danomar - the PCS was built in the Lexington plant where any and all finishes were available including a variety of stock plus a couple levels of custom, including customer paint or other treatments. Black Ash (real veneer) was a stock finish. Gloss (piano) black was also available. And others to numerous to itemize.
Showing 50 responses by tomthiel
Guys - I'm shopping for ideas. In assembling a system approachably priced for musicians and other non-audiophile music lovers, I hope to find a CD transport of merit. My hope is to find a good player for CD - with a plus for SACD, DVD-A, etc. A digital output via S/P-DIF and/or USB is necessary, but analog conversion/ outputs are not. The transport can't cost more than a $ thousand or two, hopefully less. Any ideas? Thanks |
jafant - That SCD-1 in on the shelf awaiting the right opportunity to set it up. That was Thiel's unit that I took to Bill Thalmann two years ago. He failed to salvage the SACD side, and he said the CD side had been well hot-rodded. I picked it up last Thanksgiving, which is after I lost my studio space. I'll put it in service this fall. But that doesn't address my desire to have something to tickle the ears of musicians and other non-audiophiles for better than expected playback at an affordable price. An old skinflint can't be cured, I guess. |
thoft - Jim's MO was to design each model to its full potential. In the case of small speakers, the trade-off was how deep the bass goes. Yours are about 50Hz anechoic, possibly deeper in your room. The PCS gets a big boost by having the 4" midrange to fill the mid frequencies both on and off axis, while not adding the expense of another crossover circuit - that’s significant. The PCS debuted in 2000 using the first generation coax developed for 1998’s CS2.3. The PCS sold about 2000 pair, at the low end for a Thiel model. I heard that Jim was working on a CS7.3 in which he hoped to develop a next-generation coax using the RadialWave or StarPlane diaphragm with a next-gen mechanical coupling and rare earth motor like the CS2.3 and 2.4. That driver could have a smaller, lower mass midrange diaphragm than the 3.7 which has to interface with a 10" woofer. That new coax would have been used in his 2.7 and PCS2. After Jim's death Thiel Audio had developed a StarPlane CS1.7 woofer, which would have been upsized from 6.5" to 8" for the CS2 series. In New Thiel’s (2013) first year with Steve DeFuria and Bob Brown onboard, they started working on these drivers, but found it beyond their depth to bring the designs to light. |
thoft - a polarity test may be in order. Use a 6 volt ’lantern battery’ or a 9 volt with great care to only touch and release the terminal briefly. Put + to + (red) and each driver should move forward. You’ll have to feel the tweeter, but the mid and woofer motion will be visible. Also, has anyone been inside the 3.6s?
|
jafant - I also get a dead link, but I haven't heard any news. I'll post when I reach him. Rob will know the answer, but I can offer speculation. No. Not the same. The CS6 woofer is a reflex design which has different T/S parameters than the sealed woofers in the SmartSub. I've never seen a warped basket in a woofer. First time for everything. |
bianuzzi22 - Identical concept and specified performance. The main difference is the midrange driver. The original CS3 Vifa was upgraded to a custom ScanSpeak midrange that allowed broader (7 octave) coverage. Also, the CS3 woofer got a polymer coating which smoothed out its upper range. Crossover tweaks were necessary and the baffle angle is a little different. Same tweeter. The 3.5 EQ is a little more sophisticated. The CS3 sold 2000 pair and the 3.5 sold 5500 pair. I consider the CS3.5 as quintessential Jim Thiel. I am bundling the CS3 and 3.5 together. All upgrades will apply to both platforms. |
jafant - Yes. Remember the Classé DR6 and pair of DR9s? They've been incubating at Music Technology for a couple of years. He finished the preamp, including the phono stage in pretty high fashion. We used a lot of ClarityCaps including some CMR series-wound potted caps in critical applications. He has kept the DR6 to use with the DR9 and CS3.5 equalizer upgrade projects. So, I haven't heard it yet. The DR9s are presently being worked on with a goal of pickup on my visit in October. But, the long roll-out of ClarityCap's Purity line might keep that from happening. We're doing something fairly radical with the DR9s, by committing to bridged-only to allow one channel as plus and the other as minus for fully balanced operation - which allows other optimizations and removal of front-end signal path circuitry. Serious hot-rodding. The 3.5 EQ is coming to life. Jim Williams' Audio Upgrades optimized and upgraded considerably for a tight, clean, quiet result. Bill is going farther with his own magic. In October I'll get to compare cost/performance of various elements. Bill's backlog / critical need customers, etc. have stretched out these projects unimaginably. But, we're getting close to actual results. I wish/hope Bill takes on one of my Adcom GFA555 power amps. I'm enamored with them from JW's upgrade and wonder what Bill might bring to the table. He 'does' that amp, but his calendar is presently closed for new work - we'll see. |
