Thiel Owners

tomic601

try - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E69dKx8uAXY

Happy Listening!

Erik - what is your target frequency response, either outdoors / anechoic, or in a room?

Thanks for asking, @tomthiel , honestly I’m a little chagrined sharing what I do with some one who actually has been so successful in the industry.

I should explain that the last time I heard a Thiel speaker was before I returned to my electronics background. Mid 1990s perhaps? I wasn’t really measuring anything then, so I have no way of knowing what I was hearing or what struck me then.

Long after I decided to take some of what I stole from Dr. Leach at Georgia Tech together with modern inexpensive tools and get into speaker design, so I don’t want to say anything as being definitive of how I would hear things now, or what I might be able to ascribe to what I heard in the 90s.

But to answer your question, my target ends up being the old B&K curve at 1 M, but, measured in-room.  Of course, these are cheats I can only get away with for a 2-way speaker. However I recently took in-room at listening location measurements and posted here:

https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-snr-1-room-response-and-roon.html

The mic was at couch seat level, so probably much closer to mid-woofer axis.

now to Eric’s credit, while his opinion of Thiel high frequency performance is dated

Extremely dated, I wish people would remember that caveat when they post about my comments.

he does have IMO an acute and appropriate focus on room treatments:-)

Ty for the kind words, @tomic601 , but for me it is necessity. I am unusually susceptible to room acoustics, and wish I was not. I run into so many audiophiles at shows who can shrug it off. Wish I was more like that.

..... but in the end, it matters - the Vandersteen Carbon drivers are matched to .5 db or better in the chamber

I would spend more time on target impulse response and driver breakup and then the cabinet... then low frequency interactions with room, then high passing the mid bass on up ... and then worrying that last db here or there in frequency response....

my buck fifty, which is $.02 adjusted for inflation 

now to Eric’s credit, while his opinion of Thiel high frequency performance is dated, he does have IMO an acute and appropriate focus on room treatments:-)

best

jim

Good analogy. And in the new-goods retail market through retailers, the raw component costs are multiplied by at least 5. So every penny counts. You guys as end users are in a different paradigm.
Erik - what is your target frequency response, either outdoors / anechoic, or in a room?

Of huge importance to Jim was that of balanced design. He worked toward a performance plateau where all elements worked equally hard and efficiently to perform at maximum cost efficiency as a whole system.

It's really easy, especially as hobbyists, to focus on some particular component like capacitors or the tweeter, at the expense of everything else.  It's like putting the most expensive tires on the market on a Honda Civic.


Best,
E

Masi - Rob does do the ferrofluid 3.6 tweeter. Rob has rebuild kits.
That tweeter was entirely custom and not replaceable.

@jafant can you post or pm the link w Vandersteen 

Jafant, erik_squires  has gone on record here at Audiogon of not being a fan of Thiel’s.

I'm afraid this is true, but I'm always surprised anyone remembers what I like or don't.  The tonal balance of the Thiels was not for me, though I have not heard them in many years, and it was never a complaint about the quality of the product, just not suitable for me.

The MRA case is quite a bit smaller for a lower dissipation factor. So put the MRAs on little balls of Mortite or BluTac for 360° radiation and airflow.

Really good advice, especially if planning to ship them, but otherwise, for a home project just lifting them off the board works.

Thanks but the Mundorf does not have the value needed

Consider the difference in age alone.  In the 1980's/1990s electrolytic caps were generally crap compared to even budget bipolars of today.



Best,

E

Jafant, erik_squires  has gone on record here at Audiogon of not being a fan of Thiel’s.

I think a little shot of history might be in order. Let’s look at resistors for a glimpse into Jim Thiel’s working ethos. Of huge importance to Jim was that of balanced design. He worked toward a performance plateau where all elements worked equally hard and efficiently to perform at maximum cost efficiency as a whole system. Let’s look at resistors as an example.
In 1977 we were struggling with the 03 - EVERYTHING was audible with phase coherence, and we wanted to upgrade all components; but we also wanted to keep our focus on cost effectiveness. Jim "built" some reverse-wound resistors from OFHP aerospace copper coil wire. Obvious improvement. Judged unaffordable. Audio grade resistors either didn’t exist or we didn’t know about them. Jim went to work with (what later became) ERSE and developed the present Thiel resistors. They are not "dime store resistors" although they look like them. They are actually made from good wire with reverse winding for a low inductance load, set into a ceramic tub for greater dissipation than a cylindrical case. It costs a fraction of the Mills and performs quite respectably. Balanced design.

