Unsound - good presentation! I would like to start by saying that I love the 3.5 and barely know the 3.6. My comments address the arc of development of ideas into products at Thiel. Regarding measurements, JA’s rig at Stereophile has value for non-coherent products, but like Rich V and John Dunlavy, Jim called out JA on how his ’nearfield’ rig did a disservice to our products. Jim did his calling out in private.
My comments about product maturity and accuracy are more from a perspective of problems addressed and solved behind the curtain. Each product was a closer approximation to Jim’s stated goal of the four faces of accuracy. We invested heavily in building a new measurement lab and equipment with each of our moves and expansions. By the early 90s Jim had his final lab setup which generated measurements that track with the Canadian National Lab and other heavyweights. They told the story. Those measurements coupled with a pretty deep dive into Finite Element Analysis revealed layers and forms of distortions that were each formulated and solved, as well as practical, within the framework of the next product being developed. My lightweight measurements here show the 3.6 to be technically better than the 3.5 in all ways except the bass. But that leaves much important ground unturned.
The CS3/3.5 was developed with less robust lab resources and before FEA. I think of it as Jim’s masterpiece because it showcased his resourcefulness and resilience. I’ve mentioned measuring speakers in the tree and the rooftop and buried in the sandbox with his self-designed and home-built sweeper and bleeper and hundreds of hours of critical listening. And on and on. The 3/3.5 stood on the shoulders of our previous more homespun efforts. And it shone brightly and made us proud. I have not previously addressed the heart-wrenching difficulty of abandoning the sealed bass and how that came to be.
Our first marketed product was the 01 in 3 generations, with a sealed, equalized bass hitting 30 Hz in a bookshelf format at 92dB sensitivity. That bass system was his pride and joy, resulting from more than a year of experimentation with sealed, vented, transmission line, plus some flights of fancy. We expected that bass system to continue forever. But the market pushed back pretty hard, considering the equalizer as a Bose copy or like waving a red flag in front of an audiophile (Larry Archibald in Stereophile), Harry Pearson spending half of our virgin 03 review in the Absolute Sound picking apart the negative sonic impact of the EQ. Etc.Short story is that the 02 with its ported bass, which we considered less than best, was conceived in that push-back. I’m with you regarding the vented bass of later Thiel speakers not fitting the philosophical construct of coherence. But notice that the reviews and marketplace at large rarely if ever denigrate the 4th order time lag of Thiel vented bass. They mostly praise its ’punch & solidity’. So you and I and a few others can appreciate the ’rightness’ of the sealed/ eq’s bass, but that doesn’t build a company.
I’m not surprised that you appreciate and enjoy the CS5 and its sealed bass. That was JIm’s attempt to execute correct bass down to 20Hz without the maligned equalizer. And it works extremely well with the big IF surrounding amplification requirements. These days I take some flights of fancy regarding other roads not taken. I believe that those roads, closer to Jim’s and all of our hearts of our specific, eccentric interpretation of how to best reproduce music, could have led to a more satisfying and ultimately meaningful life’s work as a designer and a company. Consider that the later drivers are far more efficient than the CS5’s and how that would have permitted higher impedance configurations to allow far more kindness to amplification. Jim’s dedication to developing the CS5 was monumental. His and all of our disappointment in its tepid market reception was close to devastating.
Now we have two seminal ideas of equalized and unequalized sealed bass which both met more resistance than acceptance. I absolutely wanted to improve those platforms. Jim was discouraged. Kathy as marketing director surveyed the landscape and decided (she was the decider) that ’it didn’t make much difference’ to the dealers as long as it sounded good. We could spend a chapter parsing that out; but bottom line is that Jim abandoned his signature bass approaches and focused on executing vented bass the best he could.
I’m glad that you are addressing these issues. They were huge issues for me personally. My gig as a founding partner was to incubate the company to sustainability while keeping our vision clear. I deemed the bass alignment thing to be a core issue. Kathy did not. Jim and Kathy, by that time, marched in lock step.
There is another significant issue around company building. I’ve mentioned before that we bootstrapped our growth, which is an understatement. By CS5 time (1988) we took on a seasoned business manager who worked the numbers hard and well. His assessment indicated that we were underselling our products by a LOT and couldn’t continue. A fledgling company can do the near impossible at a small scale for a limited time. We were ten years in and technically not profitable. Another chapter there. Suffice it to say that getting great bass can represent over half the cost of an entire product (bigger cabinet, serious drivers and crossovers, etc.). So your price comparisons should consider that the CS3 and CS5 iterations were selling at unsustainably low prices. The watershed product that distilled these conflicts was the CS3.6 with its vented bass, executed very well, but nonetheless a compromise.
