Good to see you again. Are you building a new loudspeaker?What else is on your radar this Spring season?I've been detoxing :-) I've recently converted a 3-way speakers, that previously was designed with higher order filters, to first order time phase coherent which sounds really good. I am looking to build my own website publishing some of the designs I've made, but so far time has not permitted. |
There is a new loudspeaker on the scene in the tradition of Time -I’ve read the review and also the interview with the designer but I couldn’t find any reference to it being "time-phase coherent". He did mention the slanted baffle was made to "time align" the tweeter and woofer acoustic center but that does not necessarily mean a "time-phase coherent" design. https://www.audiophilia.com/reviews/2019/12/19/59hvvshkumcd2ft8l8oglik1j7r18c Also the woofer seems rather large, probably around 7in., which may have an issue running at a higher frequencies to match the tweeter which is required of the woofer if using first order design. It may explain why most of Thiel designs using smaller than average mid driver. Anyway, my 2cents. |
For those who prefers time-phase coherent design, you may find this article interesting. They compared an identical speaker that was done with time-phase coherent and with more conventional approach. Since the comparison was done on the same identical speaker, it has some credibility. You could read the article, but the finding was the difference was subtle and more clearly heard in an
anechoic chamber but if done in a regular living room, with reflections and all that, the difference was more difficult to hear. https://audioxpress.com/article/zero-phase-in-studio-monitors |
phase coherence made other anomalies much more obvious, requiring solutions to problems that would have remained invisible in normal phase-compromised systems.Yes, I would agree with this. I also think first order, time-phase coherent design has a "special sound" that cannot be found in other types of design as I have said so in some of my previous posts. Also, FYI, the studies done in my previous post (said link) was not necessarily done using first order speaker. I won't go into much detail, but basically they use a front end DSP software to linearize the phase to make the speaker 0 phase even if the speakers were LR2 or LR4. I suppose the difference would be more obviously if the studies were done using purely first order speakers. |
I and my clients can hear the difference between a correct, unaltered take, vs one that has been "linearized"Personally I also have my doubt as to the "software linearization" technique. It just seems too easy. Also we don’t know what type of hardware that was used in the studies. A lot of the DSP method was done on hardware that a bit on the humble side, and those hardware may represent a bottleneck in the studies and may have masked some of the differences. |
I know for certain that many amp, cable and source practitioners and critics use Thiel as a tool to "see into" the source chain. I find that significant.I find that interesting is that now it’s probably harder to purchase Thiel speakers, what speakers do they use to evaluate their equipment now? Also the link I post demonstrates bit of an irony. Studios have resorted to using software to linearize the phase of their studio monitors, which means they obviously have to agree that it matters, but the article came off as saying the difference was not much. |
As for bi-wiring, I know there are different opinions on the topic. For me here the order in term of improvement: 1. Single run but larger gauge wire 2. Smaller gauge wire but bi-wire 3. By amp For me, going from 1 to 3, the most difference was in the soundstage focus, in which the images are easier to see. There are those who think the improvement of bi-wire comes mainly from the overall larger combined gauge, but personally I see the advantage comes from the bi-wiring itself. |
Out of curiosity, has anyone here listen to speaker that has been corrected by the program Python rePhase? I think Tom did mention he had listened to before and after rephase? Does the sound change at all? The correction done by rePhase can be done in software so there is no hardware involved. People has listened to both before and after with everything else -- speakers, amps ... -- some say there is a difference some say not. For background, rePhase claims it can transform any speakers into time-phase coherent. |
jon_5912, I'll let Tom comment with regard to your post. Personally, I think there's a market for both: time-phase coherent and non-time-phase coherent. There are plus and minus in either approach. Tom seems to think time-phase coherent is the only way to go. The new Thiel management seems to think otherwise. I was not there, but it seems like the lack of a reconciliation of the two polar opposite idea was what had done them in. If there was a middle of the road, maybe Thiel would still be around. |