That was Jim’s approach. How do we get most of what we want and pay a fraction of the cost. He was proud of those resistors; the early versions said "Thiel" on the case. You can buy that design from ERSE. They outperform normal sand-cast dime store resistors by a long shot.
That said, the Mills MRA-12s are better. BTW: the ones that Jeff Glowacki at Sonic Craft sells are the best. (Not just salesmanship.) I would replace the Thiel / ERSE resistors as low-hanging upgrade fruit. BUT there is a BUT. The MRA case is quite a bit smaller for a lower dissipation factor. So put the MRAs on little balls of Mortite or BluTac for 360° radiation and airflow. A happy coincidence is that the residual inductance of Thiel/ERSE vs MRA is nearly identical, so you don’t have to compensate as you would if going from a normal sand-cast to the MRA.

This crossover circuitry is extremely subtle and carefully tuned to include all elements. So swapping one form for another is not simple. I am venturing into the mire, and learn every day how little I know of the finer subtleties of the art. Be careful.

erik_squires

Thank You for chiming on Clarity Cap(s). We must get you into a pair of Thiel loudspeakers!

Happy Listening!

bluetone

Good to see you again. Thank You for the comparison and update on your 3.5 loudspeakers. Rob is the man when it comes down to our beloved speakers.  Also good to read that your amp project turned out well.

Happy Listening!

Thank You theaudiotweak

I've already ordered some Mills resistors for the tweeter to test to see how difficult it will be to remove the old ones from all that glue .
I'm doing the wire first so I can install fastons for the wiring 
so the boards can be taken out to work on easily ,
I'll remove the fastons and solder the wiring last .
Plus it will give me more time to gather information and advise .

Well you would have 2 conversions when really only none is required..And you would have many more component parts including the probable use of a couple of noisey switching power supplys. Other than that it would work. I have run digital eq and xo on my system once and only on the subs which I quickly removed. Tom 

Curious how these improvements in passive, analogue  xo would compare to active, digital xo. Anyone made this comparison?

vair68robert..Just saw the exposed crossover you posted. The single easiest most dramatic improvement would be for you to replace all the resistors shown with either non inductive wire wounds from Mills or Mundorf. I would replace the resistors first before the wire..You will always hear the resistors shown and their low level noise will still be present in any wire you try. Change the resistors first/next..
 Tom

tom
the 400 topmay is in parallel with a 15uf Erse and a 1uf Clarity ,
erik
Thanks but the Mundorf does not have the value needed ,

I have also thought of 4 Erse 100uf pulse-X caps .
Finding Replacement  Topmay caps is not easy .

But first things first , I'll be replacing the wiring within 2 weeks . 

Get it all out here..When I did a remodel of my power amps I took the main board Nichicons off and chassis mounted 4 of the Clarity Cap TC's  these are hard mounted to the metal bottom with Audiopoints. You could do the same in a speaker when replacing a large value cap. These caps a very nice up grade.  Flys high now with the Vishay nude metal films in every position.Tom

Question can you run a cap and resistor in series to equate the the esr of the original ?

@theaudiotweak

Yes, you can, though ESR is not exactly a constant at all frequencies, you can definitely compensate with a little eye balling of the relevant graphs. :) 0.1 Ohm difference isn't as important as going from 1.5 Ohms to 0.3.  That in shunt can really drop the impedance of the next range.

Not as fancy, but I love Mills.  Small, very high power, extremely accurate and thermally stable.

Remember the same thing with inductors.  Keep the DCR the same, or you are changing the speaker.  There are a number of designs (including my own) which use the DCR as part of the baffle step compensation.

Best,
E

Question can you run a cap and resistor in series to equate the the esr of the original ? 

