Thiel Owners

TomTweak - yes we are working on the same problem When I heard my first demonstration of the technology about 3 years ago, I and all dozen of us, were dumbfounded. It took about a year with inputs from physicists, recording experts and our own experimentation to get a small grasp of what's going on. Unlike your approach, mine is to organize the shear propagation "waves" along the surface such that their launch is clean. The resulting sound is pristine.
My felt need came from that "sound" on the 3.6 baffle which we discussed here awhile back. But "it" is everywhere in various degrees and manifistations. My collaborator first approached "the problem" for known "sounds" in clarinet bells and key caps. I am presently developing skins for the Renaissance 02s under development. This effect is different from edge diffraction, which primarily affects specific frequency(s). This chaotic to sublime surface flow affects all frequencies - uncannily.

Keep up your good work.
TT

sdl4 - Thank you for your comparative brief. I doubt that I'm alone in not finding many opportunities to compare cables or much other equipment first hand. Your listening notes are helpful in forming a reference as to how these outlier brands compare to the better-known and more-discussed audiophile offerings.

I pay close attention to others who do their careful listening and share those results without an accompanying agenda. I came upon Vovox via recommendations from pro recordists whom I respected. Similarly, Morrow came recommended by someone whose ears I trust. Both brands stand up to my own comparisons, but I use Vovox as mic cables and I lack the opportunity to compare against Cardas or other high-end, well known offerings. High-performance, low-cost cables fit the Thiel ethos - that's what we worked to offer, and I would like cables with that same value orientation. 

Thanks again for your comparisons. I look forward to your further listening notes. Long interconnect runs carry their own hazards. Your experience helps us when deliberating that configuration.

Thanks for the leads. I'm seriously considering the Benchmark DAC3B for freestanding conversion driving their HPA4 to get the headphone amp in the analog preamp chassis. So, I'm shopping for a CD/SACD transport only.

All - I just got word from Bill Thalmann at Music Technology that the SACD section of Thiel's SCD-1 is not economically repairable. I am abandoning the machine at Bill's place in Virginia. Anyone interested in it for any use may contact him.

Now, I'm exploring solutions for CD/SACD spinning. He soups up the Oppo 105 and 205, or PS Audio's entry sounds interesting. Any thoughts or recommendations?

jafant - Bill says it’s an endemic problem, they all succomb sooner or later depending on how much uptime they’ve had. He says mine looks like it may have been powered-up for long spells which develops more heat. Some of the surface-mount components are discolored and/or wave solder joints may be intermittent.

The problems are isolated to the SACD section. It played SACDs when I got it from the Thiel auction, but after a day, the bay door stopped working. I took it to a local repair shop who couldn’t really deal with it, and then sent it to Bill many months ago. The CD section played fine for me and for Bill; he aligned and lubricated the tray mechanisms and fixed a ground for the door circuit. Since I am not a hobbyist or collector, and my studio / life is presently disrupted, I just want it gone. If anyone wants it, I’d be pleased to get reimbursed for Bill’s bench fee (unknown as yet, but nominal.)
I see that SCD-1 player as possibly the most iconic piece of industrial design in our arena. Any takers?

All - thanks for the input and advice. I'll be reading and learning and hope to purchase something when I land in a new studio space. You'll be the first to know. 

yyz - Bill didn't actually make a very firm recommendation. He said that this unit, the SCD-1 has a thermal dissipation problem, which he elevated to a design flaw that shortens its life. He acknowledged that most audiophiles leave their gear up 24/7, and that is generally best because thermal cycling is what does the damage. When I probed, he said that knowing what he has seen over the years, he would probably take a hybrid approach, leaving it up when in steady use, but shutting it down when it would be unused for awhile. He didn't specify how long awhile is. I would conjecture that a couple to a few days might be awhile.  

Hi Guys. I claim no knowledge of silver interconnects, but would like to pass on some relevant Thiel experience. During the development of the 3.7, Jim and company compared all the potential wires and configurations for internal hookup. They settled on solid copper in twisted pairs as sounding better than silver plated.

Relatedly, in developing the in-house drivers, silver plated voice coils lost out to solid copper in the lower ranges and copper plated aluminum in the tweeters.