That's why I think either approach has its merits. To say one is "better" than the other is missing the point. As I also said in my previous posts (many posts ago), high-order speakers such as 24db/slope tend to have more "slam" vs. first order speaker, but on the other hand, first order speakers have a certain naturalness that not found in higher order speakers. |
Thiels never fail to reproduce naturally I would agree with that. On the other hand, higher order speakers tend to have some extra details or trebles on the voice that makes the voice "clearer" but not naturally. When you listen to a person talking in real life, you don’t hear the extra details that sometimes being reproduced by the speakers. On the same token, when the drum beats, the higher order speakers have some extra sparkles on the top end that makes it appear to have more slam, but probably not there on the real drum in real life. But some people may prefer the extra slam and sparkle of the higher order speaker so it's not like one is better than the other. |
My impression of the Thiel CS2.4 My first impression when I unpack them is that they seem a bit bigger than I remember. The craftmanship is impecable. Something like this today would probably cost $20K. And they are heavy!!! My only disappointment visually is that the bass driver is advertised as 8in but I think the drivers are more like large 7in. I have a pair of ScanSpeak 8in driver they they look quite bigger than the CS2.4 "8in." Anyway, I build my own speakers so I usually don't buy commercial speakers, but I have to have these and I am glad I did. These are probably one of the very few that can do a perfect step response. John Atkinson said that may be less than 10 speakers in the world that can do this. Owning the CS2.4 is like owning a piece of history. I think they will be a future classic. I remember the first time I listened to them at an audio shop a long time ago just after the speakers were introduced to the market, and the first thing I said to the owner was that "They don't sound bright at all". Every single review I've read always said something to the effect that they are a bit bright and so on which is odd. In my set up, they sound natural and the treble is very sweet and not harsh or bright at all. But I think they are very transparent, so I suppose if your electronics are bright, it's possible that they will sound bright. I have two setups in my house. One is Arcam CD23, Conrad Johnson 17LS, and Simaudio Moon W3. In this system, they sound very natural and neutral but very good. My other setup is Ayre QB9 DSD, Pass Lab XP10, and Simaudio W7 amp and in this system they actually sound a bit warm (I though I was listening to a pair of Sonus Faber :-)) So I guess I couldn't make them sound bright :-). Anyway, I am not going to repeat all the accolades they received from professional magazines. But instead I am going talk about first order filter which is used in the CS2.4. Actually they are not only first order, they are also time coherent. You can use first order in your design, but it does not automatically mean time coherent. I have built speakers using various filter order such as 4th order (24db roll off), 2nd order (12db roll off), and first order (6db roll off), and without any doubt any my mind, first order has the most natural and musical sound. As you go to higher order, the sound does sound a bit "clearer" but less and less natural. But I think higher order tend to spot light the instruments but I don't think it's natural. The Thiel sounds unmistakenly as a first order. I design my speakers using first order so I know how first order sounds like. Interestingly, something that I didn't expect, the CS2.4 has a very similar soundstage as mine I guess because mine speaker also use first order filter. I would like to describe what an first order sounds like. Everything is very coherent, no instrument or aspect of the soundstage is being favored. The sound is spacious, airy, open, liquid, continuos like real life. The treble is very integrated into the entire sound. In some speakers that use higher order filters, the treble sometimes feels like a separate element, like a shin that overlays the sound. If you think about it, treble is part of every sound such as your speech sibilance, the drum hit, and not just from high hat. With first order filter, the treble is just like that as in real life that it is within the sound, over overlaying the sound. I listen to the CS2.4 I feel very at ease, it's like I just sit back and enjoy the sound. I don't recall feeling like that listening to any other commercial speakers. The treble, the bass, the soundstage, everything is just right. The other thing I like to talk about is time coherent. As, I mentioned above, being first order does not automatically mean time coherent. The CS2.4 goes a step further and also is time coherent. The claim is that time coherent makes the sound more natural and has better soundstage. My speakers are first order but not time coherent, and compare mine vs. the CS2.4, I guess the advantage of time coherent is subtle because it's hard for me to tell. Mine and the CS2.4 use completely different drivers so there are just too many variables. But as I said above, even though the CS2.4 and mine use different drives and designed by different persons, there is something about the sound that is very similar that is very characteristic of first order filter. Anyway, if you are looking for a pair of speakers, I highly recommend CS2.4 unfortunately they won't be easy to find. I feel like if Thiel would make these as is today, a lot of people will buy them. I know Tom Thiel participates in this thread so may be we can convince him. I think Thiel products are somewhat different from the past. First order and time coherent are no longer part of their designs. Besides Vandersteen, I don't know of anyone making first order time coherent speakers. I can tell you from experience that it's not easy so maybe that's why no many people do it. |
