Thiel Owners

@snbeall Remembered I wrote this post:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-owners-2/post?highlight=Summarize%2Bclarity&postid=...

snbeall- regarding the 02 / SCS / PP series. I do consider them true Thiels to the core. Yes, they use second order slopes because they were designed with home theater considerations, etc. But, Jim's implementation used both drivers positive polarity and a non-conventional alignment. That alignment plus the dispersion characteristics of the two drivers with large diameter differences, results in a flat room response and no excess energy at the crossover point. The 02 is quite unique in that regard. The fact that a box speaker can be placed on its side and/or at any height makes it susceptible to non-alignlment, which Jim's personality couldn't tolerate. So, the 02 directly led to the SCS with the coincident / concentric tweeter which yields a coherent wavefront, albeit with broader phase angle swings than first order, but never falling farther out-of-phase as do inverted polarity implementations.
Note that I use a pair of PowerPoint 1.2s as my room-filling / mixing references. That 45° launch was patented and is uniquely effective. My only suitable space in my studio is near the corners at the wall-ceiling joint, which works quite well - I have also demonstrated them on a floor, which works better. Ceiling was their design environment if you have a suitable situation. I built outboard crossovers for all ClarityCaps and Mills resistors. Better than stock.
I do have a quibble with the concentric driver in general. Through time Jim was able to create the double cone for a shallow, wave-guide geometry of the front cone with a deep, straight-back reinforcing back cone - minimizing the cupped hands effect, but it's still there a little. My enamourment with the 02 is to make a stand monitor with two discrete drivers, with Jim's second order style crossover and without the inherent problems of the concentric driver. Note that I do appreciate the concentric driver's ability to deliver coherent sound relatively independent of listener position. We can't always get it all. (Except perhaps with the radial wave 7 coaxes.

All - progress is being made toward the schematics and closure of the Thiel legalistics. I'll announce when I can.

Harry - good to see you. Thiel did have early exposure to Monster, I don't remember the models, but it was with their high-end offerings. I remember Audioquest bettering our Monsters and so on and so forth.
I don't know whether I mentioned our significant relationship with Monster. Jim had designed and patented a head amp circuit (his first patent) in the early days of moving coil cartridges where their very low outputs presented serious problems to the input circuitry of phone stages. Monster exclusively marketed that head amp and we swapped / beta-tested products with them until the late 1980s when cartridge outputs got higher, preamp circuits improved and CDs ran away with the market. I have a couple of those head amps if anyone wants to try one in a low-output moving coil system.

snbeall - regarding cable theory - I am familiar with that Townshend paper and have kept up (as time and education allow) with cable development. Within the considerable snake oil in the cable corner of the market, I believe there is a lot of real, honest, verifiable truth. The stuff in the Townshend paper is consistent with my understanding of the arena.

As an anecdote, I collaborated briefly with John Dunlavy in the mid 1990s regarding cabinet design. I was amazed by John's grasp of and attention to wire considerations. John held multiple patents regarding antenna design, and thus paid close attention to electromagnetic and other propagation effects of signals through wires. His knowledge far surpassed my understanding, but his stack of patents and results in his speakers spoke volumes to me.
In general, I see parallel explorations between audio cable designers and high-level physics considerations, and much of the dismissal and ridicule coming from the engineering-oriented skeptics who want the designers to prove their points. As a manufacturing practitioner I know for certain that we plain can't afford the time, energy and approach of proving our improvements to anyone. We, as designer-manufacturers, have to do our innovating, get it to market and run as fast as we can to innovate again. Let the academic engineers fight it out, as long as our customers support our work.