You may appreciate that I never bothered to listen to a CS3.6 after its production development rigors. Isn’t life something? Some issues and developments only come into focus through a very long lens. That’s been more than 25 years ago. Thanks again, John.
My comments about product maturity and accuracy are more from a perspective of problems addressed and solved behind the curtain. Each product was a closer approximation to Jim’s stated goal of the four faces of accuracy. We invested heavily in building a new measurement lab and equipment with each of our moves and expansions. By the early 90s Jim had his final lab setup which generated measurements that track with the Canadian National Lab and other heavyweights. They told the story. Those measurements coupled with a pretty deep dive into Finite Element Analysis revealed layers and forms of distortions that were each formulated and solved, as well as practical, within the framework of the next product being developed. My lightweight measurements here show the 3.6 to be technically better than the 3.5 in all ways except the bass. But that leaves much important ground unturned.
The CS3/3.5 was developed with less robust lab resources and before FEA. I think of it as Jim’s masterpiece because it showcased his resourcefulness and resilience. I’ve mentioned measuring speakers in the tree and the rooftop and buried in the sandbox with his self-designed and home-built sweeper and bleeper and hundreds of hours of critical listening. And on and on. The 3/3.5 stood on the shoulders of our previous more homespun efforts. And it shone brightly and made us proud. I have not previously addressed the heart-wrenching difficulty of abandoning the sealed bass and how that came to be.
Our first marketed product was the 01 in 3 generations, with a sealed, equalized bass hitting 30 Hz in a bookshelf format at 92dB sensitivity. That bass system was his pride and joy, resulting from more than a year of experimentation with sealed, vented, transmission line, plus some flights of fancy. We expected that bass system to continue forever. But the market pushed back pretty hard, considering the equalizer as a Bose copy or like waving a red flag in front of an audiophile (Larry Archibald in Stereophile), Harry Pearson spending half of our virgin 03 review in the Absolute Sound picking apart the negative sonic impact of the EQ. Etc.Short story is that the 02 with its ported bass, which we considered less than best, was conceived in that push-back. I’m with you regarding the vented bass of later Thiel speakers not fitting the philosophical construct of coherence. But notice that the reviews and marketplace at large rarely if ever denigrate the 4th order time lag of Thiel vented bass. They mostly praise its ’punch & solidity’. So you and I and a few others can appreciate the ’rightness’ of the sealed/ eq’s bass, but that doesn’t build a company.
I’m not surprised that you appreciate and enjoy the CS5 and its sealed bass. That was JIm’s attempt to execute correct bass down to 20Hz without the maligned equalizer. And it works extremely well with the big IF surrounding amplification requirements. These days I take some flights of fancy regarding other roads not taken. I believe that those roads, closer to Jim’s and all of our hearts of our specific, eccentric interpretation of how to best reproduce music, could have led to a more satisfying and ultimately meaningful life’s work as a designer and a company. Consider that the later drivers are far more efficient than the CS5’s and how that would have permitted higher impedance configurations to allow far more kindness to amplification. Jim’s dedication to developing the CS5 was monumental. His and all of our disappointment in its tepid market reception was close to devastating.
Now we have two seminal ideas of equalized and unequalized sealed bass which both met more resistance than acceptance. I absolutely wanted to improve those platforms. Jim was discouraged. Kathy as marketing director surveyed the landscape and decided (she was the decider) that ’it didn’t make much difference’ to the dealers as long as it sounded good. We could spend a chapter parsing that out; but bottom line is that Jim abandoned his signature bass approaches and focused on executing vented bass the best he could.
I’m glad that you are addressing these issues. They were huge issues for me personally. My gig as a founding partner was to incubate the company to sustainability while keeping our vision clear. I deemed the bass alignment thing to be a core issue. Kathy did not. Jim and Kathy, by that time, marched in lock step.
There is another significant issue around company building. I’ve mentioned before that we bootstrapped our growth, which is an understatement. By CS5 time (1988) we took on a seasoned business manager who worked the numbers hard and well. His assessment indicated that we were underselling our products by a LOT and couldn’t continue. A fledgling company can do the near impossible at a small scale for a limited time. We were ten years in and technically not profitable. Another chapter there. Suffice it to say that getting great bass can represent over half the cost of an entire product (bigger cabinet, serious drivers and crossovers, etc.). So your price comparisons should consider that the CS3 and CS5 iterations were selling at unsustainably low prices. The watershed product that distilled these conflicts was the CS3.6 with its vented bass, executed very well, but nonetheless a compromise.
You may appreciate that I never bothered to listen to a CS3.6 after its production development rigors. Isn’t life something? Some issues and developments only come into focus through a very long lens. That’s been more than 25 years ago. Thanks again, John.