In my previous post, when I compared different filter order, I didn't mean to say that higher order is bad and first order is good. I think each filter order has its own strength and weakness. High order filter objective gives you more "clarity" but I also think high order subtracts the "musical" part of the music. Higher order tends to give you a more "pin point" image production vs. first order. Listening to the CS2.4, although it has a lot of see through clarity of the soundstage, I think I've have heard better image see through with other speakers, but the CS2.4 is just more musically satisfy. I guess my English is not good enough so I want to quote a Stereophile review of the CS3.7 review when he compared the sound of the CS3.7 vs. the Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 8: "While the Wilsons did give Francois Couturier's piano in Brahem's "Vague/E la nave va" a slightly more vivid presence, I felt the Thiels did a better job of seeing into the heart of the music. What does that mean? It wasn't a matter of soundstaging or holographic imaging—both speakers were champs at that—but the Thiels had a quality I can describe only as grace. Grace is like a soap bubble: Try to dissect it and it's gone. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that the Thiels got out of their own way, which is what a high-end speaker is supposed to do." That is how I felt about first order filter. It communicates the heart and emotion of the music better. To me, first order is like tube amplifier which may not be as clear or have the impact of solid state, but it is just more musically satisfying. When I design my speaker, using the same cabinet and drivers, if I design the cross over network using higher order filter, it was more or less an academic exercise. But when I tried to design using first order, it took me a long time to get right but it's absolutely worth it. As a matter of fact, it is easy to make your speakers sound "right" using high order filter, and it's a lot easier to mess up the sound using first order filter. The one major disadvantage of first order, time coherent speaker is that it really restricts your options as far as driver configuration. That is why almost all time coherent speakers are essentially three way. All Thiel speakers and Vandersteen are essentially three way. Vandersteen has a couple of 4-way but the fourth driver essentially acts as a subwoofer crossing over at very low frequency so it's not a problem. If you want to use multiple bass drivers then it's probably not possible since it would be very difficult to integrate the sound coming from different drivers with first order filter. Also if you want to build large speaker with multiple midrange drivers, multiple bass drivers, I would think you have to use higher order filter. |
There are many things in audio that can be heard but not explained. The human ear/mind is not the same as an oscilloscope or any other measuring device. Measurements are good to have but they cannot fully inform what we experience when listening to music (and not even partially inform the emotional part of our experience).Yes, it can be measured but it's not trivial and something as subtle as cable break-in, you need really sensitive equipment and not to mention the knowledge of how to use those equipment. But the principle of cable burn in is well established (look up electro-migration) so there is no point to reinvent the wheel. As for speaker driver break-in, it has been measured. That is why speaker designers only measure the various speaker driver parameters only when the drivers already well broken-in. |
https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/meetings/PDFplus/fus Hi Tom, I tried to click on the link but apparently I do not have permission to view the document. Thanks, -Andy |
