Thiel Owners

I'll probably see if the KEF R series can come close to the magic that is Thiel, but I'm not counting on it.

The magic is in the beers :-)

I have a pair of CS2s, looking at updating my amp. Any thoughts or experience driving these with a Simaudio Moon 340i?

Like sdl4, my search for speakers ended in the early 90's with a pair of 2.2's. 2 years was a long time for me to own any piece of audio gear. I had some Maggies at the time, and had 2 Adcom 555's acting as monoblocks. But Still wasn't feeling it. I spent hours and hours auditioning against the likes of Vandersteen, which just weren't doing it for me. There was something so right to my ear with the Thiels across the board. Perhaps the most impressive thing was their ability to throw a sound stage like few floor-standing speakers I've heard. Not just left and right, but even from behind.

Since then, I've upgraded everything at least once but usually 3 times, and most specifically a dedicated listening room with dedicated power (maybe the biggest upgrade of all). But no other speaker tempted me enough at the end of the day, even for a lot more money.

Sadly, a variety of things got me out of music for several years. A divorce has kept my system/software away from me for 4 years, but I'm about to get it back! The Thiels are way too large for my townhouse, I'm looking at downsizing. They'll go back in their boxes for the first time in almost 30 years, but they're keepers. I'm not here forever. I'll probably see if the KEF R series can come close to the magic that is Thiel, but I'm not counting on it.

This discussion, especially the inside history lesson from Tom, have me thinking about why I bought my 2.2s in the early 1990's. I was aware of the "rightness" of the sound from speakers designed using 1st order crossovers so my decision came down to a choice between Thiels and Vandersteens. I have several friends who were (and still are) very happy with their Vandersteens, but I liked the clarity of the Thiels - as well as the stunning cabinet work on the Thiels (thanks Tom!). It is a testament to the quality of the 2.2 as a package that it is still my primary set of speakers 28 years later. 

Dynaudio was a close, interactive supplier, and lots of mutual respect developed between us. No put-down intended. The point is that we did our thing.

Regarding viability: companies form around and live their goals. Ours was to make musical tools that mattered. FYI: Thiel’s demand was always beyond its ability to produce. In the first 20 years, that growth was a huge burden. Later it became a choice. 50 people is a manageable number that allowed innovation and large enough scale to pay the bills.

To Andy's point: New Thiel demonstrated quite clearly how a marketplace responds to non-focused strategies. New Thiel spent $10Million trying to do the standard job really well. Their tower speaker got 5 stars from Brent Butterworth and did the standard thing at least as well as X,Y and Z. But who would buy a Thiel Standard, when you could buy the real X,Y or Z Standard from PSB, B&W or anyone else in the field. Primary among the reasons we chose first order slopes is the uncanny rightness of sound, which I have previously addressed in this forum.

I am not arguing about the technical merits of time-phase coherent.  I am only arguing about Thiel business model as if it is financially viable.  I would not criticize PSB or B&W as they are able to find a way to be viable even if using a different design strategy.  To me it seems like Thiel had put themselves a bit into a corner with such a singular mindset - that is first order time-phase coherent or all else which may be correct technically, but financially, it did not have a way out.  

For those who "get it", there is often no going back. Count me in that camp in company with many of you.

Again, I am not arguing about that either, but financially, since there are very few who actually "get it", and it seems to limit the potential pool of buyers.

A senior executive at Dynaudio relieved our angst by saying: "What you are doing is impossible, expensive and invisible. Don't worry about others trying it." He was right, and we changed stragegy from patenting innovations to running as fast as we could on our own course.  

What you said was a bit of an irony.  I could interpret what you said as a "put down" of Dynaudio, but then Dynaudio is one of the largest speaker maker in the world so they definitely know what they are doing.  

That seemed worth doing, and still feels good.

I think it was Plato (or Socrates I don't remember) who said that if it feels good, then it probably is not good.  I've been drinking too much beers so I probably agree with that :-)

I worked at a Thiel dealer in 1978/1979, so right you are Tom...people hear it or they don’t and first order slopes are difficult and require a lot of innovation and work. I also eventually worked selling Vandersteen and Dunlavey and of course others, many others.... I own a minty pair of Thiel and a couple pair of Vandersteen today - last man standing but with a succession plan, my hope is it works - they are certainly a small family centered business.
trade secret and move fast is a better strategy than patents for sure.
wishing you all the best in 2020!!!!