The best sounding resistors are the Vishay nude metal films. When I rebuilt my long gone Dunlavys years back..I had to build resistor bridges with several of these low wattage resistors to meet the power requirements. The improvement was almost staggering well that and sealing all the pores of the MDF inside of the cabinet with Cascade Vbloc..the formula now is a little different. Kinda like troweling on concrete. Sucks in and seals and kills the glue..Much more dynamic and open. I sealed 1 and kept quantity measurements, let dry for a few days and reassembled and compared..The treated one sounded like it went out the door and down the street..the other one was still in the box. The pair was amazing. My experience tells me not to replace inductors..go gently with the caps..and replace all the dime store resistors. Tom

The 400uF electrolytic is in series feed to the midrange. 

Oh, wow! Welp, on the plus side there is more room for sonic improvement. But 400 uF of film caps will certainly need a new layout/board. And it looks like one of the other ELs is 220 uF. And not only much bigger but also $$$.

My new boards were much larger. I compensated in the passive radiator chamber by removing a similar volume of the fiberglass batt. But I only had two 100 uF ELs to replace. 400+ is probably still doable but complicates the issue and makes the upgrade spendy. Clarity CSA 250V is available in 100 uF for $68 each. PulseX 250V is more affordable and should be sonically superior to ELs. Lean on Tom’s Knowledge, Robert!

Rob and Erik - The 400uF electrolytic is in series feed to the midrange. Bummer

Doh, then consider the Mundorf electrolytics:
https://www.partsconnexion.com/capacitors-ele-mundorf-e-cap-ac-series.html
or Axon film:

https://www.partsconnexion.com/axon-true-cap-film-capacitors.html

In either case, measure ESR of the original and be aware that reducing it significantly can result in more midrange output. :)

Best,
E

Rob and Erik - The 400uF electrolytic is in series feed to the midrange. Bummer.

Hello all, returning with an update on my 3.5 mids.  I received them back from Tom this week and was able to do an A/B test with the original mids, rebuilt by Rob, and the  Scanspeak 12W/8524G00 speaker, which has been floating around on the web as a suitable replacement for the original Scanspeak mids.  The replacements were in my 3.5's when I bought them, I was able to score the mids from a fellow Audiogon contributor and had Rob rebuild them.  Anyway, I wasn't expecting much of a difference, if all, simply because I don't consider my ear terribly critical. I replaced on of the mids, put my preamp on mono, and played some ZZ Top (I am originally from Texas, so....) and did a close up comparison as well as sitting position in my listening room.  I was surprised at the difference!  The original Scanspeak obviously worked better with the crossover, the difference being that the rebuilt original was much clearer and articulate, where the replacement was subdued sounding. So what I thought was an excellent listening experience before the replacement has turned into an exceptional one. I kid you not. So I would say this  particular Scanspeak ( Scanspeak 12W/8524G00) is not a good match for the original. I think Rob is recommending another one, and Tom may have something to say soon as well.  
Amplifier update, my last post was lamenting on the binding posts on my Yamaha M85 and Denon POA 1500.  I replaced the posts on the Denon to 5 way, and sold the Yamaha and bought a Denon POA 2200, which I now need to replace its binding posts as it used the exact same one as the Yamaha.  My only comment on replacing the bindings is I was scratching my head on what to use to replace the strip of metal between the old posts and the PCB.  Then I remembered I had some romex wire from my basement finish work, so I stripped sections of the solid copper wire and used it.  Worked perfectly.  

Hey @vair68robert

Given the cap sizes you are talking about I'm assuming these are in low pass sections, and going to ground. The Solens, or their cheap brand, Axon, will be great choices, BUT, you must maintain the original ESR + R of that portion of the circuit or you may suffer unexpected impedance issues, which causes your amp to suffer, along with changing the crossover points.

Save the top-end caps for caps that are in series with the drivers.

Best,

E

@beetlemania

You have seen one of my obstacles ,
one possible option is 2 Solen 200uf 400v large
but the 400 is at the bottom of the board ,
Another is a Clarity TC 400uf 400v  very large .

I'm going to have to do a lot of measuring 
this project is going to take a lot longer than anticipated
as well as way over estimated budget ,
but after rehabbing 2 100 year old buildings with 5 apartments 
I'm used to being over on time and money .

Let me chime in as some one with relatively recent experience with Clarity and CMR in particular, but not with Thiel rebuilds.

The CMRs are excellent caps. I honestly don’t know if they are better than the previous generation. I’ve swapped them out in my application and they sounded equally excellent.