ScanSpeak tells me that conclusion is widespread. The Goertz flat wire that Jim settled on for speaker cables was copper. Knowing that silver is a better conductor, any comment I might have would be conjecture. We must also remember that Jim was extremely value oriented, so the high price of silver would have weighed heavily in his value equation.

magnet7 - Others here might help you find your best brand fit. Here’s my broad input. Those woofer electrolytics are in shunt (shaping) resonance circuits which are the least sonically important. The Solen 1uF bypasses are very good. The styrene ultra-bypasses are extravagantly good. Those woofer shunt circuits are least worthy of expensive audiophile electrolytics.

On the other hand, the caps in the midrange circuit are of greater sonic importance. The 100uF electrolytic mid feed cap is worthy of the best cap you can afford, perhaps a ClarityCap 250 volt (or $higher) CSA with a very good 1uF bypass and then decide by ear to keep or toss the styrene bypass. Similarly the 100uF mid shunt.

The tweeter also has a 100uF electrolytic feed, which is at least as important as the midrange.

Short story, concentrate your budget on the upper drivers. I suggest looking at Nichicon for those woofer shunts. (high quality pro-level audio cap.)

Jeff - here's a lesson from Thiel history. All our products shared the same goals of flat frequency, phase, time, and dynamic response. The family signature is quite similar between models. Also, along the time-line, new technologies were invented and incorporated, so a newer product will always be more sophisticated than prior ones. Higher model numbers get you more bass. In your particular case, you will sacrifice bass extension and power going from your equalized, sealed 10" woofer to the 2.4's reflex 8" woofer. (Unless you weren't equalizing your 03.) The 2.4 is a highly mature product, whereas the 03 is the first generation of its format. Huge difference in subtlety and sophistication, but very similar family resemblance.

Notes about your 03. Only 500 pair were made before the upgraded 03a (2500 pair.) Your 03 is the base on which Thiel succeeded. Its phase/time coherence was unique and the equalized bass was unusual and powerful. They earned immediate distribution and reviews in Europe which seeded interest from east coast US dealers - and the rest followed. The 03 is quite rudimentary compared with later models, but in 1978 it shone quite brightly.

Jeff - my memory was unclear about the ported 03. Please confirm NO equalizer.

BTW, it's great to know these speakers have given you joy for so long. They were made in our first garage shop on the little farm outside Lexington, about the time we were building the new 16' x 28' addition onto the original dirt-floor 15' x 22' garage. Memory Lane Lives. 

CT and Greg - Keep us posted on the DACs. I personally would love to learn how you all view the Benchmark DAC3. It is in widespread use in the professional world and I wonder about opinions of how it compares to the top of the hi-fi world. Any comments and opinions are welcome. 

Thank you all for your thoughts on DACs. I've read some reviews on your selections and they sound like very solid buys. This helps me put things in perspective. I'll be using the Benchmark DAC3-B for my and my collaborators' work, but learning who's who in today's marketplace helps me find my bearings.

Tomorrow I drive to Virginia to meet with Bill Thalmann of Music Technologies, pick up my Sony SCD-1 (CD only working) and drop off my Classé gear for optimization work. Back home by Monday night.

I am remembering that BM uses 4 chips per channel - from their website:
"Four balanced 32-bit D/A converters are summed together to create each balanced analog output. This 4:1 summation provides a 6 dB noise reduction, and gives the DAC3 industry-leading performance."
Let's see what Bill says.

I approached Benchmark about audiophile upgrades such as this opportunity and/or a higher power AHB-2 or higher-end caps, etc. John Siau is convinced that the present level of performance is optimized. I've been told there is not a DAC4 in the works.

I'll ask Bill if he thinks the higher-performing chip would be a drop-in improvement. I'll report back, since I would be a likely first user.

Pico

JAFant and all. I also want to express my appreciation for this thread and all of you who contribute your thoughts, knowledge and inputs here and behind the curtain. Without you I would not have imagined this slowly emerging Thiel Renaissance venture. The weeding that you guys have done to find products compatible with and complementary to Thiel loudspeakers would be hard to replicate, actually impossible given the constraints of real life. Likewise your generosity with time and "surplus" products have been transformative. The 6 pair of classic Thiels in my stable all came through this thread. In fact, this thread is my only virtual presence and it connects us all quite well. Thank you.
Your introduction to Bill Thalmann of Music Technologies hit the bull’s-eye. I visited Bill in Springfield VA on Friday to pick up my Sony SCD-1 with refurbished mechanics and CD section, and a neat closed door on the SACD section. I also dropped off the full set of Classé amplification and the Philips CD-80 player for upgrade evaluation. These were Thiel’s 1990 entré into affordable high performance and have served me since. This gear will continue onward as an alternate source to my Benchmark chain. I know it intimately and expect the upgrades to bring it into the modern era.
A word about Bill and his operation. Cool. His 5 (or so) person operation repairs, restores, upgrades and maintains (electric) musical instruments, stage gear, hi fi and professional electronics. There’s a candy store of gear for sale plus multiple work stations that include binocular microscopes, solder stations, scopes and computers and tons of parts and components. The place exudes detailed, focused work.