jafant - it is a great hobby. For me, audio has been at the core of my work-life. In addition to Thiel Audio I've consulted for other manufacturers, made and upgraded stringed instruments, produced concerts, and worked with musicians in various ways to upgrade their performances and recordings. I'm a sound guy. My musical recording and playback equipment have been valuable and enjoyable tools. Most of what I have and use I have had and used for many decades. I upgrade and replace carefully as advancements become available. The Classé gear has been with me since around 1990 when we bought it for Thiel Audio. It was replaced by Bryston, Conrad Johnson, Mark Levinson and Krell with a parade of temporary gear for comparison. The Classé was bomb-proof and very 'smooth', but lacking in ultimate resolution / detail. I lived with that for a very long time. I had tried some unsuccessful layman's upgrades, but it was your introduction to Bill Thalmann that led me to go big time. I'm looking forward to what he does with these pieces. Bill's soundroom is pretty rudimentary; it's a place within the large shop with 3 walls to define a physical space, with some aspects of an acoustical space. Although not a normal, enclosed, controllable playback room, on the plus side, the 20' ceiling and 50' (more or less) back exterior wall make a non-reverberant space which is problem-free. We can hear what's going on very well, but I don't know how it would perform as a space to enjoy playback. |
jafant - the shortage of high-functioning practitioners is a real problem in our field. Over the years, and particularly in Jim's waning years, Thiel actively sought someone to carry Jim's work forward. The search involved professional assistance and engaged the myriad relationships Thiel had developed over the decades. Most candidates merely relied on conventional practice and 'wisdom'. Some had fantastical financial requirements; some proved to be pretenders - All lacked critical requirements. No fit was found. In my own less intensive but similar search, I have engaged very knowledgeable consultants. About as close as I've come to understanding the situation is that the world has changed. (duh) In our youth, bright young people could imagine niches to apply their interests and passions toward building an enterprise to support the development of those undertakings into right livelihoods. Such was Thiel Audio. We created a company so that Jim could exercise his (albeit seminal) design talents and we could all apply our own abilities to making it succeed. We're approaching a half century ago, when there were more holes in a more amorphous market, more stones left unturned, more expendable income spread across a broader swath of society - in short, what I read as more confidence in creating one's life and future. Part of our own calculus for jumping into Thiel Audio was the vision that there must be plenty of other people who shared our desire to play back recorded music with better tools and equipment than was presently available. This equation requires enough confidence in the upside potential of the vision to justify the risks of buy-in. Among those risks were that our parents (Thiel and Gornik) re-mortgaged their homes for our start-up capital. Failure was never an option. I don't know whether that world still exists. It's a huge picture; I hope this cameo captures the gist of it. Today I see plenty of bright young people. But if they're smart enough to try to make their impossible dream a reality, they seem to be opting for options in the 'new order' of the twenty-first century with astronomical upside potential. I don't see high-resolution audio playback anywhere in today's world-view. Thiel Audio didn't find an heir to what we built. As Bill Thalmann approaches retirement, he hasn't found an heir to what he's built. Will there ever be another Nelson (the one and only) Pass? I don't see it. And on and on. Vandersteen and Wilson have engaged their next generation in the pursuit. Bravo. But they had created a niche nearly guaranteeing continuing success. Home-grown doesn't match the new milieu very well. If we sit back and regret the changing tide, I'm afraid innovative niche audio may be drifting out to sea. If a hundred or a thousand of us encourage and sponsor young talent to carry on the work of breakthrough audio, perhaps we could keep it happening. Cheers.
