Thiel Owners

I agree that the CS2.3 baffle is cleaner vs. the CS2.4 in term of "diffraction".  I never noticed the difference before.  Maybe the motivation for the CS2.4 baffle was about the "aesthetic" appeal.  

Thiel Owners ,  that's a dyeing breed 

sdecker - thanks for the photos. On my 1.6s I put a strip of aluminum at the bottom of the pocket to support the weight of the grille. Of the various felts I have tried, the best is F11 pressed wool from Sutherland. F15N (needle punched) is nearly as good and costs half as much. I have tried 1/8" and 3/8" and don't hear or measure much of any difference. Probably land around 3/16" depending on physical parameters.

@tomthiel     
Sure wish I could post images directly.  Doing a google image search on the speakers in question will produce a few with the correct angle to view the issue at hand, below.

The 1.6 (and 1.7) are similar to the 2.4 about my concern of the recessed baffle.  The 1.5 is a very different mounting strategy from the 2.3.  The 2.7 baffle is again different from both the 2.3 and 2.4.

I will play with your felt solution with my 2.4, but in their case, this will disallow use of the grilles w/o some klugy modifications: most of the grille weight is supported by a pin above the coax, requiring the grilles remain flush against the baffle; the magnets help support the grille perimeter.  In my home, the grilles must remain on.

Here are quick and dirty links to reasonably good views of the 2.3 and 2.4 baffles:

https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Thiel-CS-2-3-Hi-End_11195163.html

http://www.hifi4sale.net/t38695-thiel-cs-2-4-used

dsper - noise floor reduction is an element of greater dynamic range, but the ear-brain is very good at inferring musical signal that "should be" buried in the noise floor. Yes, quieter is better, but it isn't everything. I suggest classic troubleshooting - find some other components to swap and determine where your noise is coming from. Could be tube noise.Speaker noises can include a throaty hissing, usually under load, if capacitors are failing, but I would rule out the amps first.
No need to unscrew anything. Take off the grille and inspect the bottom and third (sub) woofers for rubber mats (CS5) or center weights (CS5i).

tomthiel,

"...hiss is coming from the amp chain, not the speaker.The CS5 has rubber pads on the upper and floor woofer and the 5i has center weights..."

Tom, please bear with a couple of basic questions:

1. Reducing hiss then, is around acquiring quieter components in the chain. This would then also reduce the noise floor and allow more detail to be heard?
2. If I want to check if I have CS5's or CS5i's, I simply unscrew one of the woofers and look at it?

Thanks for your advice!

Dsper

Happy Friday! All

With all these variables related to parts of a passive xo, any experience how a passive xo compares to a digital active xo? Maybe I should hook up my passive xo again.

Beetle - I concur with your results and consider the passive parts to be important and know the work Thiel put into finding best bang for buck, always knowing that more bang could be bought. The shunts are in my experience more important than generally thought. In an AC resonance circuit all parts are in play. I am approaching the physical stuff first for practical reasons; I can compare multiple speakers with various treatments to gain experience with less investment.
Dsper - the hiss is coming from the amp chain, not the speaker.The CS5 has rubber pads on the upper and floor woofer and the 5i has center weights.

the 630V caps and far-more-expensive Mundorfs et al were simply too big for the space on the XO board

The higher voltage versions, with thicker film, are reported to sound better. I didn't compare different voltages on the coax feeds but did directly compare 160 and 250V versions on the woofer shunts. Some say that shunt cap quality makes little, if any, difference in SQ but, to my ears, the higher voltage version sounded a bit more relaxed and with more bass heft and impact. A subtle difference but one I am willing to pay for.

In my case, the larger caps were not an issue because I started with completely new boards/layout. So, no need to fit a new cap into an existing space.

Thanks for your post, Tom.
Interesting that Rob found the ESAs to sound worse. My experience was that nearly every change improved the sonics. Perhaps because I had a good coach ;^)

I am considering those electronic upgrades as end of project decisions. My focus is on re-bracing and re-baffling which is progressing well.