The order of the day was to assess Bill’s interest in participating in the Thiel Renaissance project. He is interested. As a starting point, he will make a professional assessment of the CS3.5 equalizer which I left along with a user-generated reverse engineered schematic. We are exploring ways and means to accomplish the bass-boost task with possibly more sophistication, including a balanced option. Step one is to learn what Bill thinks of Jim’s work - design, execution, performance including technical and listening evaluations. Jim approached his work very carefully designing his circuitry without op-amps, etc. toward very high performance at moderate cost - like his speakers. That was 1975-1985; the 3.5 was his last equalized product. I am re-evaluating use of an equalizer because it was central to Jim’s insight and holistic approach. It’s death in Thieldom was never joyful. Design and Marketing perspectives diverged, in diplomatic-speak. My own direct comparisons using the model 02 as ported vs sealed re-affirm my desire to offer sealed bass, possibly with equalizers in models that never had one. My present work uses the model 02 as a test bed and proof-of-concept workhorse. Depending on particulars, Bill might prototype an 02 EQ. Imagine that.

brettmcee - from the earliest time, we noted that Thiel customers seemed to play by different rules than much of the industry. We chalked that up to Thiel's objective, neutral, no-nonsense approach to our products and our business. We also noted that reviewers of Thiel products shared that same stripe of competence. And the pros who used our speakers to mix and master were first-rate. Tom Jung of DMP was as good as it got in the early days of digital, and various European, especially Scandanavian, recordists produced albums that are still today beyond reproach.

Music brings out the best in us all. And Thiel people are my favorites.

audiotweak - no we didn’t explore resistively vented enclosures. However, we did notice that leaky cabinets altered the bass response, acting like larger cabinets, and did muse how wonderful it would be to get a larger-acting enclosure via leaking.

Presently I am reading about aperiodic venting with an eye to combining it with equalization for a low-order bass rolloff that reaches deep with possibly less reactivity while requiring less EQ than a sealed box.

So much to learn, so little time.

unsound - indeed an equalizer opens myriad possibilities. Bill would have the knowledge to orchestrate an attenuation scheme; he would also have the chops to orchestrate alternative power for the EQ. A large part of the cost and limitation of any active device is centered on its AC power supply. What if we borrowed DC from the preamp, perhaps via post-installed 40 volt phantom power (ubiquitous in the pro world for microphones, etc.) to power the EQ from the preamp’s power supply. And so forth and so on.

unsound - I don't know how leaky / resistive enclosures would affect time response. My hunch is that the 2nd order closed box response would hold true while acting like a larger enclosure which of course throws off all the Thiele/Small paramater matching analysis. We treated leaks as a serious error to be fixed and never explored the realm. However, an aperiodic vent would be predictable and therefore could match different T/S paramaters for a different result. I don't know enough to comment further.

tweak - there's something there, but there's also something to be noted when an idea doesn't rise to the top as time goes by. In the late 90s, I made cabinets for Shanhinian. One of those models used a resistive bass loading developed in Germany for infrasonic weaponry. The bass was indeed deep for its size, but the frequency response was odd and the impedance was extremely reactive. No one else picked up on the idea and that speaker was the only one in Shahinian's line to use it. It remains a curiosity to me, much like transmission lines, but would require advanced work to learn the ropes and execute with success.

Wisconsin and Denver. Looking for driving distance from central Virginia. All leads welcome.

dsper - I'll chime in regarding spikes and outriggers. I don't claim any esoteric knowledge, but developing the spikes was in my cabinet design wheelhouse. This story might seem happenstance, but that's how a lot of high performance audio actually unfolded. There wasn't a playbook, nor was their internet or a particularly 'sharing' culture regarding innovations. We went to shows, mostly CES in those days, but we were too busy with managing our own display to pay much attention to what anyone else was doing.