|
sdlr - I picked up a pair of near mint CS3.5s in Weschester County NY under similar circumstances. Big house, art dealer, posh entertainment - replacing the hi fi with Sonus in-wall and ceiling speakers fed from Spotify. He was most complimentary about the speakers and how much they had enjoyed them over the years - and the system was in good working condition. But the kids were grown and gone, etc. etc. I suspect there might be a resurgence of interest - eventually. Music can be profound, and MP3 over Sonus is really a big step down. |
I shouldn't be interested since I don't presently have a good playback room- it's a leap of faith. I've heard the 7.2 once at Rob's Coherent Source Service ten years ago, in a very compromised room. In fantasy-imagination land what do you suppose the 7.2 would 'be' with a 3.7 coax refitted to it. Hmmm. |
The CS7 was created in the mid 90s transition between Vifa making the drivers we co-developed with them vs Thiel making everything in-house. That in-house driver manufacturing capability was in force before I left in 1995, but in its infancy. The first driver built in-house was the CS6 woofer, the motor of which was also used in the original CS7. The other CS7 drivers were all developed in conjunction with Vifa. We had a great run with Vifa, but there is only so far an OEM manufacturer will go in making weird stuff. All of our drivers were out-of-the-box / different from 'normal'. Vifa offered all of our innovations to any of their customers, which made the R&D pay back for them. However, eventually we mutually decided that our needs diverged from their market. This transition occurred over 5+ years and everybody expected what happened. It happened at the CS7. The CS7 drivers incorporated as much of Jim's ideas as possible, given R&D constraints and especially prototype cycling times. 4-6 weeks was a fast prototype turn-around time which limited iterations to a handful. As Jim and Walter learned how quickly and effectively they could prototype new driver ideas in-house, they set about iterating dozens of advancements. The coax was proven for the 2.e Rapid advancements turned into all new drivers for what became the CS7.2, along with the necessary crossover modifications. Rob says that the great majority of CS7 owners opted to implement 7.2 status with all new drivers and crossover networks. I heard both models side-by side at Rob's shop several years ago. His room has an all-glass floor to ceiling wall on one side and effectively no wall on the other side with only about 12' between the back and front walls. Far from ideal. In that awkward space with good amplification and cabling, the CS7 was the safer bet. Its presentation was a little smoother and easier, less transiently crisp, and therefore less precise and detailed. The 7.2 had considerably sharper dynamic range and inner detail. Rob had either for sale and someone bought the 7.2s, which was fine with him. The 7.2 better epitomizes Jim's vision. His last project was creating a next generation coax with a 'better' tweeter and 'better and smaller' midrange for use in the 7.3 and 2.4. That never happened. |
duramax 747 - Yes, indeed. The 7.2 wasn't on my radar, being a relatively new product with no service issues. But not that I'm getting a pair it becomes more a part of my working stable. The new wire (nearing finalization) and upgraded components, layout and fluid-flow wavelaunch technologies will all apply. My redevelopment work is quite universal in that the new solutions and techniques apply to all products across the board. This week I am deriving a crossover schematic from the layout drawing. I am pleased to see no electrolytic caps on the drawing - I'll verify from my actual speakers. Note that the 7.2 crossover is on the cabinet bottom (my favorite place) behind the passive radiator and quite distant from the woofer and upper drivers. So in stock form its EMF exposure is minimized. The 7.2 is eminently upgradable in due time. |
duegi - your 2.3 serial numbers place them before the upgrade at 4567 which added a bucking magnet to the back of the midrange coax. That magnet has two principal effects: 1-greatly reduces stray magnetic fields to decrease interference with a TV, cables, etc. 2- the magnetic field is more effectively focused in the motor gap. It sounds cleaner. Rob at Coherent Source Service could tell you if and/or how to upgrade if needed or wanted. Historical note: The CS2.3 sported the first iteration of the passively coupled coax driver which was then applied to the PCS. A few years later it wad further advanced along with advancements to the woofer which became the drivers for the CS2.4. |
duegi - you're on it. I would not consider upgrading the 2.3 to 2.4 drivers. The crossover tunings take the cabinet particulars into consideration. Keep what you have. Note that outboard crossovers can benefit from a different layout because the driver EMFs are no longer in consideration. Plus airflow can be utilized. If you are interested in considering my OXO cabinet and/or layout, send me a PM. |