As you know, I'm a big fan of upgrading the passive parts. And I think a lot of the improvement I hear can be had for less money. That said, I'm looking forward to trying your baffle treatment.

Hi All,

I have a couple of CS5 questions for the Thiel experts. 

1. how does one determine if they have CS5's or CS5i's? I read somewhere, I think on this thread, that there is no marking on the outside of the speakers to tell? My serial numbers are 1225 and 1226.

2. When I turn my system on with the preamp allowing no volume, I can hear different sounding "hisses" from each of the three small speakers on the top. This is audible only with my ear within six inches of each speaker. Is this normal? Or is it a sign that something is wearing in the crossover, etc. Or could it be coming from another piece of equipment like a tube preamp?

Thanks for listening,

Dsper, 

sdecker - I don't have those models to inform any opinions. But I am messing with the CS1.5 and 1.6, which exhibit similar baffle differences. The 1.5's grille board mates with the baffle to form a flush surface with 1" radiused round-overs. The 1.6 has much larger round-overs outside of a shallow (1/8" - 3mm) pocket which holds the metal grille panel with cloth over it. I believe the 2.4 and 2.7 are like the 1.6. Within all those variables, I have isolated a sonic and measured glitch caused by that grille 1.6 pocket, either the edge of the metal panel or the edges of the pocket with the grille off. Filling that pocket with 1/8" F11 wool felt eliminates the glitch and the speaker sounds larger, the image lifts and comes out of the box. With the felt in place, the treble balance sounds right without the attenuation of the fabric. The grille magnets work through the felt for protection when needed.

This discussion segues into the grille cloth thing. A manufacturer must decide how to present its products to market, and Thiel chose wood cabinets with fabric grilles, for better and worse. Reticulated foam (model 01, and a Wilson special order) is more transparent, but not very cool-looking imho. Our fabrics got more and more sheer as they became available, but it is still there as Andy mentioned. I believe most audiophiles would prefer no fabric. In fact Thiel offered grille frames with no fabric and extra finishing to match the baffle. Nice, direct sound, but with more high-end sizzle. We could have, but chose not to modify the XO to knock down the treble. A hot-rod shop such as Thiel Renaissance could offer such mods to make the purist happier. I am presently experimenting with solutions that optimize sound quality and aren't physically objectionable.

   It turns out I *did* post to this forum about my 2011 XO upgrades on 2/2/18 (pg 49), with beetlemania and others acknowledging my relatively early surgery. 
   My 2.4s are fairly early production (SN 611,612) so I can confirm the high(er) quality original XO parts (including the inductors), point-to-point boards (literally), and wiring. 
   Due to nobody posting about 2.4 XO specifics in 2011, I had to wing it with only the schematic and XOs in front of me and Thiel telling me their use of Clarity Cap SA.  So I wasn't about to second-guess their use of film 1uF bypasses.  I had evidence the ESA I ended up using was a better-sounding cap than the SA, the CSA wasn't available yet, and the 630V caps and far-more-expensive Mundorfs et al were simply too big for the space on the XO board, so I used 250V versions.
   I don't doubt the XO can be improved well beyond what I've done, but as Tom Thiel points out, there are risks and pitfalls to just throwing the best and fewest parts at such a carefully-modeled 2-way XO.  I look forward to reading what Rob Gillum and team can accomplish with more resources than were available to me at the time!

   And I'm still waiting for informed comments about the compromises of the 2.4 baffle versus the smoothly rounded 2.3.  The 2.7 did away with the baffle discontinuities and should sound that much better due to both the baffle and certainly the 3.7 coax.