What I have found in both cases (CMR and MR) is that Clarity caps above 5uF benefit from a small bypass copper cap. This was a suggestion passed onto me at DIYaudio by Speakerdoctor before he passed (RIP). Though he did not suggest it above a certain uF value, I have found this to be about the break point. Below this value, a bypass cap did not help, but above it certainly did.

Based on his suggestion I’ve used Audyn 0.1uF TrueCopper bypass caps, and they worked really well. Anyone who wants to ship me Jupiter caps instead please do so! :) I wish I could afford them.

Best,

E

Jim never went over 100uF.

Pic of @vair68robert coax crossover has a 400 uF EL. I know this crossover was designed after Jim passed. I imagine he will need to use an entirely new board if he chooses to replace that cap (plus a couple of other ELs visible in his pic, presumably >=100 uF). That would be quite the volume in film caps! But possibly worth it . . .

I was at least able to verify that the original caps are indeed Clarity Caps SAs as I am almost certain that this is the first re-cap these 3.6s have ever experienced

You must have very late production 3.6s. I would have guessed Thiel stopped making those before Clarity introduced the SA. Interesting. The SA is a good cap but, as Tom Thiel wrote, the CSA is a step up. The CMR is supposed to be even another step up. But those are much larger, possibly requiring a new board to accommodate their size and much more expensive. My new boards have 630V versions of CSA on the coax feeds. It would be interesting to compare 630V CSA to 400V CMR. There is a 630V version of CMR but those are bigger still and more expensive with a smaller range of available capacitance values.

You probably have high quality coils but I would replace any sandcast resistors with Mills MRA-12s.

Thought I'd pass along my rudimentary update on my exploration journey yesterday.  I managed to  remove the woofer with much labor.  I ended up removing the 6 screws and placing the cabinet, baffle down, on the carpet propped up with  a book on the top side.  Then I ran a 40 hz tone from a generator at about 90 db to vibrate the woofer from the cabinet.  It took about 20 seconds!  Not sure if this is text book operation and hopefully not damaging to the components...  Anyway, I was at least able to verify that the original caps are indeed Clarity Caps SAs as I am almost certain that this is the first re-cap these 3.6s have ever experienced.  As I am a musician by trade and quite the amateur with regard to electronics, I continue to welcome experiences, anecdotes, and any tricks you may have as I continue on my journey.  I am handing with a soldering iron though.  I would image that the bulk of the laborious work removing the remaining drivers and components will need to wait for a few weeks while I finish up my online spring teaching schedule but have plenty of time to dig in later in June.  I did have a chance to look at the Carity Caps website and found the CSAs with ample information.  I also found a next gen CMR:

http://www.claritycap.co.uk/products/cmr.php

Have any of you guys had experience with these?  Also, while I have the crossovers out, what other electronics should I consider replacing that may need replacing? 

Rob - caps always improve via parallel smaller values. Jim never went over 100uF.

Beetle - I suspect the "don't do it" is because the spuriae introduced are evidence of non-linear behavior which can cause problems for some amplifiers.
Rob - the only resistors that benefit from upping are those carrying current, which are in your stock pair. Plus a couple that I can advise on a PM.

Tom & Beetle

I am Happy to hear that you hear positive affects from the parallel 
configuration , I will try seperating them more than the 2"s I have them now .

Thank you Tom for your advise on placing resistors parallel  ,
there will be 18 resistors per speaker ! 
I'll have to do some similar parallel configurations with the electrolytic 
caps .
Ons step at a time , espeacailly with all the glue they used on the componets .

@tomthiel Thanks for your report. I’m impressed with the variety of configurations tried. I’ll further adjust mine based on your narrative. I wonder why “don’t do it”?

Rob and Beetle - I have also gone back and forth between wire configurations. My observations are similar to both of yours, the parallel configuration seems to add dimension and space. I hear more lucid harmonic detail such as obviously double strings on the mandolin or transient fingerings within electric guitar chordal work. And more lush and detailed (at the same time!) mid-bass. Such observations hold true blind.

I have also done some measuring. The only obvious difference is the presence of large, broad "bloating" of sub-sonics, perhaps 10+dB at 10 to 20 Hz with frequency sweeps beginning at 0 Hz, with accompanying group delay anomalies.