These comparative observations are quite interesting to me. As you know, Jim developed new technologies throughout his inventive career. Each new product incorporated something, or multiple things that were brand new. So the timeline becomes a parallel consideration to the model capability. Bigger, more expensive models bring greater dynamic range and deeper bass. More drivers can deliver better signal integrity spread more evenly across the musical range. The time factor / when the model came out, brings subtlety and sophistication due to new solutions, primarily in driver subtleties, especially after Thiel began making its own drivers in the mid 1990s. |
FWIW - room size is a many-faceted thing. When we purpose built Thiel’s listening room, Jim specified a maximum size of 11,000 cubic feet. A larger room requires greater woofer excursion, which is difficult and expensive to achieve. That room works nicely with non-subwoofered models from CS2 upward. The larger Thiels didn’t over-drive that room unless really cranked. The room had 4 doors that could be opened to vent the bass if needed. I suspect a room much larger than that one might require subwoofer support to pressureize the room and keep the woofers from flapping. I’m off early tomorrow morning to see Bill Thalmann, pick up a pair of 2.4s and 7.2s under the guise of my niece’s wedding. I’ll report when I return next week. |
drotti2004I don’t see any specs for the Loki EQ on the Schiit site. The 03a needs around 6dB at 30Hz with a curve diminishing to zero boost at around 250Hz. Any EQ that does that is suitable. I’d like to add that the 03a is a fairly mature Thiel offering. The felt solution for diffraction control was quite effective, and the drivers and XO components were a league up from the original 03. The cabinet (if I remember correctly) was made of 1-1/8" industrial particle board as were its CS3 and CS3.5 successors. You could help my memory by looking at the woofer. I don’t remember whether the 01 (a,b,c) woofer was used in the 03a. It had a steel basket which could be tested with a magnet at the mounting lip. I presently have no records on the 03 / 03a, but would like to document them via driver names/models and XO circuitry. I could derive a schematic from a good photograph of the crossover. I understand if this ask is beyond your interest. But, on the other hand, if you are game, so am I. As a further note, the 03/03a will be retrofittable with the next generation CS3.5 drivers (beyond 3.6 quality) and internal upgrades as well as an upgraded EQ. I don't remember whether it was the 03 or 03a that Harry Pearson (himself!) reviewed and announced that Jim Thiel was an upcoming bright star to be followed. Whichever model it was - that's when demand for the the models 3 and 4 (coherent sources) skyrocketed. |
Well - the Virginia trip grew some legs. Beyond my niece's wedding and the Bill Thalmann / Music Technology visit, we added two pairs of vintage Thiel speakers to our stable from Long Island. Oblgny's 2.4s augment a pair borrowed from audiojan to allow mix and match upgrade comparisons. Oblgny's complaint about the 2.4s revolves around the power (listening volume) required for them to come to life. My only observation is that the listening space is essentially a whole house due to large openings at the listening room side and rear, plus an open stairway to the second floor. The design brief for the model 2 is geared toward smaller, more intimate spaces. One of these years, I see oblgny being happy with Renaissance CS3.5s, which assume a larger listening volume. A couple of towns down the road, I picked up the 7.2s from a retiring and downsizing electrical engineer. His substantial system was already dismantled, but looked to have been quite upscale. We called his pair CS7.1s, as they were upgraded CS7s, retaining their concrete baffles and steel grille frames. These baffles are not cracked, as many have become from shrinkage. The drivers are all fully Thiel, made in-house. I look forward to documenting them and eventually coaxing them into even higher performance. A late exit (4:30) from Locust Valley turned into 3.5 hours to circumnavigate 45 miles around NYC and arrive Berryville, Virginia around 1:AM. No problems. My trip to Bill Thalmann's Music Technology in Springfield (south DC) resulted in 3 productive hours comparing listening notes and agreeing on a strategy for the EQ. To allow for a larger power transformer and generous circuit layout, we are moving the powersupply to its own chassis, with enough power for two EQs in case of fully balanced configuration. Jim Williams' upgrade is already a substantial improvement over Jim Thiel''s original design due to quieter transistors and regulating the power supply. Bill T. and Jim W both judged Jim T's design as 'elegant' with plenty of room for improvement. I'm excited. Within a week or two, I'll be ordering caps and resistors for Bill's new treatment. For the record, we're seeking a top-drawer PC board designer for this project. We listened through Bill's upgrade of my original Classé DR6 which is now absolutely glorious. The DR9s have been reworked but still await new parts. I also left my second Adcom GFA555 for Bill's full treatment. I'm also seeking to buy an OPPO 105 (not necessarily D) player for Bill's full-fledged upgrade. He completely replaces the analog audio section making the 'D' treatment redundant. Please feel free to guide me to a low-hours player for me to send to Bill. I also report an opportunity for the right person. Bill seeks an apprentice to learn his considerable craft. Any leads can be sent to me for further briefing. There is more work than his shop can handle, and it's not easy to find the right candidate for an additional Music Technologist. Monday evening's drive landed me home in New Hampshire around 2:AM |