In response to Andy 2 "Monday Quarterbacking" I'll offer that over the 40 year Thiel sales history, perhaps 10% of their buyers knew what a first-order crossover was, its real benefits and challenges. And perhaps 1% of those buyers knew the engineering well enough to truly appreciate the technical aspects, as Tom touches on above. That's just a total guess knowing the hifi buying population I've engaged with over 45 years (not as a salesman).

I'm perhaps in the 1% above (NOT "the 1%"!) and it still came down to lots of listening in audio showrooms in the brick and mortar days to Thiels versus similarly priced and respected speakers. I had a preference for their engineering, but if they didn't appease my sound priorities vs all the other good speakers of the day anywhere near their price or form factor, I wouldn't have bought 2.3s, and later 2.4s. I had no trouble finding Thiels among many dealers throughout the northeast with which to compare to many other brands. They didn't seem a 'boutique' speaker to me at the time, splitting the difference between say B&W and oh I dunno, Silverline Audio.

Also, Thiels were generally getting good to great reviews over the years, with 'too bright' being the most common complaint I recall. Thiel's "real" designs of their final decade seemed the best-received.  So I don't agree that things would have been any different if Jim chose to use higher-order crossovers to 'save' the company, assuming the voicing, pricing, cabinetry, etc were otherwise similar. Doing so would dumb-down the brand for the 10% and have little perceivable difference in the showroom for the 90%.  Perhaps the bigger 'problem' was Jim's solo brilliance and unwillingness/difficulty in finding a suitable protege, ending up with perhaps the dumbest audio-related buyout I've ever been aware of :-(

I am in complete agreement with Beetlemania. The core designs are what helped separate Thiel from the herd. It would be hard for a small company to market competing design principles and still maintain credibility. Grooming a replacement for Jim wouldn't be too easy. As the late Roy Johnson of Green Mountain used to say, most people aren't up to doing the math. There aren't that many with the chops and the will. It's one thing to put together a 1st order crossover in a slanted box , it's another to customize for driver anomalies so that the whole acts as a time coherent system. When I first got serious about auditioning speakers, and not understanding the reasons why, I kept coming back to the few time coherent designs (the maggies were the only exception even considered). To this day I am still consistently  attracted to time correct designs over all others. 

^I just called, not particularly helpful. 

In case anyone is interested,
received the following email from Audio Consultants:

Audio Consultants Retirement Sale Continues

Dear Friends,

As you know, before we officially closed our doors on December 21st, we held a comprehensive sale and most of our vast inventory is gone.   However, a few interesting items remain.  Some of these include:

- 1 pair Vienna Acoustics Music, with crates

- 1 pair Vienna Acoustics Mozart Grand with boxes

- 1 pair Vienna Beethoven Concert Grand, with boxes

- HRS MXR double wide rack with platforms

- Various Salamander cabinets and racks

- Various Transparent cables

- 1 Solid Tech 20” high double wide rack

- 1 pair McIntosh HT3 dipole speakers

- 1 pair Klipsch RS7 speakers

- Critical Mass amp stands

- Grand Prix amp stands

- 1 pair Thiel SCS 3 speakers

To inquire about anything, please call 847 864 9565 or please stop in.  I will be in the store every day until about the end of January, probably from 10am to 4pm.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Simon Zreczny

I like Beetle's perspective, and the two factors are fundamentally linked. Early-on, I wanted to work toward an ongoing entity that would transcend any and all founders' contributions. Jim disagreed. He wanted a vehicle to support his research and development ideas. "And when I'm finished, it's over". That stance caused the lack of successors to his chops, which in turn caused the lack of interest from qualified buyers, since history is but a small fraction of viability. An extensive multi-year worldwide search turned up NO qualified buyers. The denouement was thoroughly predictable because it was embedded in the company's genes.

The paragraph above is a short snippet of a 40 year scenario that was quite difficult to live through. A company, even a small entity like Thiel Audio, orchestrates significant life events and outcomes for scores of people spanning dozens of years. A primary motivation for my re-entry into this story is to soften some of the rough edges of the company's trajectory.