I don't have full vs 1uF bypass comparisons, but I do have some relevant history. When Thiel developed the bypass configuration, caps were relatively primitive, and smaller value, higher spec bypass caps made a significant improvement. We developed that 1uF tin foil x styrene cap as state of the art and used it for nearly every station. Note that the CS3 had teflon nF double bypasses and the CS2 and 3.5 had styrene ultra bypasses. As caps got better, the ultra bypasses became effectively obsolete. Note that multiple caps help and hurt. They hurt timing precision, since their discharge rate is faster than the larger value, and each station must be tuned. Effectively cost-prohibitive in our particular niche. 

When Jim was developing the SE, Gary and Rob report that they listened to and measured many, many configurations of bypasses and brands of caps including darling  audiophile cost-no-object ones. They chose the then-best Clarity SA for its rightness, both measured and heard. The single (non-bypassed) value was chosen as sonically superior to the bypassed version. Note also that the CSA, with its copper spluttering, is said to be a league ahead of the ESA, which was a relatively small advance over the SA.

Beware that the incision of these higher grade components comes with its own set of potential perils. In Lexington last week I saw Rob's 7.2 XOs in which he had replaced all series feeds with ESAs to compare with stock. He (and his cohorts) preferred the stock parts. The point is that the whole thing is a pot of soup, and "improving" something may require other compensations. When converting Beetle's 2.4s, I was relieved that every upgrade resulted in upgraded performance. As he mentioned, his SE's were late Chinese manufacture with room for improvement by reverting to old methods, from which we also upgraded layouts and coils. All his parts were very carefully selected, and synergy ruled. My own path is with Mills resistors and Clarity caps on old-style point to point boards with new layouts and heat managemnt. I am considering those electronic upgrades as end of project decisions. My focus is on re-bracing and re-baffling which is progressing well.

upgrading from a stock CS 2.4 to the CS 2.4SE model.

sdecker doesn’t really have SE-equivalent. The advertised changes were swapping out 13 uF polypropylene + 1 uF polystyrene for 14 uf Clarity SA and 27 uF polypropylene + 1 uF polystyrene for 28 uf Clarity SA. The unadvertised changes were sourcing the boards from FST which reduced the parts quality of the other caps as well as coils (not sure about the resistors). FST were also printed circuit boards instead of point-to-point. It’s also *possible* that the hookup wire on the CS2.4SE was not as good as the original CS2.4.

sdecker kept the 1 uF polystyrenes and used Clarity ESA (instead of SA) to replace the 13 and 27 uF coax feed caps. Probably, sdecker has something *better* than the SE-version although I’m curious to know the sonic consequences of the 1 uF bypasses relative to full capacitance from single caps (ie, 14 and 28 uF). Perhaps Tom Thiel’s trials will include comparisons with and without the 1 uF bypasses.

thosb,

Finally, and there are many on this thread who have better more experienced ears than me, but from what I have heard in my journey so far, "live" comes from tube based amplification.

I always wonder about tube amps myself. The Carver tubed 350 monos keep catching my eye.......But can they handle the 2 ohm impedance?

Thanks for listening,

Dsper

2nd Note;

I would like to hear a pair of CS 2.2 and CS 2.3 models for comparison to the CS 2.4 loudspeaker.  Happy Listening!

sdecker

I share your sentiments upgrading from a stock CS 2.4 to the CS 2.4SE model. Dave Garretson was one of this thread's early contributors on the benefits from using Clarity Cap OEM parts. Having spent much time w/ the 2.4, 2.4SE, 2.7 and 3.7 loudspeakers, soundstage is not a problem.

Happy Listening!

@sdecker
Nope, I didn’t PM you. I’ve owned my 2.4s for only about two years. Tom Thiel coached me through most of my mods. I replaced every part from the binding posts to the driver hookup wire. Sounds glorious. 

@beetlemania

I do remember PMing a couple AG members about my specifics after I posted about my experiences. Were you one?