oblgny - on the bright side, you have virtually no standing wave problems. Also, you can pressurize the propagation space with a subwoofer (or two) to reduce main driver excursions for cleaner sound. Or sliding doors to wall off that large (dining) alcove would create a better defined sonic launch end. The room is generally highly under appreciated re its sonic contribution. I suggest focusing your efforts there rather than seeking solutions from audio equipment. The record-making process assumes 'normalcy' for playback. Normal dimensions, symmetry, etc. Room EQ Wizzard, FuzzMeasure, etc. can give you some clues re problems and solutions efficacy. See where that takes you. |
jafant - I’m sorry I couldn’t really ’tour’ his capabilities. I took a few hours of his time for our focused business. His bench seemed to have a pretty big bank of gear: oscilloscope, signal generator, etc. I don’t know whether he has an audio analyzer, etc. but he seems to use tech along with his ears, instincts and accumulated experience. . The entire space is concrete floor / concrete block / steel ceiling at about 16’ high at 2500 square foot rectangle (40x60?) with about 1/3 having an 8’-9’ mezzanine ceiling covering the playback and customer interface areas. The playback area’s front wall behind the speakers is an overhead garage door. The left wall is solid (drywall on studs) with display shelves of equipment for sale, including various clasic speakers. Ditto the back wall. The right side is open to the sales area which adds about 10-12’. No treatment beyond a carpet.(?) Ceiling is plywood above 16" 2x12 joists parallel to the front wall. Area size is 16’ wide by about 18’ long (plus the openings to adjacent areas.) For all its industrial simplicity and eccentricity, it sounds quite neutral and without problems. We could readily and easily distinguish between EQ iterations in mono or stereo. Sounds like Bill has a well-developed home hi fi system, but this set-up is pretty minimal. We used the hot-rotted Classe DR6 preamp which sounded clean and pristine. His power amp is a pro piece I didn’t recognize and therefore don’t remember. He had thoroughly hot-rodded it. Tight, clean, broadband. wow. Disc player was an OPPO 105 for which he offers a thorough ($2400) audiophile upgrade. I want one. Turntable is an Oracle Delphi VI - which I covet. We listened exclusively to / through Thiel CS3.5 to handle the EQd bass. I had moved the crossovers into the cabinet bottoms, but otherwise they are stock. UPS had shattered the grille frames which are part of the anti-diffraction scheme, but we survived anyhow. Next visit I’ll take upgraded frames with me. I didn’t notice what cabling was used, but it looked audiophile. The only real new ground we covered was to cross-check our interpretations of the different iterations of the 3.5 EQ, which I would describe as identical between us. We’re on the same page. We’re farther down the path toward various levels of much cleaner, firmer, clearer sound from the EQ. Granted that higher performance costs more. But for those who love the sealed bass and true to 20Hz extension, this EQ is a fine way to get it while keeping the enclosure quite compact, stiff and inexpensive. I think you know that I am more enamored with this sealed / EQd bass solution than the baked in compromises of reflex bass. |
jafant - at Bill's shop, he must be able to drive all kinds of loads with both unbalanced and balanced inputs. CJ experimented wide and long about adding balanced operation and chose to not go there. The unbalanced circuit simplicity won the musicality race even though balanced is 6dB quieter. True balanced requires twice the part count, and fudged balanced often disappoints. My experience reflects his observations. RCA cables often perform better than their XLR counterparts, unless there are pro conditions such as long runs, high EMF environments, lighting interference, etc. In livingroom hi fi we often have very manageable environments where single-ended RCA outperforms balanced XLR. On my personal front, Bill is removing the input balancing circuitry from my Classé DR9s. It is op-amp based and of lower quality than the actual single-ended unbalanced input stage. We'll use the extra space for larger, better caps and a cleaner layout for what Bill promises to be decisively better results. Regarding the 3.5 equalizer, the top version will actually have two complete circuit boards with one running positive and the other inverted, requiring an EQ for each channel - powered by an outboard power supply big enough to power both channels. That fully balanced performance will be better than unbalanced RCA, but at double the component count and cost. In the case of a real balanced preamp and poweramp (such as Benchmark), the true-balanced EQ will maintain balanced topology throughout. I didn't ask, but I bet Bill has CJ at home. |
