Thiel Owners

Just to clarify for our readers - Beetle's 2.4SEs were late production with FST crossovers which proved to be inferior in some ways to the earlier Lexington units. The coils were not well wound and the wire is CDA102, one step down from Thiel's traditional CDA101 best of form. Otherwise, the FST passive components were CYC clones of the usual best of form units that Thiel had used. I have heard conflicting reports of when and how these Chinese units came about, but my direct comparison between FST and Thiel came out with Thiel sounding smoother, more open and relaxed and delicate, with the FST sounding more etched, crisp and clear. Although both presentations were valid, they did not produce a similar voice.; I would not judge them as from the same designer. My preference is for the original Thiel presentation as more musically enjoyable than the FST presentation. YMMV.

Hi Jafant,

It appears you misread my post. I vastly prefer my Tom Thiel designed boards over the FSTs. And it’s been about 15 years since I’ve heard the 2.4s with Lexington boards but, other than the Clarity SAs in the coax feeds, I would take the Lexington over FST on parts quality. In addition to the loose coil windings, the FST had polyester caps rather than polypropylene.

Regardless of that, I consider Thiels to be transparent in general.

tomthiel

Thank You for the clarification regarding SE status.

Happy Listening!

beetlemania

I stand corrected. Once I figure out my Cabling of choice, I will consult you to assist my XO status based upon S/N 177/178.
It would be of interest to learn the cut-off production point from Lexington Board to FST XO points?

Happy Listening!

2nd Note;

I feel fortunate enough to have auditioned S/N 50/51. Those speakers had to be part of early production?

Happy Listening!