Anyone hear Thiel CS1.6?

Not quite sure what the first response is supposed to indicate, but it doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement, so let me try.

Properly set up Thiels are not bright - this is a myth, in my opinion, dating to back to older Thiel models, and also based on the facts that:

1) They have flat response characteristics and wide dispersion, making them more revealing of source and room imperfections than a lot of competing high-end designs, and they should be placed far away from side-walls (along the long wall firing across the room).

2) They are first-order crossed-over, phase-coherent designs, meaning that the listener will hear too bright sound at closer than optimal listening distances. Expect this if you try to listen closer than about 9', and 10'-11' is better.

3) Many Thiel models have featured loads that are pretty current-suckingly low, and will not show an amp that isn't up to the task in the best light.

4) Thiels can be, for a combination of the above reasons, particularly ruthless concerning wire when fed through mediocre speaker cables.

5) Because of their relative popularity and realistic pricing for a high-end product, a lot of them are set up out there in the real world, by non-audiophile "spec's first" types who are attracted to their impeccable engineering, without the care and feeding they require to show what they can do.

6) They are clean and transparent as hell - that is, without cabinet or driver resonances, phase hi-jinx, or subtly euphemistic roll-offs or plumped-up parts response-wise - so they are not prefered by the beauty-before-truth crowd when it comes to playing a lot of flawed recordings.

Having said my piece as a 2.2 owner about *that*, I did audition the 1.6s, and liked 'em a lot. System was: Linn Ikemi CD or Marantz 14 SACD > Bryston pre > VTL ST-85 or C-J MV-55 (mine) power > via Transparent cables, heard both with and without a subwoofer (don't remember what kind) in a pretty large main room at a dealer's, using both his and my disks. The speakers were positioned relatively widely, slightly toed-in, and I sat appropriately a little farther away than an equilateral distance.

My overall impressions, gathered from about 90 minutes of listening spread between two different visits, were:

1) It did much better in a room that was technically too big for a little floorstander this size than it had any right to, going loud without strain, and giving that elusive "fills the room with sound" liveliness even at low volumes, something my more reserved 2.2s don't do (could this have something to do with the 1.6's newfound high sensitivity?).

2) Though it can't give you the real bottom bass, you probably won't miss it much in a moderately-sized room, because what's there is extraordinarily natural and complete-sounding in every way save for extension. Amazing bass tunefulness, dynamics, and transparancy for a 6 1/2" driver, and it even gives a good impression of physicality.

3) The soundstage is huge - big huge. And totally, completely detached from the speakers. Very full images everywhere, deep & 3-D. Image height that I didn't believe from such a shrimp. The incongruity between the size of the speakers and the size of what you're hearing can be almost funny.

4) Coherence and smoothness in the extreme. No artifacts I could lay at the feet of the speakers. Very unified, refined, and convincing, which makes for low listening effort.

5) Very naturally voiced, it is as uncolored as you would expect, but not as dry or clinical as some past Thiels have tended a little towards. Versus my larger 2.2s, the 1.6s don't have quite the bass extension of course (but mated very well with a sub), and may also possess a little less sparkle and air (copacetic with the lighter-weight bottom), but the heart of the sound gets out of the box better than mine can manage. These sound quicker, too.

6) You would also expect high transparecy, and you won't be disappointed. Details pass through these things like a breeze through a screen, but nothing is uduly highlighted. Transient articulation is exceedingly clean.

Basically, I heard them do nothing wrong. It goes, therefore, without saying that I heard them in a particularly good set-up. But it is surprising to go into a shop and hear a $2,000 speaker, and not think to yourself, well, I can hear this or that going on or being lost. They won't give you the slam or startle of a bigger speaker, but they apparently can give you just about all of the other really important stuff, including what some smaller stand-mounted's can in the get-out-of-the-way department. Compared to my 2.2s, the 1.6s sound more open and enthusiastic, and just as honest. At their low price, it's possible some dealers won't take the time or effort to set them up or show them properly, but treated like the thoroughbreds I think they are, it's hard to imagine a speaker of their type sounding much more accomplished than these little monsters. Definitely worth checking out, and a great value, it seems to me.

I haven't heard the Arro's, so this is strictly a guess, but a woofer that small in a cabinet that small couldn't possibly really have more bottom end (and the reviews I remember reading of it - which were positive - unsurprisingly acknowledged it didn't do bass). What most speaker designers will do with a model too small to make real bass, and what I'm conjecturing the Arro's designer probably did, is to plump up the region in the upper bass that contains the harmonics of the missing low bass. This is a proven technique to make a small speaker sound as if it had big bass, and one that Jim Thiel will simply not practice, for better or for worse. I am not saying there are not competitors for the 1.6 in its price range (it is definitely possible to get more bass, for instance, and I certainly don't buy into the hyperbole of cover-copy writers), but I am saying that it is absolutely capable of outstanding performance, and if someone doesn't hear that from it when they audition it, suspect the set up first.