jafant - yes, my workhorse with outside collaborators is based on the 02. We invent and update ideas and can send them coast to coast at reasonable cost and risk. The fruit of these experiments will hopefully take some marketable form, probably in a very limited edition, defined by the fact that a phase coherent stand-mount monitor can be subverted so many ways. Ear height is absolutely important. Floor standing greatly solves that. Bass fundamentals are quite important. Larger floor cabinets help that. Etc. But, yes, there will be something. There is something now and it's pretty exciting compared to history and to what else is out there. Far and away the biggest deal is developing some team that wants to take what we're learning into the future. In my mid seventies, that's not me. When we have actual goods to show, we'll start pulling together a company. |
Yes, separate power supplies would be better. In all design undertakings a significant piece of the art is cost-effectiveness. Bill and I discussed various solutions and agreed that a more robust supply with various isolation techniques increases the advantages to both channels more so than the isolation effects of two separate supplies per se. Of course, that's considering cost. Since the supply will be separate, two could be purchased and assigned to separate channels. One of these days you could report on the relative value of such a choice. More generally, my goal is to find the next plateau on the value curve, optimized at higher level(s) of performance that stock Thiel. Those levels / plateaus will settle over time. I already know that Jim Williams' first level upgrade, coupled with simply moving the stock crossover from behind the woofer to the cabinet bottom - are transformative. That will not be a product. The first product will use the same Vifa woofer and its alignment, but a different (post 3.6) midrange and tweeter with better XO components. |
jafant - by post 3.6 product I meant that the drivers will use all of the 3.6 technologies plus some additional ones. I'm not presently addressing any products newer than the discrete-driver ones. Those drivers are geriatric and mostly obsolete. Replacements and enhancements will keep those products in use for decades to come. The 2.4 is an exception because it landed in my lap, lots of love there, and saying no is hard for me. |
My response crossed yours in space. These speakers were not modded. A resistor lead touching a coil does not make electrical contact since the coil wire is insulated with varnish. I suggest you do some manual housekeeping so that nothing touches anything else and get to know your new speakers. We have considerable experience in upgrading 2.4s which we can apply either with these boards or with new boards. See if you can find beetlemania's report(s) earlier in this thread. He or jafant might guide you to the pages - this is a very long thread . . . |
halifax - I understand your unease about the visually sloppy work. However, the boards look totally right to me. Those are classic Thiel brands and layout. Later 2.4s went to China on PC boards, and some had poorly made coils. I like the sound of the Thiel boards better than FSC/Chinese. Acousta-coil was Thiel’s long-term supplier. In fact I introduced aerospace (6-9s) wire to them for the 03 in 1978 and Acousta-Coil and StraightWire built their businesses around us and that wire. The purity is as good as it gets, although over the years the top wire declined to 4-9s); the winding aspect ratio is correct as is the oven-baked binding varnish. Those yellow Elpac caps were developed in 1988 for the CS5 and remained in all Thiel products until that original German film was gone.We bought and used over 100,000 of those tin foil and styrene film 1uF caps. Aeon is Solen’s Asian manufactured line. Thiel kept French Solens’ in its upper end and used the Aeon clones in the lower models. Those resistors are non-inductives that Jim developed around 1983 for the CS3. They are the performance weak link (IMO), and can be replaced if you wish with equal value Mills MRA-12s. We can talk about doubling some of them. I would speculate that one of the boards was built by a less experienced technician, but both should perform equally well. Those early hard-wired boards with classic components are higher performing than later PCBs with various asian components. |
halifax - your #s 293/4 are the highest #s of old LEX boards I have seen. Rob G had estimated around # 250 was changeover to FST / China. If and as you consider new boards, it would be best to layout new boards to accommodate larger parts. All of the upgrade caps are larger than stock caps. I suggest sitting with what you have for now and keep in touch about further refinements later. I have a hunch there's plenty to love with what you have now. |