So, from my perspective, we invented / developed spikes, granting that others may have done so independently. By that I mean that we didn't copy spikes from anyone else. Here's how it came about. The models 01 and 02 were 'bookshelf' speakers, which could be used upright or on their sides; no feet were appropriate. The 03 was floor-standing and its base was a plinth, smaller than the footprint. Our listening room and measurement lab had hardwood floors. A rocking speaker could be shimmed with a matchbook or penny or dime. The 04 had no base - we used 4 rubber feet. The problem became obvious when we moved to Nandino Blvd (final factory site) in 1980. Jim's first lab had carpet, and subsequent rooms had padded floors and carpet to help suppress the first floor reflection. In that configuration, the speaker would recoil.

The aha moment of what was happening came when comparing time-domain scans around 1981 while developing the CS3. Things looked as expected when scanning each driver separately (in the actual cabinet), but became slurred when all three drivers were driven simultaneously. Some experimentation and math revealed that recoil, especially from the woofer, was moving the tower enough to spoil the time alignment, especially of the short wavelengths of the tweeter. Spiking to the floor was the obvious solution. Since our tilt-back design put more mass at the back of the cabinet, we added two spikes at the back and one in front with no adjustment necessary because 3 points define a plane. Those spikes were in the plinths, which were significantly inboard of the footprint of the speaker, but it worked and worked well.
Flash forward to 1988 while developing the CS5 with its marble baffle which raised its center of mass considerably. I enlarged the plinth to the entire footprint, but the three pin arrangement could still fail if the speaker were bumped by the hypothetical rambunctious child. So, the pins moved to the 4 corners, where they had to become adjustable for less than flat floors. Those pins employ a zero-clearance thread with very tight tolerances. They allow virtuallly zero slop; and they can be turned over to put a rounded end on finished floors instead of the points to penetrate carpet.

Over time all the bases moved outboard, the lighter speakers retained 3-point support and the heavier ones 4-point, all as far out as possible. The addition of outriggers came later, after my time. They would geometrically increase the stability, and as long as they could not flex, then I see no down-side. I don't know the forces that drove the outriggers, whether market or tech, but I suspect market since the perimeter pins are quite effective in themselves.

Question: do any of you hear sonic improvement using the outriggers?

jafant - thanks for the referral back to page 59. Seems there are always ways to make things better, if we can find and afford them.

I am reminded of the other part of the can of worms when coupling to the floor - what the floor itself sounds like. A cello, washtub bass, etc. actually play the floor, but we don't want the speaker to play the floor. I like the idea of isolation feet or platforms that decouple from the floor, while still providing rigid non-recoil. A conundrum. What products out there come close to filling that bill? No springs or sponge. Yes to decoupled rigidity. Any thoughts?

duramax - can you describe the Panzerholz base in some detail?

Dspr - it seems to me that if there is a difference, the outriggers would be an improvement, not just different strokes. In product design, we always have to stop somewhere, and spikes in the base is where we stopped. I can see how a broader base of support would improve launch integrity, but can't visualize how it might hurt. (But, of course, imagination has its own limits!)
A recent (these past year(s)) observation is how surprisingly active the top and bottom of the cabinets are. I found "it" on the 2.2, but it's on all the models, contrary to my assumption that the small size and therefore relatively greater effective stiffness of those end panels would make them inert. In fact, the 2.2 has extremely small size and moves enough to hear / measure. Bottom similarly. The vertical air column dynamics and and end effects of the panels work to concentrate vibrational forces at the column ends. I think that absorbing / neutralizing the energy being transmitted into the spikes and therefore the floor would help quiet the cabinet. (To wit, all those pucks and springs and geometries of isolation feet.) I've been introduced to an Italian casting product developed as an acoustical cement for damping resonances in highway bridges, among other applications. It has promise both for inside the panels and as pin pucks.

I don't know whether you guys know our youngest brother John. He's recently retired as the senior bridge maintenance engineer for the USA. He's a civil / structural engineer who knows this kind of stuff.

And the iPad app?

Tony - what a beautiful system!And thank you for your isolation update. Might you tell us what app you use for vibration analysis? Was there a particular magic about 3Hz? I find this stuff fascinating.

Tony - thanks for the lead. Have you or anyone here experimented with a dense block coupled to the floor via Mortite / BlueTac, etc?

Tony - I'll get VibrationAnalysis. Seems like a very direct way to get information in real time.

I'm one of those who hasn't really questioned spikes, since they solve the real problem of cabinet recoil slurring the tweeter output. But this isolation mechanism doesn't seem to unsolve anything  - the speakers aren't free to recoil, simply decoupled from the floor. I had read about Townsend, but generally dismissed it; there's just so much to read and consider and so little time. Their claims seemed aimed at decoupling from seismic movement, and at very high prices, if I recall correctly. The skeptic in me tends to marginalize that formula.