Also to a large extent (not 100%, I know), JT seems to be reaching for the goal of engineering and manufacturing separate, application-specific drivers for each of his different speaker designs. Not inexpensive, to be sure, but probably the most valid approach if you can do it.

Tweek, I happen to think that $2,000 is very realistic for a speaker that, while it doesn't do everything (what does?), goes about what it *does* do with what sounds to me like fewer errors overall than many other designs that may do one or two things better for the price.

Cdc, JA has known and acknowledged for a long time that he isn't properly equipped to take the true measure of first-order designs like Thiel or Dunlavy, which makes it all the more curious why he often *does* seem to "hear his measurements" when it comes to these speakers (and I guess you might say his own Revels too, for that matter, but I wouldn't know about that one). Also odd, then, that he used to own a pair of my own CS2 2's as references, especially since I thought I heard the smaller 1.6 do certain things better, and came away with the impression that it might well be the more successful design overall, figuring in size and (adjusted) price.

Well, I'm aware that there will always be audiophiles who won't consider anything from a brand that has 'hit the bigtime', so to speak. Even if they are still an exclusively audiophile brand. But there are sometimes *reasons* why a certain brand may be known to everyone, get good reviews (not that JA's is very much that, but Tom Miiller's was), and have a respectable advertising budget. Thiel's own ads, in particular, could never be fairly accused of getting by on 'hype' - to the contrary, their ads tend to be some of the most informative concerning their products (remember those things?) of any in the industry. Sure, they run the reviewer's quotes for a while, but you pretty much have to do that in this game, and today's 'underground' brands will do the same, when/if they can.

Tweek, I thank you for your complement about my posts. I'm glad no amount of magazine writing, however glowing, will get you to buy a product. I myself have disagreed with the mag 'consensus' many times. But I have to say, I do think I detect an air of reverse-snobbery in your statements. You have often on this site advocated (sound unheard) products you have only seen on an obscure (to me, anyway) manufacturer's web page. Is that 'hype'? Will it get you to buy a product? My friend, I suspect the main reason you chose to play devil's advocate in this thread was because of the presence of the name 'Thiel'. But as ever, let us know what you think if you actually get a chance to hear these.

RB, I don't know what you think I said for you to "agree with" regarding your last sentence above, because I made no such comments. For the record, I do not find it any harder to believe that those brands should accomplish what you state than I do Thiel.

I looked up Todd's review, and no measurements were included, so I can't speculate on his ability to ascertain anything when he says that the Arros got 'below 50Hz' in his room when placed near a boundary, but I do not doubt this is possible, it's just a question of balancing roll-off, dynamic capability, and room reinforcement. He also campared the Arros to another, slightly larger small speaker, and though he preferred the Arros overall, he noted that the other speaker could provide more bass dynamics, as you would expect.

So while the health care system in Canada may indeed be different, the laws of physics are comfortingly the same. I think his subjective impression of satisfying bass for such a tiny speaker basically serves to illustrate my point from the above post, and indicates the skills of the speakers' designer. Since I've never auditioned the Arro (any Totem product, for that matter), and never made any claims concerning their sound quality, there's nothing here for you to be defending them from. I'm sure it's as fine a speaker as you obviously feel it is.

Tweek - Haven't "heard it all"; haven't heard even a fraction of it. You're probably well on your way to being a much better audiophile than I'll ever be, because you aspire to it. Happy listening, Z.

Rbstenho, Labtec - I'll try to make a point of listening to a Totem speaker sometime when the opportunity presents itself. I confess I've been turned off paying attention to them in the past based almost entirely on some interviews I've read with their designer - he seemed pretty flakey to me - and the fact that they market those machined aluminum "beak" thingamajigs for $100 a pop, which is just plain silly at best and highly questionable at worst, from what I can see (no, I haven't 'heard' them either - there are already enough small miscellaneous objects around my listening room without me buying beaks and wooden disks and such; there are still some things I just will not do as long as I've got a brain remaining between my ears, sorry!). But it's true none of that means their speakers ain't good.

Fair enough about the price, Dan, I had assumed only the premium wood finishes raised the price, not all of them. And I believe the outrigger supports add even more (my audition was done without them). They do give you a 10-year warranty, however, and I can vouch for their outstanding customer service.

But what's this about lacking "Thiel-like" treble grain? I haven't heard that from any of the smaller Thiel designs of the past ten years (including my 2.2's). And as far as not being "in-your-face", while it's true Thiels don't feature a 'pleasantly distant-sounding' type of upper midrange recession, they have always been noted for their ability to deliver a truly deep soundstage, so no surprise there. I think it says a lot about this speaker's abilities that it was able to shine in the system you heard it with, and I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of Thiel's products are justifiably used in chains where they are the most economically priced component, but the system I heard them with was definitely 'real-world', and they still sounded great.

All right, that's enough pimping from me in this thread! Happy auditioning, everyone! :-)