Thiel Owners

@tomthiel, as usual an excellent response.

I do think that 40 Hz is not too much to ask of a 10" woofer.
Of course, as has been discussed before these suggestions could double one’s amplifier budget. And, with 1st order crossovers there would be quite a bit of overlap, suggesting that even more so than with other configurations, using identical amps would be preferable. It might be more palatable if there was an upgrade path from 2 channels to 4. Or more?
It’s quite a testament to all at Thiel Audio that a 30+year old speaker is still so relevant today!

Other than the huge amplifier requirements and depending on perhaps too complicated a crossover when a more thought out baffle arrangement might have sufficed, I don’t consider the CS5’s to be unsuccessful. When properly powered, in the right room, they are still amongst the best I’ve heard. Perhaps you mean from a marketing perspective?

Could your suggestions applied to an updated 3.7 with a sealed box and woofer drivers from the smart subs might be a consideration? As I understand it, as is common with so many integral self powered subs with Class D amps, the amps are often problematic. Would the sub drivers have huge power requirements? Too much to be practical with Class AB amps?

@jafant , I don’t believe eq parts would be a concern.

Unsound - agreed on 40Hz, and even 20Hz at moderate levels in a moderate room with moderate music. I like the 20Hz 'sound' better than 40Hz, possibly because of the relative lack of low end phase shift, to which I am sensitive. The bass response effectively starts as low as there is program material. There are ways to successfully aid the bass against overload ie subwoofers, etc. I use an SS2 behind each main speaker, whatever model. In the Thiel passive XO mode they contribute only below around 40Hz (plus overlap), and there isn't much music down there. But nonetheless, that supplementary deep output provides local air pressure to aid the main woofer's room coupling. I'm surprised how much more authority the bass gains. 

Please say more about 2>4 upgrade path.

My CS5 comment was market-based. And as you allude, most of that was self-inflicted, in my opinion. The product is good, especially the 'improved' version with Jim's driver designs. It's not common knowledge, but I consider the CS5 and the squandering of its potential segue into higher range markets to be classic self sabotage. The product as designed wanted a $15K (some said higher) price and another 3 months in development. Rather than settle into that league, Jim and Kathy were adamant about keeping it under $10K. It didn't 'fit' the market there. There was much too much speaker there to make sense, and its amp requirements etc. took it into the higher league anyhow. (Note that we had 100+ carte blanch firm pre-orders with no price stipulation.) You might detect my flabbergast these 30+ years later; this rant has never taken words before. One example of 'what happened' is that I had designed the baffle to include 3 stones (marble, granite & basalt) in 3 particle size ranges for an inert - extremely well-damped, good-looking baffle. The stone mix had enough variation and visual texture that the gel coat would be clear, to see into the stone matrix - all quite subtle since ground marble takes dye well. The casting molds required higher maintenance, and it would be 50% heavier, but what a baffle! I found the right supply partner in Atlanta and settled on $100 / each with quantity guarantees, etc. (Note that a company like WA might add $25K for such an element). I was elated. That is until I learned that Kathy came behind me, capped the price at $50, reduced the spec to ordinary bathtub cultured marble, and gloated over the cost reduction, all on their way to a $9300 / pair introductory price, which caused market confusion against the $15-$20K pre-marketing by distributors and dealers. End of rant.
It's called family business. The J&K alliance was internally infamous. They abandoned the CS5 platform and stated that it was 'too expensive' to sell through. I suppose polite professionals are supposed to keep such things under their hats. But I think that you fans might benefit from some leaks whose potential harm has long-ago elapsed.  

Tom, i really appreciate your candor and transparency. A good reason to take another look at the 5i series. Your ideas about the Renaissance 3.5 are very much in line with my explorations, using triamps and dsp to test the range of possibilities. The demands on an amplifier with biamping or triamping a driver directly is so much easier and the availability of affordable good amps in the 100 w range is abundant. I concur that with minor eq shaping, a xo becomes unnecessary and the frequency range, distortion and phase response are so much improved. I would like to hear your thoughts about the directivity and what can be improved about that? 

Tom I appreciate the back story on the cs 5 ironically As you know they used a concrete baffle on the cs7 so Jim must have realized that the direction you wanted to go with the baffles back then was the superior way to go. 

tomthiel
Thank You for a history perspective on the CS5 loudspeaker.Hope that you are well this Summer day and having fun researching / tweaking for the XO sound.

Happy Listening!