To Andy's point: New Thiel demonstrated quite clearly how a marketplace responds to non-focused strategies. New Thiel spent $10Million trying to do the standard job really well. Their tower speaker got 5 stars from Brent Butterworth and did the standard thing at least as well as X,Y and Z. But who would buy a Thiel Standard, when you could buy the real X,Y or Z Standard from PSB, B&W or anyone else in the field. Primary among the reasons we chose first order slopes is the uncanny rightness of sound, which I have previously addressed in this forum. For those who "get it", there is often no going back. Count me in that camp in company with many of you. Another reason was the extreme difficulty. By the time of the 03 and 04 in the late 1970s, there were companies (Japanese and European) buying them for competitive evaluation. I, as external affairs liaison, would follow up those encounters. Frankly, we were afraid that companies with comparatively unlimited resources would take our ideas and leave us in the dust. A senior executive at Dynaudio relieved our angst by saying: "What you are doing is impossible, expensive and invisible. Don't worry about others trying it." He was right, and we changed stragegy from patenting innovations to running as fast as we could on our own course. That seemed worth doing, and still feels good.   

@andy2 Thiel Audio found a formula that sounded good to them and they pushed that vision as far as they could. No doubt they considered and listened to alternatives but first order filters became their cornerstone. Tip of the hat to them for finding something good and sticking to it. You can decide whether it sounds best to you. All designs have trade-offs. My ears quite like Thiel’s solution.


I have a lot of respect for that. I mean, look at Magico. Their models are all over the map in terms of design philosophy. I think their main skill is throwing gobs of money into the company, trying whatever design element they can think of (well, mostly borrowed from others). IMO, they’re mere hype from TAS.

From my perspective, Thiel Audio had two main problems: 1) Jim Thiel didn’t train an engineer to carry his vision forward; and 2) New Thiel owners had almost no experience in high end audio.
Do you really think Thiel Audio folded because of adherence to their design principles? I sure don’t. Quite the opposite.

Jim’s approach was that everything matters.

First thanks for your insights and I don't mean to play the "monday quarterback" game, since that could offend others, but it would be interesting to see "what if?" without being too negative.  

Is it possible that if Thiel as a company was not so strong in its insistence on first-order coherence, that is if Thiel product portfolio was a bit more inclusive, was more open to other point of view, it could be more financially viable even after Thiel?

I think some of the speaker companies who are more currently successful have a wide range of products - if for nothing, it is to stay financially viable since one product can be used to support others and so on.  Having only one product or having only one philosophical point of view may restrict oneself to the potential buyers, who whether we like it or not, will determine the success of a company.  

Had Thiel had been more flexible, it is possible that Thiel would still be in business, and that means not only more people would have access to Thiel time-phase coherent products, but Thiel other products will be made available to the a larger group of buyers, and ironically, it would serve to what you stated as "everything matters".

I don't know ... I guess I am more flexible as opposed to your point of view.  If it was possible to go back to the past, if you had known the road Thiel was going would eventually lead to the current situation today, would you still?

Anyway, this post makes me want more beers ... something I guess most people would agree :-)

Andy - the debate hinges on the criteria for superiority. The mainstream represented by Mark Mason include some aspects at the exclusion of others. Jim’s approach was that everything matters.

The story of the CS1.7 from Tom is very interesting since it told a story of what is superior - the fourth order xover that allows for better power handling and "smoother" treble response, but of course it is not time-phase coherent which some view as having technical superiority.  I was wondering whether the reason it was not well-received by the Thiel loyalists because it was not a time-coherent design or of some other reason?  Is it possible that even if the CS1.7 is "better", it would not have been embraced by Thiel loyalists no matter what because it was not time-phase coherent?  

I guess it could be viewed under the lens of a philosophical debate between first order vs higher order, and not based on the technical merits?  I am just asking since I don't know the details, but it seems like a perfect example of what has been arguing within the audiophile communities: first order vs. higher order.  

tomthiel
Thank You for addressing the query regarding 1.7 model. Very interesting history around this particular loudspeaker.  I, for one, am looking forward to more Thiel Audio history lessons in 2020.
Happy Listening!

mr_bill
Welcome! Good to see you here.  The CS 1.7 is an interesting loudpeaker.I am not certain if one Panel member owns this mode?  Stay tuned for an answer to your query.
Happy Listening!