I don't mean to turn this thread into a "component burn in", but since the topic came up, I would like to at least talk about the science behind the cause of "burn in". We learn a lot through our visual process. We see things as they happen and learn from them. If something we are unable to see, then a lot of times we think that they don't happen or we don't believe that they happen. A good example would be current flowing inside a conductor. We can't see current flowing so a lot of people have a hard time understanding what's going on unless one has the electrical engineering background and experiences. First let's talk about something we see and agree. There are a lot of processes that alter the nature of metal. For example, metal annealing is a process which uses heat to alter the metal crystal structure. Most people would understand this because they can see the actual process with their own eyes. Another example of metal burn in is to literally burn it. If you apply a high enough current to a conductor, it will burn which is a permanent and irreversible process. Most people can easily understand this since he can see it with his own eye. "Copper got burnt" is a layman term, but the scientific term is called metal oxidization. The high current creates heat which enables the copper and oxygen molecules to interact to become copper oxide. Copper oxide turns to black color therefore we can see it with our own eyes so we believe the metal got "burnt". Now if copper oxide has no color, then it would be harder for people to believe it. Now you don't have to run a current through copper to turn copper into copper oxide. You can literally burn it with a fire. So the root cause of copper oxide is heat and it could come from anything that has heat. Heat is also a layman term, but in science heat comes from the speed of the molecule or any particle. If a molecule has a high velocity, it has a high amount of heat (or energy). So the fundamental of heat is particle velocity scientifically. But you also see copper turns into copper oxide without any high current or "heat", but the reality is statistically, at room temperature, there are always some copper molecules that have higher high velocity (or hotter) than the average molecules, so those molecules with higher than average speed will interact with oxygen to become copper oxide. Most people without a scientific background probably don't see this and probably cannot visualize this whole process. The key here is the word "statically". It's similar to water vapor. Most of the water sitting inside your house will not vapor. But there are also some water molecules that will have higher speed than the average water molecules so they can jump into the air. All I said above to show that molecules are not that different from a billiard ball since they move, they get bounced around, push around just like regular objects. Electrons for the most parts behave like billiard ball in the same way they got move around. If you use the equation to describe for example electron mobility, the principals behind them basically come from the equation: F = ma. In layman term, electron mobility is how much it moves in (m/s) when it gets push. But you say "aha, electrons get pushed by electrical field, but things like billiard ball gets pushed differently". But I say "aha back at you, when you push something in the real world, what actually going on at the molecular level is that your molecule electric field pushes at someone else electric field but you just don't see it". Your molecules never actually touch someone else molecules. It's only the field that interacts even in the real world. You see when you see thing at the molecule level, things don't look that much different. Electron motilities are used to calculate resistance. In metal, there are a lot more free electron so electrons are "free er to move", therefore they have higher mobility vs. insulator. When electrons move, they bounce around within the metal structure. The higher the current, the more likely and stronger they bounce and hit other things within the metal structure, in this case other molecules. When it happens, electrons transfer its speed to the molecules which in turn the molecules will have higher speed. High enough current will eventually give higher speed molecule and will heat up the copper conductor. Let's turn to the science behind our layman term "cable burn in". Most people would agree that at high enough current, with enough heat, it can potentially alter the metal structure permanently because we can see them visually with our own eyes so believe it. But the problem is at low current, such as at our audio system level, most people don't believe the current is high enough to alter the crystal structure of the metal. This is where it is harder to explain unless you have a background in electrical engineer. It took me years of going to school and experiences so I guess I can understand most people are skeptical. One has to understand the metal structure is not perfect and ideal. A metal structure also has a lot of impurities such as oxygen molecules. When electrons move, they encounter a lot of obstacles (otherwise there wouldn't be heat). And statistically, some electrons even at low current, will acquire a lot of energy equivalent to that of higher current, it then can impart enough energy to a molecule to permanently dislodge a molecule position permanently or the molecule can acquire enough energy to be oxidized and turned into copper oxide. When the copper becomes oxidized, its electrons will not be conductive (or you can say its electrons now have much lower mobility). That's why audiophile grade cables typically use higher oxygen free conductor. These oxygen molecules can either oxidize copper molecule or they can obstruct the path of the electrons. If you measure resistance at DC, the cables probably are very close, but when you play music, our hearing is sensitive enough to pick up the difference. I guess this is where hearing and measurement start to diverge - very small measurement difference but results in large listening difference. What I said above is to present a case in which how a small current can potentially alter a molecule crystal structure which results in cable break-in. I can explain further but my guess is if you're skeptical, then I don't think what I said would change your mind. |