All your thoughts are well-taken. I perhaps wasn't clear on a couple points you expounded on. Thiel's 1uF bright yellow film bypass caps I didn't touch. I chose the 250V ESA caps for size to fit in the existing XO space for the prior caps.

At the time, at least with the suppliers I looked at, the ESA wasn't available in a 13uF, so I piggybacked a 3uF with a 10uF. The 27uF was stocked. So I never considered assembling what I could to do away with the existing 1uF film bypasses and go to 14 and 28 -- which would likely have required using different 1uF bypasses as ESA wasn't available in 4 or 28uF. I honestly haven't investigated other caps that might work in the XO since then, and I'm sure what you used are a result of deeper research and wider availability of good XO caps since my 2011 upgrade.

What I referred to as ' bypasses' are 10nF, the Vishay-Roderstein MKP-1837 that Humboldt Homemade Hifi (??) recommended for every XO cap application.

My audio friends at the time recommended changing out the XO resistors too, and I promised I would do on my second round, which hasn't yet happened :-(

Can I attach a picture to my posts, or only via a weblink to a photo-sharing cloud service?

@sdecker
FWIW, the CS2.4SE did away with the 1 uF bypasses on the coax feeds, ie, full 14 and 28 uF in single caps rather than 13+1 and 27+1. I am aware of a third-hand report that a 1 uF bypass can have a deleterious effect on SQ (supposedly better to go either higher or lower values for bypass caps). I don't have any information on whether this is related to Jim Thiel's decision to do away with the bypasses. But, clearly, he preferred the sound of 14 and 28 uF Clarity SAs over the original 13+1 and 27+1. CSS apparently has 14 and 28 uF SAs available although the ESA are supposed to be a step up from SA.

My modded boards have 14 and 28 uF values in single Clarity CSAs, the 14 uF bypassed with a 0.1 uF Multicap RTX and the 28 uF bypassed with a 0.22 Multicap RTX. The bypasses improved the "jump factor" and added, maybe, a smidge of resolution.

Buying these parts from a retailer, I would probably get 10+3.9 uF (and a 0.1 bypass) and 18+10 in 630 volt Clarity. Maybe CSA for the bigger value and CMR for the smaller value (for maximum SQ) or all CSA (to save money and space). Jantzen Alumen is said to mix well with Clarity, also.

Regardless, I highly recommend replacing the 2.4 resistors with Mills MRA-12s. You can replace the sandcasts on all boards for about $100. Money well spent. Sonic Craft carries all the correct 2.4 values although you have to mix and match from among the older Mills and newer Vishay-Mills.

Anyhow, thanks for posting about your ESA upgrade a few years back. That gave me courage to try my own mods - and I'm super happy with how it turned out.

Not to turn this into a ss vs tube discussion, just sharing my opinion.

dsper - you are ahead of me as well on your Thiel/digital journey.  Have you thought about a DAC with tube based output?  Also, if you haven't, check out the "taming digital glare" thread and think about all the possible ancillary improvements like power supplies, conditioners, cabling, etc, many believe this all makes a difference with digital and although I have a ways to go, so far I agree.  Also agree with prof's comments above re continuing to recheck speaker placement, including tilt.  Finally, and there are many on this thread who have better more experienced ears than me, but from what I have heard in my journey so far, "live" comes from tube based amplification.  

brayeagle - thanks for the links to the iconclast cables.  I went and spent some time there.  The thing I found most interesting was their claim that "time of arrival" was the missing critical factor, and the main driver behind their decision on how to construct. Way back in the 80's-90's Monster Cable introduced their M1000 series (and later similarly constructed M400's) using three layers of differing wire and construction, with the claim that this equalized "time of arrival". 

I tested the early M1000's against a few other cables (can't remember which ones) in the same price range and the M1000's beat them hands down.  I loaded up on used M1000's and M400's over the next decade and have used them ever since, with results that reveal every iota of change in gear behind them.  Before you rush out to buy any, however, let me add that their cable construction was shoddy and by now probably 50% of the RCA plugs have had to be replaced.  And since the cables are thick this is not always easy.