Mr Bill - the CS1.7 is a real pot of soup. It represents the final battle in Thiel's hope for survival. I have patched together the story from reliable insider sources and first-hand evidence, and here's the thumb-nail. The 1.7 was codeveloped along with the 2.7 by Kathy's home team and the Canadian consultants previously outlined in this forum. The 2.7 was introduced in the fall of 2012 as a re-statement of Jim's design goals by his surviving company. The 1.7 was being readied for introduction at January 2013 CES, after the purchase by New Thiel. They pulled it for Mark Mason to "design a better speaker" on the 1.x platform. The resulting 1.7 had a more robust tweeter and 4th order crossovers. An argument ensued as to whether they could-should call it a "coherent source", since they owned the trademark; but the loyalists insisted it wasn't a coherent source, and I concur. Heads rolled the Dawn and Gary and Steve DeFuria and Bob Brown (the leading loyalists) got fired. Lana and Rob kept their heads low and stayed on. And the circus commenced which led to the liquidation bankruptcy which is still incomplete.
Stereophile stayed out of it and didn't review the 1.7. I have seen no other reviews. I know the cabinet was beefed up. I know the tweeter was improved - quite good I understand. The slotted port is the same as the 1.6 and the woofer had been developed by old Thiel. The 1.7 as introduced has a smoother frequency response and it handles more power due to the 4th order slopes. Its anechoic tonal balance peaks at 100Hz and falls about 6dB to treble, so it's balanced like a B&W rather than flat like a Thiel.

In the world of magic and speculation, interested loyalists might acquire the few extant pairs of 1.7s for later conversion to the 2013 first order crossovers and have a final tribute to Jim Thiel's design legacy. If I live long enough or am able to create a successor organization, I would relish that possibility. In the mean time, the current CS1.7 is a bit of a hybrid, mostly Thiel with a core dose of PSB/Mark Mason/New Thiel crossover slopes, which by world standards is what is expected in a modern speaker.

Happy New Year and New Decade, all

I think different frequency range presents its own difficulty.  The upper mid/treble region does have its own issues.  On the opposite pole, the lower bass has its own unique issues as well.  I've designed speakers with both ported and seal designs, and the ported has more "bass", although the seal bass theoretically can extend lower freq., it has a less perceived bass vs. the ported design.  On the flip side, the ported has a higher order high pass slope, so it has more group delay vs. the more shallow slop of the seal bass design.  For monitor design with smaller woofer, a ported design makes more sense since it has "more bass", at the same time, it is small enough that does not load up the room and may cause room issues.  I've used seal bass design for monitor and they just do not have enough bass to justify the more "bass quality".

For three way design, with a larger 8in woofer for example, you could afford to use seal design, but given the same 8in woofer, I could clearly hear the less bass output from the seal design.  I think if you have a good cabinet design, a ported 8in woofer will sound just as good and a 8in. woofer is still small enough that will not load up the room and cause issues and that is if the cabinet is well designed.

Most Thiel designs use Passive Radiator.  In theory, it has a higher cut-off vs ported, but lower cut-off vs the seal design, so it is somewhat in between, with respect to efficiency and transient response.  The ported design has the most bass efficiency but poor transient response, the seal design on the other hands has the least efficiency but the best transient response, and of course the Passive Radiator is somewhat in between.

@tomthiel  
One Thiel speaker that has interested me is the CS1.7. Its really hard to find anything written on them other than specs. I know the 3.7 are really good (and really large).  The 2.7 is nice too and they are all from the same generation I understand. 
How good is the 1.7?
Thanks Tom,
Bill

A  Scottish New Year’s Salutation:

"Lang May Yer Lum Reek."

Happy New Year! All

Good New Year's Eve - All

Strindl - I love your system. I also resonate with your musical tastes. I believe it worth saying that your desire to derive meaning from your music was at the very heart of the Thiel Journey. What we struggled to find and execute was a vehicle for connection. For Jim the focus was the musical web. For Kathy and myself the lyrical realm mattered as much. Walter tuned in to the drums and rhythm and Fred went right to visualization and the out of body experience. The communal aspect kept the dance alive full-time. 
As time went on, those intangibles took a step behind the relentless work of continual developments and growth. But the founding value of access to soul by musical journey remained in the products’ DNA . 
My present renaissance work seeks to hold sacred that goal of connection. I find a joyful dose of contemplation in the systematic discoveries every day. 
My hope is that the meaning and message in your music will become even more accessible and real through the next generation updates. 