I am in conversation with Steven Hill of Straightwire as well as a knowledgeable physicist, plus my reading. Those expert opinions concur that whatever pleasant effect we are hearing, the technicals are more problematic. In other words: "don't do it".

One interesting trial was controlling the separation of the ++ and -- cables. Consistent separation is a technical requirement. Separating at 1.5" (my convenient wood blocks), served to lessen the "effect". Also spiraling the two cables lessens the effect. And, conversely, the effect is pronounced with widely separated runs (1' to 3' along the 10' run.)

I am getting some double helix wire from Straightwire where 4 conductors will carry the signal in star quad (opposite corner) configuration. This configuration is standard practice in studio cables, house wiring and industrial practice.

For my own listening I would choose the separated parallel conductors. Thank you Rob. However, my upgrade work requires science based solutions. I'm still working on the problem.

stspur

My pleasure. Have fun and enjoy the Music.

Happy Listening!

Many thanks to your kind replies.  CSAs sound like the way to go then.  Now off to shopping and installing.  I'll keep you posted. 

Moniker: dgarretson

Happy Listening!

tomthiel

Thank You for the confirmation regarding Clarity Caps.
Hope that you are well and having fun splitting duties between Hot Rod garage and Studio time.
If you guys require more specific(s) relating to Clarity Caps, reach out and touch Dave Garrettson, whom represents that brand here on the 'Gon.

Happy Listening!

Insider information: I've been told that Jim and Gary listened to every cap out there, along with measuring to choose the ClarityCaps. At the time the SA was top of the line. I've compared the SA to the CSA. The CSA is next league. Truly remarkable.

stspur

Good to see you here.  I concur w/ beetle, Clarity Cap is a sonic match.
Keep us posted on your project. There are a few DIY experts here that can assist with the re-build.

Happy Listening!

tomthiel

Nice score! on the 3.5 loudspeaker.
This model may very well be the Panel favorite.

Happy Listening!

All

I wanted to direct your DIY attention to last week's HiFi Chats via YouTube. The guest was Mr. Richard Vandersteen. The episode (7) was an in-depth discussion on loudspeaker building. Specifically, our beloved 1st Order filter design.  The most informative session yet.

Happy Listening!

@vair68robert 

I switched back to the parallel ++/- - configuration a few days ago. I do hear this as more open and dimensional, less bounded. Could I pass a DBT? I dunno and I don’t care. If I were more motivated I would compare in mono. But that requires removing the outriggers and spikes and a couple of hours of swapping speakers back and forth. I’m not saving the world here, just maximizing my enjoyment. 
Now, I need to decide whether to resolder the binding posts so that the cables are not off the ground as much. I will not be enjoying anything if a house guest trips over the elevated cables. 

@stspur I built completely new boards for my 2.4s last year, with guidance from Tom Thiel. Excepting for a few bypass caps, everything is Clarity Cap CSA. Higher voltages on the coax feeds. Even the big 100 uF shunt caps are now CSA (low voltage). Jim Thiel and crew picked the Clarity SA for the 2.4 SE out of several compared. The CSA is an upgrade from the SA. Also, the CS2.7 includes some Clarity caps, maybe ESA which is between SA and ESA.

Hello again fellow Thiel 'Goners!  Glad to have your continued advice and experiences with our beloved speakers.  Always a joy to catch up on what's being newly discussed.  I'm considering updating my original CS3.6 crossovers and was thinking about starting with caps.  Would you have some recommendations for me?  I was thinking along the lines of Infinicaps or Obligatos.  Thoughts?

CS3 lovers - just saying that the CS3.5 is really a CS3 with more sophisticated drivers. Same concept, functionally same cabinet. Any future life we develop for the 3.5 will apply to the 3. We have a good midrange replacement candidate. A replacement tweeter will be easier to find. The woofers are battleships and repairable.

The real issue with the equalized sealed-box 3s is that the boosted bass can bottom the woofers, and also puts real strain on the midrange. I am working toward keeping the sealed bass as-is (unequalized) and augmenting with a subwoofer crossed over to match the natural second order bass roll-out. That frees the 3 drivers to operate in their natural range for lower distortion and longer life. I now have a pair of CS3.5s, and they really are quite good, especially for 1983 (CS3) and 1985 (CS3.5).

silvanik

Excellent advice. Good to see you again.

Happy Listening!