For those 2.7 fans or owners here’s an old, obscure review of the Thiel 2.7s in a Chinese audio magazine:

https://review.u-audio.com.tw/reviewdetail.asp?reviewid=628

Will require googletranslate. Though I found using the Chrome browser, which offers automatic translation, worked very well. There were very few reviews of the 2.7 (TAS, Secrets Of Home Theater, and an italian one), so finding another is fun.


I love the finish on that pair in the review!  Looks like the same pair, possibly, as the one sent to Secrets.

   As soon as the 2.4SE came out advertising its improved crossover.  Thiel supplied me with the XO schematic and that their auditioning chose the Clarity Cap SA.  I went to PartsConnexion and went up one step to the ESA model, matched pairs, with paralleled bypass caps.  Had to use a 10+3 uF paralleled from their stock rather than a custom-made 13uF cap Thiel custom-sourced.  No other changes to XO (yet?).  

   It was a quick one-man DIY.  Decades as a working EE made this straightforward, if tight quarters.

   Despite the break-in time, it was clear the tightly-matched cap tolerances improved the image focus, and a smidge more transparency throughout the upper frequencies.  At this level of hifi, this was great bang for the $135 buck. 

   I'll add that having both coaxes rebuilt from the ground up at the same time by Rob Gillum post-Thiel collapse was similar to the upgraded, matched-pair Clarity caps, and also improved image focus and transparency a smidge.  But probably moreso because I have so many zillion hours listening to these speakers in the same good acoustic with mostly the same components and cables...

  Do you "share my sentiments" because you've *heard* with your own ears that the 2.4 doesn't soundstage quite as well as the 2.3?

sdecker

Good to see you again. I, too, share your sentiments w/ the CS 2.4 model.
Pretty cool aspect regarding upgrading via SE Clarity Cap.  Did you incorporate any other change(s) to the cross-over (XO)?
Was this a DIY project? Or, did another speaker tech assist?

Happy Listening!

Andy2, I’m assuming you mistyped, because a high-pass filter will attenuate the *low* frequencies more than the highs!

OK, I was high on weeds :-)  

But the more ’open’ sound without grilles IMO is as much the lack of an acoustic obstruction between you and the tweeter as it is a slight (relative) exaggeration of the highs.

I suppose that is a valid point.  I'll let others "bring it on" as Tom will probably have some say to that :-)

solobone, I’d really like to put the 2.7 next to my 2.4. I’ve heard 2.4 side-by-side with 3.7, and obviously way too much of 2.3 vs 2.4...


cascadesphil, mine are late-production 2.3s, but my understanding of the changes to the coax wouldn’t affect the soundstaging I’m noticing as a baffle change between 2.3 and 2.4.


Andy2, I’m assuming you mistyped, because a high-pass filter will attenuate the *low* frequencies more than the highs!

I’ve seen a number of frequency plots over the years of grilles on vs off for a variety of speakers, and my memory is they nearly always show some degree of attenuation, ideally just the top octave, but sometimes they have funky and likely unintentional irregularities at much lower frequencies. As the grille rolloff seems < a 1st-order XO I don’t see why some modest XO tweaks couldn’t flatten out the response by a dB or less in the tweeter’s passband. If you know your XO topology to begin with.

But the more ’open’ sound without grilles IMO is as much the lack of an acoustic obstruction between you and the tweeter as it is a slight (relative) exaggeration of the highs.

For some reasons, Tom reminds me of this. Oh well maybe I’ll use the stereo illusions ... But I’ll take my gloves off at the challenge.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNjhiMjk1YWYtMjgyYy00YTFhLTk0NTMtN2Q5MDZjMWEyYWI1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_.jpg

It may have to do with the filtering affect of the grille. In a linear system, every frequency passes through the system will only be affected by a constant value, either a gain or an attenuation, which will be applied to all frequencies all equally. This would be ideal or at least preferable.

