Thiel Owners

jazzman7:   The KEF Uni-Q would seem to disqualify itself from this discussion due (at least) to their use of a second-order crossover.  Indeed, the step response plots from Stereophile look nothing like a time/phase coherent loudspeaker:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-meta-loudspeaker-measurements

@sdecker 
Thanks!  Reason I asked is that Kef (like Thiel) bills the Uni-Q as a point source.

Point source, yes, absolutely, at least in their LS50 with no other drivers.  But that's only one non-essential attribute of full-coherence.  Vandersteens' achieve it all without any concentric drivers.  All Thiels except the SCS4 (?) have the wide-bandwidth woofer (and sometimes other drivers too) some distance from their coax mid/tweet.

I just bought a pair of LS50 Metas to supplement my 2.4 due to a hypersensitive deranged neighbor (no lower bass output and lower volume capabilities), but need more time for a thorough A/B to get the true measure of them, as my 2.4s over the past decade have become my reference in my long-term acoustic space. 

I'll report here when I can arrive at firm conclusions, as xyzsantabarbara loves his previous-gen LS50s and his 3.7s, and the Metas are getting serious accolades, many that I can confirm are compelling and actual.

Point Source has as well as time coherent have become rather loosely defined. Note the ports.

Totally agree unsound.  'Time coherent' was never accurately defined with marketing or general knowledge or the physics that create true phase/time coherency like Thiels.  'Point source' is also too broadly marketed, but easier to accurately define.  Ported speakers muddy the definition of both terms, don't they?