I agree with Tom that a good pair of speakers should sound good regardless of cables. Even with low cost cable like Monster should sound good if the speakers are properly designed. If a set of cable make the speakers sound bright, then the speakers probably already on the edge of bright sounding. Likewise a good set of cables should sound good regardless of speakers. If the cables make the speakers sound overly warm then the cables probably already warm sounding on its own. I just got a pair of Acoustic Zen Hologram II cables and I couldn't believe the difference in sound. The previous cables were QED Silver Revelation which was not that bad, but the Acoustic Zen is an order of magnitude better. It's not just better, it's like whoa better. The QED is about $150 a pair. The Acoustic Zen is $1200 a pair so it's almost 10 times more expensive. Is it ten times better? I actually think so, but I think at that price point, it's getting close to diminishing return, at least with respect to my system resolution. I suppose with much higher end system, a much more expensive cables will have a more linear improvement with respect to price. |
Listening to the CS2.4 and comparing to my own speakers I notice a couple of things. The CS2.4 like most Thiel speakers use concentric tweeter midrange driver. And because of that, the soundstage is very stable. I can move my head but the sound remains constant most of the time. There are not a lot of quality off the shelf concentric drivers available commercially and those that are available are not of high quality. So my speakers use separate dome tweeter and midrange driver. Since I build my own speakers, I could afford very high end capacitor. When I listen to Jewel song 2 Find U on her album 0304 on my speakers, there is this treble glow that sort of being sprinkled over the soundstage that is kind of addictive. It's like the golden glow over the atmosphere you see during a sunset at the beach. I use the track above as an example but on my speakers this treble glow is there in every track. I mention that because I use very expensive cap in my tweeter cross over, but when I put in a low cost cap the glow was greatly diminished. When listening to the same track above on the CS2.4, I notice that treble glow was not really there. So I was wondering if the CS2.4 might not have used a good cap? Or it could be the concentric tweeter midrange driver is a compromise to achieve time-phase coherent? Also, some time-phase coherent designs use a phase delay network on the tweeter, and the phase delay network uses up 2 capacitors per network so if you want to use high end capacitors it will cost a lot of money especially for a commercial design. I don't know how the CS2.4 xover is designed so I am not sure. As for the CS2.4SE version, from what I heard, the xover was modified to use more expensive capacitors, and some people have said that the SE version sounds sweeter than the regular version so maybe it's the capacitor that is responsible for the treble glow. My speakers tweeter is ScanSpeak AirCir soft dome tweeter where as the CS2.4 uses aluminum so that could explain the difference as well as soft dome is known to have a sweeter sound vs. aluminum. Anyway, back to the concentric tweeter midrange driver. Theoretically I always knew that concentric driver has the advantage as far as soundstage presentation stability and coherent and having a bigger sweet spot. Now that I can personally listen to the CS2.4 in my own home, I am more than convinced that it's the way to go if you want a good soundstage presentation. Earlier Thiel speakers used separate tweeter and midrange driver. But later designs, all Thiel designs have all used concentric drivers so I guess he came to the same conclusion. The problem of concentric is the motor design. Basically you need to have a motor that have to drive both the tweeter and the midrange, hence you have to compromise. Not only that, when the midrange driver vibrates, it modulates the tweeter as well so it's another thing you have to take care off. If you have to separate tweeter and midrange driver, you can optimize separately to your heart's content. I have seen a few concentric drivers available commercially but their frequency response do leave a lot to be desired. In that sense I admire what Thiel have done. They have gone their own way and I wish more speakers manufacturers could take a bit more risks. |
