay financially viable since one product can be used to support others and so on.  Having only one product or having only one philosophical point of view may restrict oneself to the potential buyers, who whether we like it or not, will determine the success of a company.  

Had Thiel had been more flexible, it is possible that Thiel would still be in business, and that means not only more people would have access to Thiel time-phase coherent products, but Thiel other products will be made available to the a larger group of buyers, and ironically, it would serve to what you stated as "everything matters".

I don't know ... I guess I am more flexible as opposed to your point of view.  If it was possible to go back to the past, if you had known the road Thiel was going would eventually lead to the current situation today, would you still?

Anyway, this post makes me want more beers ... something I guess most people would agree :-)

@andy2 Thiel Audio found a formula that sounded good to them and they pushed that vision as far as they could. No doubt they considered and listened to alternatives but first order filters became their cornerstone. Tip of the hat to them for finding something good and sticking to it. You can decide whether it sounds best to you. All designs have trade-offs. My ears quite like Thiel’s solution.


I have a lot of respect for that. I mean, look at Magico. Their models are all over the map in terms of design philosophy. I think their main skill is throwing gobs of money into the company, trying whatever design element they can think of (well, mostly borrowed from others). IMO, they’re mere hype from TAS.

From my perspective, Thiel Audio had two main problems: 1) Jim Thiel didn’t train an engineer to carry his vision forward; and 2) New Thiel owners had almost no experience in high end audio.
Do you really think Thiel Audio folded because of adherence to their design principles? I sure don’t. Quite the opposite.

I like Beetle's perspective, and the two factors are fundamentally linked. Early-on, I wanted to work toward an ongoing entity that would transcend any and all founders' contributions. Jim disagreed. He wanted a vehicle to support his research and development ideas. "And when I'm finished, it's over". That stance caused the lack of successors to his chops, which in turn caused the lack of interest from qualified buyers, since history is but a small fraction of viability. An extensive multi-year worldwide search turned up NO qualified buyers. The denouement was thoroughly predictable because it was embedded in the company's genes.

The paragraph above is a short snippet of a 40 year scenario that was quite difficult to live through. A company, even a small entity like Thiel Audio, orchestrates significant life events and outcomes for scores of people spanning dozens of years. A primary motivation for my re-entry into this story is to soften some of the rough edges of the company's trajectory.

To Andy's point: New Thiel demonstrated quite clearly how a marketplace responds to non-focused strategies. New Thiel spent $10Million trying to do the standard job really well. Their tower speaker got 5 stars from Brent Butterworth and did the standard thing at least as well as X,Y and Z. But who would buy a Thiel Standard, when you could buy the real X,Y or Z Standard from PSB, B&W or anyone else in the field. Primary among the reasons we chose first order slopes is the uncanny rightness of sound, which I have previously addressed in this forum. For those who "get it", there is often no going back. Count me in that camp in company with many of you. Another reason was the extreme difficulty. By the time of the 03 and 04 in the late 1970s, there were companies (Japanese and European) buying them for competitive evaluation. I, as external affairs liaison, would follow up those encounters. Frankly, we were afraid that companies with comparatively unlimited resources would take our ideas and leave us in the dust. A senior executive at Dynaudio relieved our angst by saying: "What you are doing is impossible, expensive and invisible. Don't worry about others trying it." He was right, and we changed stragegy from patenting innovations to running as fast as we could on our own course. That seemed worth doing, and still feels good.