My System Theory 101 is a bit rusty, and I am not sure if a filter can be called a "Linear Time Invariant" (I am pretty sure about the Time Invariant but not sure about the Linear part), but I am pretty sure any filter will affect the phase of a signal and not just the amplitude. In this sense, a grille will act as a filter, a high pass filter albeit a mechanical one, because it will attenuate the high frequencies more than the low frequencies, and just like any filter, therefore introducing a phase shift at the high frequencies. Therefore the attenuation affect of the grille is not a "constant", and probably therefore one cannot be compensated by a "fix" amount on the treble to counteract the variable attenuation of the grille. And I suppose the phase shift introduced by the grille at high frequencies is what affects the "openess" of the sound that I notice.

I suppose one could match the treble response to counteract perfectly to the frequencies response of the grille, but that’s probably very difficult and probably not worth the trouble. It’s probably a lot easier to listen just with the grille off :-)

Gloves put back.

Owned 2.3s and helped deliver a bunch of 2.4s.  At one point, they changed the tweeter in the 2.3 (helped replace a blown one in one speaker and had to replace the other to match).  From memory (long time), the new one might have been vented in the back of the driver.  The 2.4s are clearly much smoother and not as harsh when driven a bit hard.

Regarding the differences between the 2.3 and 2.4.

I would really like to put the 2.3 next to the 2.4 next to the 2.7 and listen to the difference.  I have 1.6, 2.7, and 3.6 and enjoy them all immensely however have not had the opportunity to hear the same line side by side.

If anyone is interested there are a pair of 2.2's in black at Hawthorne Stereo in Seattle.  One of the woofers shows evidence of re-gluing the surround.  The passive radiators show signs of delamination as well.

I hope to hear discussion about sdecker's observations. I have heard neither speaker, but share his thoughts. Bring it on, please.

While you're on the subject of grilles, I'll hop in this forum for the first time. I've been lurking on it for a month or two but haven't read all 143 pages! I've been on Audiogon forever, but haven't done many transactions or forums here in the past decade. I have owned 2.3s since 2002 and 2.4s since 2006, probably one of the first owners to install the SE capacitor upgrade, though going to a higher-spec Clarity Cap.

What has always 'baffled' me is the 2.4 seemingly putting form over function by recessing the baffle with sharp edges all around for the magnetic grille cutout, and the grille itself having metal discontinuities around the perimeter of the coax. The 2.3 coax is mounted in a modest waveguide and the entire baffle back to the sides of the cabinet is a smooth rounded surface with zero discontinuities. The grille is a sock stretched tight over this that has no effect on diffraction.

With the 2.3 and 2.4 side-by-side, with the right source material, the 2.3 always throws a more-effortless and dimensional soundstage. After years of listening in the same acoustic and much the same equipment, and with listening material that has enough soundstage information, this has always been consistently repeatable. I can only believe the visibly far-less diffraction off the 2.3 baffle is why.

(With either speaker pair, I always listen with the grilles on and perhaps 5 degrees of toe-in in an optimal acoustic for these speakers)

I use my 2.4s 95% of the time because they're better than the 2.3 in every other respect, and their soundstaging is still 'sufficient.' Poor Gary Dayton had to field this question from me at least once after I got my new 2.4s side-by-side with my existing 2.3s. But the evidence here is still clear and the question remains, how did the 2.4's multiple baffle edges and discontinuities not offend Jim Thiel's fundamental design goals? And make it past all the factory listening tests to confirm the 2.4 was to be an improvement on every aspect of the 2.3?