My 3.6's are used in a system that can be configured in different ways. I have an Integra DHC 9.9 pre amp processor, when I want surround sound with my music, but I can go strictly two channel with a 1994 vintage Threshold T2 preamp. The Thiels are driven by either a Threshold SA/4e pure class A power amp, or a pair of Emotiva XPA1 monoblocs.  All connections between the preamps and power amps are done with balanced XLR cables. 

 I have used a pair of Velodyne F1500 r subwoofers with the Thiels since they were new as well. I use a 40hz crossover point for them, as well as for the 3.6's. My sources are either a Logitech Touch streamer for my digital server collection of lossless CD rips, an Oracle Turntable with Magnepan Unitrac 1 arm and a Shure V15-V mr cartridge, or an Oppo disc player.

I have over a thousand CD's ripped to my server, and I have a little bit of everything in there as far as type of music. My favorite music is acoustic/vocal contempory folk . I like songs with lyrics that have some meaning, and maybe deliver some sort of message.

gs5556 , I've owned my 3.6's since 1993 and still love the sound they produce. I did have to have the midrange and tweeter repaired on one of the speakers at different points. The midrange had a problem where something failed and thin wires kind of unwound and were protruding around the base of the phase plug. I took it to Audio Consultants where I had purchased it and they took care of having the driver repaired by Thiel and reinstalled. That was about in 2003 or so.  A few years later the tweeter in that same speaker pretty much fried. I spoke with, I believe it was Rob at Thiel and sent the tweeter in for rebuilding. He called me a few days later and we talked about what may have happened  He said the driver was pretty badly damaged and I mentioned the type of music I listen to. Contemporary Folk..basically acoustic guitar, vocals, that type of music, and nothing at any levels that are apt to over drive a tweeter. 

  He sent me back the rebuilt tweeter, but had me do a test before I reinstalled it. He said that they had had an issue with a specific component of the crossover failing, that would send a full range signal through to the tweeter. He had me do an ohm meter test on the resistance  being supplied by the crossover to the tweeter inputs. He said it should be 20 ohms.  Mine was .1 ohms, that's point 1 ohms....basically a dead short. That's why my tweeter blew, and the rebuilt one would have blown as well had I hooked it back up without having the failed crossover component replaced first.

  Rob knew exactly which component in the crossover needed to be replaced and I had that done, and the tweeter has worked perfectly ever since.  

   I do have two other systems in the house, both with Magnepan speakers, but my main system still has the Thiel 3.6's and I have no plans to replace them. 

And I am pleased with upgrade progress in the studio.

Unsound - I'm not in a position to manufacture new frames, but we'll work on getting yours hotrodded.

Catalysis - Thanks for your kind words about the CS3.5; I'm confident that we can upgrade some of the weak links in them. From a historical perspective the 3.5 represents Jim's pure vision, before HT, Digital sources, etc. demanded ported bass or more elaborate and expensive solutions than we were able to shoulder. Remember that Thiel was only 5 years out of the garage and 7 years total in its start-up. Regarding fruit, it's looking like the CS3.5 is my first project (with other models as lab rats and workhorses as supporting cast.)

Hi Everyone. Belated Season’s Greetings to all. As I might have mentioned earlier in this thread, I’ve been using two subs very, very sucessfully with my 3.5s for a couple of years now.

Much of the following may therefore be repeated comment, but I think is worth regurgitating here to add grist to the mill in terms of the current discussion on the validity of the two sub approach.

This move was actually enforced in that I changed to a VPI 299D tube integrated amp, usually using four KT150s, and thus had no way of being able to incorporate the bass EQ unit in the system, as it doesn’t offer a tape loop.

My strong opinion is that, in the context of my listening room, this has subjectively been a major sonic improvement.

As has been suggested here earlier, I feel that the drivers are under much less stress with two subs and, as such, the 3.5s have room to breath.

It probably took a day or so to properly dial in the subs and I’ve never felt the slightest urge to change anything since then.