Snbeall - you can get inside the cabinet by removing the woofer. The unbraced areas are fairly small, and many will be unreachable in practical terms. Some later products also provide access via removing the bottom panel. You might consult the Stereophile review of each product to identify where JA found the most egregious resonances. Please let us know what you learn.

Jeff - you may be in for a big treat! If your woofers are indeed mis-wired, that wreaks havoc with the phase coherency of the whole system. The most certain way to get it right is to get a 6 volt battery (lantern) or 9 volt is OK for woofer with a short-duration test. Connect + to + and the cone should move outward. If wrong, change the leads. I think your 03 woofers are Eminence and I would love to know the model numbers on those. Likewise for the mids and tweeters if you don't mind.

Regarding tweeters, I (seem to) recall the 03 was Polydax and the 03a was Audax which may have been an upgrade or a merger, etc. Rob at CSS may have a more definitive answer. Stay away from an old tweeter. They wear out via fatigue of the tinsel leads. Let us know what you learn.

The silliest question is the necessary one unasked.

TT

 

jeroboam - I recently borrowed a pair of CS2.4s (#3729-3730) with post "Thiel-grade" passive parts: (Solen caps, ERSE coils, etc.) These later crossovers morphed to Chinese-made fiberglass boards with cloned parts, polyester caps, etc. that I found to have less detail, a more cutting edge, and a little less cohesiveness and body than earlier Thiel in-house boards. Earlier in this thread Beetlemania shared his journey through replacing all elements of his (similar vintage) 2.4 crossovers with better-than-original parts on newly laid-out boards. Good journey, good reading. Your serial numbers would aid in identifying your vintage.

My update on the Thiel Renaissance project is that it is still alive, albeit in the background. Life has its own demands and I am presently without a shop/studio to make much headway on this project. However, my present progress is significant and exciting; co-developing some fluid-flow solutions for more settled wave-form launch from the drivers into free air. Clarity and naturalness are improved in an area that I would have never imagined even existed.

For reasons of simplicity, I am focusing my development work on Thiel's simplest product, the model 02 (1976-1984) where ideas and changes can be iterated more productively than with more complex models. My intention is to introduce a limited edition of this stand-mount monitor that builds on Jim's life work to create a very refined speaker with high musical engagement. All developments and technologies apply to later models.  Details when things get closer to reality.  

jeroboam - for the record, your 2.4s were made in Lexington with masonite point to point XO boards with American / European passive parts, and best-of-form wire. I and others consider them to be better than the later units with Chinese XOs and wire.

In my explorations, I was impressed by the level of plateau-optimization of that product. Every element is as good as every other element, so that no money was wasted in the implementation. The exception is the drivers. I (and others) have replaced components and topologies, and the speaker gets better and better. But, at considerable cost. My work is to produce an upgrade at the top of the next cost pleateau: wasting no money while performing at a higher level. We have done it a few times on a few products and one of these days we'll have ways and methods to implement those changes for those who wish.

jazzman7 - I'm eager to hear your considerations, especially your critique / assessment of the Benchmark vs CODA.

All - I am searching for a pair of Thiel CS3.5s for Bill Thalmann of Music Technology to use for listening to equalizer upgrades. His shop is located in Springfield, east-central Virginia. Prefer working condition, any physical condition. Borrow, rent, buy, or upgrade as trade. Any leads much appreciated.

 

Tom

unsound - my present purposes are to get a pair in Bill's shop. I can send him drivers if necessary, but shipping cabinets is cost-prohibitive.

 

unsound - I have some original drivers for my own speakers. Haven't yet worked up the replacement midrange and tweeter, which will go in the Renaissance 03, 03a, CS3 and CS3.5. The woofers are tanks and rebuildable by Rob.

 

TT

jazzman7 - I perused the CODA stuff. Wow. I'd love to hear their most recent iterations.

I queried John at Benchmark about more power, which he is not planning to do. He claims that THIS amp design does not increase distortion when bridged to mono - the only down-side being half the damping factor. But cutting output cables to half length gets that back.

Thiel used and recommended Bryston all along. I found it somewhat less sonically sophisticated than some contenders. People say that their Cubed series takes their performance to the next level.