Fabric, even polyester made to be sonically transparent, does have multiple effects, as you say. Many Thiel models use the grille frame to fill the cabinet corner with a rounded continuation of the baffle round-over and as such that frame is an important component of the wave launch. And, as I mentioned, the treble reduction of the fabric is part of the intended balance. But many audiophiles dislike grille fabric. Many have gotten good results by removing the fabric from the frame and using the frame as intended for diffraction control. Pointing the speakers straight ahead puts the listener a little off-axis to reduce high frequency beaming. Thiels are designed for straight-ahead pointing, but it seems a majority toes them in, which puts too much energy in the brightness region. The straight-ahead orientation often requires wall treatment at the first reflection point, which solves many imaging issues, while keeping a flat on-axis and power response.

Thank you Tom. The cabinet seems to be the most time consuming part of making a speaker at least in the DIY world. I suppose with CNC equipment then maybe the process will be much faster. Personally for me the cabinet takes about 70% of the time and the rest for the electronics. But even with CNC, I suspect the cabinets will always be the most expensive part of making a speaker, especially with the high end speakers. One of the most understated part of Thiel is in their cabinetry in term of being "furniture friendly" as most people usually talk of Thiel as just "first order coherent".  

I’ve assumed (or maybe read somewhere) that Thiel designed their speakers to be used with the grills on (as in the sonic effects of the grill were accounted for in the design).

I used to listen with the grill off and I notice the upper frequencies were a bit more "open". Also just like most first order design, the sound balance of the Thiel is a bit sensitive to "toe in". I listen with the speakers pointing straight forward. With "toe in", the upper frequencies were slightly more pronounce than I would like.

I wonder if the grill only affects the sound pressure to the affect of about "1dB" as Tom said. It’s possible that the grill also affect the "resolution" as well and ultimately the "openess" of the sound. My thinking is that the grill may affect more than just "1dB" less. That is even if you fine tune the treble energy to account for the "1dB", it still may not be the same as with "grill off".

There have been some claims with respect to "audible transparent" cloth but I doubt it though, especially where a system has a lot of resolution that will high-light any characteristic of the equipment chain.

Prof - Yes, we assumed grilles to be on, which affects final frequency balance, knocking the upper octaves down perhaps 1dB. Some grille frames are also inherent to diffraction management. Some reviewers and individuals have used them bare and then take pot-shots at that extra 1dB of treble and/or diffraction effects which they have directly caused by mis-use of the product. End of rant. Good to see you here.
Tom

tomthiel,

I’ve assumed (or maybe read somewhere) that Thiel designed their speakers to be used with the grills on (as in the sonic effects of the grill were accounted for in the design).

Is that correct?

I’ve always listened with grills on, and it seems to be the norm for Thiel speakers from what I’ve seen.

Andy - I'll try to fill in some blanks. And this piece of history may interest some of you.The 3-D baffle is a rather difficult item to produce one-off. The 03 had a flat baffle and the 03a added wool felt around the drivers which worked very well, but seemed somewhat inelegant with our high-WAF furniture-presentation. So I devised the contoured wave-launch baffle which, I believe, was unique at the time. The CS3 (1983) was made by hand, assisted with power tools. First the laminated baffle was beveled on a tablesaw to remove excess waste. 45° across the top and 45° x perhaps 15° up the sides. The CS3 was then shaped with a hand-plane and random orbit sanders to its final contours. The CS3.5 (1986) was contoured with a form tool in an inverted router as follows. The excess waste was removed by tablesaw just like the CS3, then the CS3.5 was machined on an inverted pin router: fixtured in a jig, back-side up, where the jig interfaced with an overhead pin centered on the underslung form tool, which was an 8" diameter arc to shape the rounded edges. That semi-manual method produced the early 3.5s. Later, that forming operation was moved to the Computer Numeric Control Router to the great relief of all. The CS2.2 (1990) used the same tool, but was designed and manufactured entirely for CNC Router.