Even though the 3.5s were already easily the best conventional speaker I have owned with the EQ unit - I alternate them with my Quad 57s - they impress even more with the subs, which I have positioned about a foot behind each 3.5 and firing at each other into the soundstage with the woofers at 90 degrees to the 3.5 drivers. Again in the context of my listening room, this is where they work best without a hint of directionality.

All that being said, I’m eagerly awaiting Tom’s upgrades and watch this space, as it were, every week to check on progress.

I’ve owned a lot of great conventional speakers, including Celestion Kingston’s, Kef 107/2’s, and Rogers LS3/5A’s and none of them holds a candle, overall, to properly setup and well cared for 3.5s, which I truly believe to be one of the best, most well thought through and underrated designs ever.

I acquired them a few years ago simply because a cherished and essentially mint pair became available quite local to me and I’d always enjoyed listening to Thiels at hifi shows etc. It wasn’t therefore a planned purchase but has proven to be one of, if not the, best moves I ever made in this wonderful hobby.

I will never sell them and after well over 30 years of being only ever partially happy with other reasonably conventional designs, I have my forever speakers, so anything that can be done to ensure they outlast me is going to be welcomed with open arms.

As I mentioned earlier, I also run near mint 1978 Quad 57s in the system from time to time and I’m always astounded by how well the Thiels compare in the areas for which the Quads are so renowned in their midrange, timbre and transparency.

Hoping that 2020 sees the first fruits of Tom and Rob’s labors. Wishing everyone on here a great year ahead.

Happy Friday! All

@tomthiel, Not something I can take on. 2020 is most encouraging. Will one need to have their current grills modified or can one purchase new updated grills?  

Unsound - I'm not even close to time-lining. I am spitballing lots of areas to establish meaningful measurement techniques, audibility and suitability selection. I can say that the grille is a surprise and is suitable for work - worth pursuing, and that I have 2 first-approach solutions to try. Also, the chosen solution must and therefore will be cost effective. It will re-use the top and bottom wood struts, and the two round steel cross struts. The side frames will be replaced with either Baltic Birch frames with more complex, angled routed openings and steel reinforcement to allow contouring of the inboard (baffle-side) member. Or the side frames could be replaced with steel round-bar frames. New, more transparent fabric in either case.

If you or someone you know is handy with such things, I could tutor you through the considerations and you could DIY a solution or two for our mutual edification. Otherwise, I suspect sometime in 2020 with a justifiable and reasonable price.

@tomthiel, Is there an eta and/or price projection on the 3.5 grill upgrade?

Unsound - I concur with the merit of balanced EQ, and balanced operation in general. I am not the guy to develop that solution; I hope that someday we might find that resource. But the issue of over-driving with "modern" high-impact music and effects still persists. Getting THAT much output from a 10" woofer and 5" midrange with first order slopes is a really tall order.
I'm prototyping a grille that looks stock (for history), but is made of 1/4" round bar outboard and proper roundings inboard. Should be pretty transparent. Also, a properly rounded inboard frame with no outboard element - no fabric, just finish the baffle curves like the CS2.2. Come to think of it, the 3.5 development prototype had just such a half-frame.

@oblgny, you don't have to conduct your business here in order to be included in the forums. I for one would miss you.

@tomthiel, after (and please excuse me if I'm beating a dead horse on this) the lack of a truly balanced eq, the 3.5's grills seemed like one of the biggest shortcomings. Do love the baffles. I very much look forward to your grill upgrades for the 3.5's!

Re: Thiel CS 3.5 bass eq and subs please see my thoughts previously posted here:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-owners-2?page=12


With subs I recommend using the eq at the 40 Hz setting.

Thanks for putting this in words. I fully concur with your observations. Even though some improvement of the speakers is audible, I get the biggest improvement from the improved room response from experimenting and simulating with different placements. 