Prof, I didn't get to listen to the CS2.7, but from what I've read, the CS2.4 concentric driver uses mechanical cross over where as the CS2.7 uses electrical xover. It means that the CS2.4 driver probably uses a high pass capacitor in the signal pass and since the midrange need a lower xover frequency, the capacitor probably has a large value which usually is not optimal for high frequency. The signal has to pass through this capacitor even for high frequency. I don't have the information but if I was correct about the CS2.7 concentric driver being electronically xover, the tweeter can have its own xover which means it can be optimized using a more appropriate capacitor therefore it may explain what you heard in term of the treble glow. The CS2.4SE has upgraded capacitors and although I don't know the specific detail, but my guess it's the series capacitor of the concentric midrange is most likely. These high end capacitors do cost a lot of money. For example, a typical for a tweeter capacitor is around 5.6uf which could cost somewhere from $50 - $200 depends on how much you want to spend. For the CS2.4, since the midrange part has to play much lower frequency, the capacitor could be as high as 10uf or more which will cost even more. A quick look up, a 10uf Mundorf Supreme is $55.0. I've read somewhere that the capacitor used in the CS2.4 is Clarity SA which although a good cap but probably not the best. When I used Clarity SA cap in my own speaker tweeter xover, for example Cowboy Junkies Trinity Session track Mining for Gold, the background noise of the recording is not that apparent. But when I switch to Mundorf Supreme cap, the background noise was a lot more apparent and more 3 dimensional. When I listen to the CS2.4, I always told myself that the treble could use better capacitors. As for comparing plasma vs. LCD or LED, I have always prefer plasma over LCD or LED not only for having wider viewing angle, but plasma was always more natural to me. A lot of people may not realize it but picture processing also use filters not that unlike xover in speaker. They also high order or low filter. High order filter in picture processing allows for sharper and clearer image, but at the same time less natural - sort of like music as well. Each TV manufacturer has its own picture characteristic. Sony tends to have a more vibrant and sharper image. Where as Panasonic tends to have a softer picture and I suspect it has to do with the filter design. |
After spending a few weeks with the CS2.4, I start to notice a possible sound signature or if I am a bit overly critical, a possible weakness given the design. As with most Thiel speakers, the mid range driver is smaller than the average mid of other manufacturers. I was not part of the design process but I think the main reason for using small mid driver has to do with time-phase coherent. We Americans have a say "There is no substitute for cubic in." In speaker design, I guess the equivalent would be "There is no substitute for membrane area." When a small mid driver is used, one has to cross over to the bass at a rather high frequency so the bass driver can help out the mid when playing loud. In the case of the CS2.4, I believe I've read that the cross over freq. to the bass is around 1KHz. But still ultimately the laws of physics come into play and being a small mid the advantage is faster transient speed and better clarity which is the hall mark of the CS2.4. On the down side though, at high volume, the sound can be a bit strained as the mid does not have enough membrane area to pressure the air at low frequencies. With the CS2.4, especially with saxophone, the "blah" produced lacks a bit of weight and at high volume, the depends on the recording, the vocal can sound a bit shrill especially if your electronics are sort of in that direction. When you hear people complain about the sound of Thiel speakers in general, I think this is what they talk about. If you're used to speakers which use larger mid driver (for example the Wilson uses 6in and even 7in mid) that have a more relax and warm mid range, you probably think the Thiel house sound a bit on the bright side. Anyway, I guess you cannot have it all. surprised :-) |
The model 2 has never been able to play as loud or deep as the model 3 and above. That's the main reasons it costs so much less. If you like Thiel and want louder, find a series 3 or higher. Hi Tom, Actually I am pretty happy with my the CS2.4. I only brought up the discussion to illustrate differences in design philosophy. Also before I didn't quite know the reason behind different model naming convention. Now I know 2 vs 3 denotes the size of the mid range driver and may be the bass driver as well. |