You might consider the CS3 method of table-sawing the compound angles on the sides and the straight 45° across the top and then shaping with a hand plane, sander and an arc pattern to guide you. Divots or other errors can be filled with body putty (Bondo); and paint covers a multitude of sins.  You might also know a CNC job shop to carve it, probably with a ball-end mill. You then remove the swarf with a sander. Or take the Avalon (etc.) approach and make facets without the smooth arcs. I think I would do that and cover the facets with F11 wool felt to absorb the migrating launch wave. I am presently having great fun with felt on the curves and believe that felt on facets would be a good way ahead.

Have fun. Keep us posted.

Maybe if Tom could help with this.  

I was wondering how the baffle of the Thiel speakers are manufactured?  The curved baffle geometry probably presents some difficulties.  If I were to do it by hands, I probably would use a combination of a planar and chisel and probably would take me a few weekends, but I assume that would probably be too time consuming and would cost a lot of time and money as well in actual production.

I suppose if you were to mass produce something like that, you could come up with a machine that either can do the entire baffle, or most of it that will reduce most of the manual labor.   

jeffvegas

Welcome! Good to see you here. Keep us posted if you decide to purchase a pair of Thiel loudspeakers.

Happy Listening!

Correction: I meant the 5 has sealed bass

Asturias - I am spitballing for thoughts on cs5i vs cs7. Never heard direct comparison. 5i has older drivers, but with similar motor technologies to 7s. 5 has no coax, so vertical loving is greater. Baffles are similar tech, but 7s are thicker and quieter. 5 has big bucket brigade delays on mid ranges. I haven’t seen 7 schematic, so don’t know its timing mechanism. Generally newer models are superior to older. I imagine the 7 specs better.
BUT the 7 has a sealed bass to under 20 Hz which I know to be glorious IF you can drive it. I consider the 5 as a prime upgrade candidate due to direct upgrades with clear advantages. Physical time alignment is low hanging fruit and biamp capability lessens impedance stress.

Yes!  I'm using Rowland's best: PSU, DAC & Corus Pre with an enhanced Spectron Class D Musician II Signature amp.  Bybee iQSE V2s for atmosphere treatment and PPT everywhere else.  SR power cables and conditioners, Analysis Plus best interconnects and loudspeaker cables... The 7.2's are so incredibly coherent, transparent, tonally spot on and just plain signing!  Happy listening!

Old Rowland gear and Thiels sound great. The Rowland giving some body to the sound through the mids. Thiels like current and the ROWLANDS will do a better job at that than a tube amp. Everyone is spot on with wiring.  You can hear night and day what different speaker cable and IC's sound like. You really have to play around with several types to find the ones you particularly like the best. Almost like a tone control. 

Remember his name now - Hugh Campbell - lived in McLean VA.  The article was in June 2001 (and entitled "Sound Crazy").  Could not find the original but did find some comments online about it here -   https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2001/06/19/mad-about-music/22cda9eb-b602-46f3-a00b-896c89eec7a6/

He actually got the $85k list price speakers used for something like $27k with shipping (that was probably about 15+ years ago).  The room was probably about just over 9 feet wide by about 17 feet with metal Boltz LP racks all over.  We took out a pair of $12k list B&W retro looking speakers that sounded better in the room.  Electronics included the Levinson 33H monoblocks ($20k list) and the Levinson reference preamp of the day ($16k list) and the he had an adjacent bigger room with a TV and a pair of Maggie 3.6s on a side wall (adjacent to the small room with the Dynaudio speakers), which I believe were powered by a De Havilland amp or integrated in the same room as the Dynaudio.  When we left my friend said that he would be better off with 7.2s in that room (vs. the Dynaudio).  Did other deliveries where the room was an afterthought. Like 2 story glass walls and a wall with a stone fireplace and Thiel 2.3s (which I owned before the 7.2s) and it sounded so bright it hurt my ears.  That system was bought totally based on review ratings vs. the person listening carefully or obviously considering the room.

You might be surprised at how the WAF influences someone willing to part with his money. ;-) ;-) ;-)