thielrules wrote:
"Great posts. Just got lost with this statement. Not sure if there is a typo:
The CS3.5's equalizer was a gigantic improvement, which I found to sound just as good as no eq at all."
I meant to communicate that the CS3.5's equalizer was a gigantic sonic improvement over the O3a equalizer. Throwing away the O3a eq, and replacing it with subwoofers very much improved the sound of the O3a. But the CS3.5 crossover was so good, that using it didn't degrade the sound to my ears at all. So using it was "just as good" as not using it, in every sonic way except the obvious loss in low bass. And, except for power handling. So, for medium listening levels, I found no sonic reason to stop using the 3.5 equalizer. As Tom points out though, theoretically, using a subwoofer instead of the CS3.5 eq did have benefits to woofer excursion when playing louder. And when CDs came into being, playing louder became a problem for CS3.5 in many ways, not only the woofer excursion. Midranges and tweeters started to become over-driven too. In 20+ years of playing only records in a small bedroom through the CS3.5, I never had a problem. But when I started to use them again after 10 years of storage, well, then I was playing CDs too, and I had a much bigger room, so I burned out the midranges and noticed over-taxing the woofers.

Rules - by "just as good", I believe Warren refers to sound quality. See this audiogon thread regarding some pros and cons.
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-3-5-equalizer-advice
Even if the Thiel EQ or Golden Flutes alternative were completely sonically transparent, we are left with the problem of extreme woofer and lower midrange excursion which introduces various distortions including Doppler Shift and large excursion non-linearities.

No matter where you land on this controversy, it certainly represents a major historical shift away from low-order, sealed bass tuning to higher-order, ported tuning with the passive radiator. Originally Thiel speakers were going to use ports and passives in the 1 and 2 series, and equalizers and/or active woofer or subwoofers in the 3 and higher series. Jim struggled with the issue, felt some resentment with what sometimes seemed un or thinly founded critique and lack of appreciation for what the EQ brought to the table.

I personally felt that the passive radiators in the upper models, even though superbly executed, gave up a unique signature bass performance. A matter of history interjects itself: in the 70 and 80 there was less knowledge and willingness to solve room resonance issues. The speakers were often blamed for room problems, since they went so powerfully deep.

Warren - As you know, I consider the 03, 03a, CS3 and CS3.5 to be cognitively the same design. As such, as replacement drivers and solutions are developed for the 3.5, they will be applicable to the other models in the early 3 series. By the way, I believe those early 3 cabinets were the quietest that Thiel ever produced and, with some added bracing and SoftLaunch baffle tweaking, can be brought nicely into the 21st century. The grille frames suck more than I realized at the time. They're getting attention. Also, the modern grille fabric seems better than nothing and does not alter the frequency response appreciably if at all.

Great posts. Just got lost with this statement. Not sure if there is a typo:
The CS3.5's equalizer was a gigantic improvement, which I found to sound just as good as no eq at all.

Add a Classe DR8, DR9, DR-10 or DR-100 amplifier, and all is perfect in this world.

Tomthiel wrote:
"Just a thought. I suggest running the 3.5s wide open with no EQ. I remember the bass loading as critically damped, so it should approximate 12dB / octave. (But that's old memory) If you can match that rollout with a sub, the sub HF will operate in the directionality range, so 2 subs is better than 1. I for one am most in your progress."

Now we have here a subject very dear to my heart and experience. Both my Thiel O3a and CS3.5 had equalizers. I found the O3a to sound much better with a subwoofer crossed over EXACTLY  to the same curve as the EQ,  with no filter to the main speakers at all 

 The CS3.5's equalizer was a gigantic improvement, which I found to sound just as good as no eq at all. Never-the-less, there is the original Stereophile test still on the internet, which shows its EQ curve. Take out the equalizer, add one or two subwoofers, adjust their crossover frequency and slope to match that curve, and run the main Theils with no filter at all. This purist approach works and sounds like a charm. The 10"  woofers and main power amp are no longer taxed, so theoretically, distortion should be much less, and power handling much better.

Merry Christmas! ALL

warjarrett

Good to see you here as always. Santa is the best.

Happy Listening!

Oh, there's Santa now trying to stuff a pair of Thiel O3a speakers down my chimney. Oh how I have been hoping for another pair of these.

I have been having extensive telephone and email conversations with Tom about my love for certain models of Thiel (mostly the 3.5 and 3.7) and the one problem all have in common: a forward and agressive tendency in the upper midrange. As Tom experiments with solutions to apply to the cs2.x models, I have been duplicating his methods on my cs3.x models. He is tireless in his creativity, coming up with theories, testing them, aquiring variations of materials to compare, etc. And my Theil 3s have been exibiting the same benefits as he describes for the 2s