"An ideal speaker system should have phase response linear with frequency, which in simple terms means that all frequencies produced by the driver reach the listener’s ear at the same time. " This statement seems vague and lacking specifics. I am not sure what they mean by "reaching the listener's ear at the same time". May be written by the marketing department. :-) As Tom said, the only way to prove that a speaker is time-phase coherent is that it can produce a pulse response. You could come up with a lot of reasons as to why a certain speaker is time-phase coherent, but at the end of the day, it has to be able to produce a proper impulse response. And I think I've read somewhere that there is a law in which stated that in order to legally advertise your speakers as "time-phase coherent", it has to prove that it can produce a impulse response. Ideally there would be a single driver that can produce 20Hz - 20kHz but since such a driver does not exist, one has to use electrical filters, and all all filters have phase shift. Some choose to optimize in frequency domain and some choose to optimize in time domain. Another things that often overlooked in Thiel design is the geometry of the baffle which I believe was designed as such to reduce the effect of diffraction and I don't think one can underestimate how it helps the speakers disappear. It definitely adds to manufacture cost and I don't think Thiel did it just for the look. When I see a lot of high end speakers that basically just have a rectangular and square shape I kind of frown ... I am sure they could do a lot better. It seems like Thiel products for some reasons produce a lot of polarized opions - you either like it or you hate it - at least that's the sense I got. I haven't heard all their products, but I appreciate the technologies behind their designs. |
I do not believe that I have seen SN that low for CS 2.4- special speakers indeed. I think it may become a future classic. It is a really unique design. I don't know what others are thinking but there are really nothing about the new speaker designs that interest me. Maybe I would like to listen to some of the Vandersteen's some day but others than that, there are not too much out there that catches my attention. A few years ago, Absolute Sound named a pair of speakers (I'd rather not reveal the name) that costs about $100K as the best speakers in the world. But other than the all aluminum cabinets, the design is more or less a square box with slightly rounded edges to improve diffraction. It uses high order filters and the drivers although were specifically designed in house, I am sure I could obtain similar quality drivers either from Scan Speak, Seas or Accuton. I am a bit disappointed in general in most speaker manufacturers. Most of them are just too derivative. |
I think many of us love our Thiel speakers as that entire package, not just the sound but what the speakers represent in terms of their goal and the engineering talent they represent. Well said prof (maybe prof is a real professor :-) There is another manufacturer that I admire although for a different reason. Sonus Faber's sound is probably completely opposite of Thiel but their design has the same vision as Thiel engineering. Their speakers to me are sculpture first then engineering (like Italian cars). I probably will never own one but I always enjoy looking at them. |
When people asked Vandersteen that his speakers being time phase coherent, what should the listeners expect from his speakers, is there any aspect of his speakers that should be special? What he said surprised me. He said that actually the listeners should not hear anything special at all. He added but over the long term, the listeners will appreciate that the sound is completely natural and life like sounding. |
To me the Thiel sound is the sound that makes me forget about the sound. That's how I felt about the CS2.4. I remember back when the CS2.4 came out, there were a lot of reviews on the speakers (always a good sign for a component), and every review there was always some reference to it being a bit on the "bright" side. I just don't understand where it came from. If anything, I thought the CS2.4 in my system may be a touch warm sounding on certain materials. I remember I used to have a pair of Spendor S8 which were known for their musical and warm sounding. But as soon as I pull the speakers just a bit further from the wall, the sound balance just became completely off. The sound became lean and bright. The CS2.4 on the other hands is very linear in term of its position. As I move them further from the wall, the sound balance changes very linearly and very predictable. |
The conclusion from some of the previous discussions is that concentric drivers with the tweeter located coaxially mounted within the midrange driver is the best way to achieve a more consistent soundstage. Some have commented on the Meadowlarks and pre-concentric Thiel speakers to have a sound that is sensitive to listening position. I am very puzzled that we don't have any good concentric drivers available on the market. If Thiel could do it, I don't see why either ScanSpeak or Seas could not. In my own design, with separate tweeter and midrange, the sound balance is also sensitive to listening position. There is one way to fix this is to lower the xover frequency from the tweeter to the midrange so that the dispersion characteristics of the midrange and tweeter are more evenly match. The problem is the tweeter has to play lower so that could add to tweeter distortion. Some of the new tweeters from ScanSpeak could play lower but the less expensive tweeters may not be. This affect is more prominent with first order filter vs. higher order filter design. |