I've grown to love the Benchmark stack, since my interest is in "just the facts" rather than my subjective experience. For my alternate reference, Bill Thalmann at Music Technology (thanks to JA) is souping up my Class´e DR6 and pair of DR9s. I realize there are more modern rigs that probably get closer to the truth, but I know and have been using this stuff since the 80s, so it serves me well. I bet his upgrades will carry the strengths of the DR design while adding some refinement via better caps and a few secret tricks. I'll report when that happens.

Meanwhile, send some CODA my way so I can tell you what I think.

 

 

JAFANT - Thanks for the Great Falls VA lead. It's looking like a winner.

I'm referring to John Siau's explanation of the effects of cable length on low-frequency tightness. Shorter cables = tighter bass.

Previously I had recommended long interconnects / short speaker cables. I have changed that opinion. Long interconnects introduce their own problems. Wire sucks in various ways. Keep it all short.

magnet7 - He is correct, that's 2.5% over target, which is OK.

unsound - thanks for the memory jog. I just added a pair of Goertz AlphaCore interconnects to my upcoming shoot-out.

 

To augment unsound’s list:

Kimber was Thiel’s first OMG moment in the late 70s, and we remained fans and beta testers of each others’ products.

Straightwire founded their business on Thiel’s discovery of ITT’s aerospace communications wire which was ground-breaking in the late 70s. Straightwire continued to provide our internal wire for all US-made products. Steve says that their Octave II, which I have, contains all their relevant technologies including their compressed core which pressure fuses slow-drawn strands into a single conductor. Higher-priced models climb the diminishing returns slope with mostly preferential sonic flavors.

OCOS came to us via Dynaudio whose tweeter we used in the CS2 & 3 - 3.5. It is a coaxial cable which tolerates long runs very well. Today I use that cable (in double runs) in live venues, but it does not possess the finesse of the Straightwire or better wires. I haven’t found anyone to re-terminate the proprietary ends.

I remember reading a 3.7 review (Stereophile or Absolute Sound) that complained about a harsh top end. Thiel intimated that Jim had used Goertz in its development - they switched - and the problem vanished. I’ve not heard Goertz, but its propagation specs are stellar.

My own favorite to date is Morrow which incorporates a flat geometry, executed with individually insulated small gauge wires.

Next week I’ll be directly comparing 1 meter interconnects from VoVox Sonorus, Morrow, and my own candidate for internal wiring. I’ll report my results here.

 

 

 

pops - that's one long list of cables!

Can you tell me how SW Maestro II sits in SWs line compared to the Octave II? I don't see the Maestro on their line-up. Also, do you have thoughts to share regarding interconnects?

Thanks, Tom

pops - Octave sits at the top of level 2. I got it on Steve's recommendation that it contains the relevant technologies for "high performance" without more expensive options, which he says serve particular user preferences. My assessment of the Octave II is that they are pretty good. Certainly better than the Benchmark (Canare) or the  OCOS (coax), but much less refined and precice than the Morrow. I do not have extensive experience nor the time and budget to make extensive comparisons. That said, I am not recommending the Octave II, but find it very interesting that you landed on the Maestro II in comparison with some pricier offerings.

Stating serial numbers helps in reconstructing the flow of events. I left Thiel in 1995 and am playing catch-up with changes of various sorts. Of particular interest is that crossover manufacture was taken to Asia (with considerable care) and some performance changes. Over these past few years here on this forum, I've been able to piece together a picture of what happened when with what performance consequences. Thiel's Chinese crossovers used components that were cloned from the long-term "western" components. The layouts also migrated from point to point on masonite to high-quality fiberglas. My bottom line is that I prefer, subjectively supported with inferences from measurements, the original made in Lexington boards. But the Chinese equivalents are quite good - with some exceptions: we've found Chinese crossovers with downright sloppy coils that were audibly inferior when directly compared to Thiel's AcoustaCoil / ERSE coils, which I consider best of form.

This sleuthing would not be necessary if the New Thiel owners had honored and kept the extensive body of records that we kept from day 1. On the bright side, our view of Thiel history is gradually coming into focus.

DIY is different than manufacturing. From 1983 / CS3 onward, all our film caps were custom with a target and a tolerance window, not necessarily symmetrical. Our commitment quantities were in the range of 10,000 pieces spread over the product life. Today we’re doing the best we can. The reason I first steered magnet7 toward 8 is that the original cap was a 7, so I would prefer a 7.8 over an 8.2. But as we say, we play our best with the hand we’re dealt. And the sound will be glorious compared to stock.