Thiel Owners

In case anyone is interested, I just posted pictures of my system to Virtual Systems.

https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8156

Comments welcome.

Thanks Beetle. I'll point out an error in that old post, when I was dusting off my remembering stick. The sequence of the CS1 series (6.5"2-way) goes O4, O4a, CS1, CS1.2, CS1.5 (5th generation), CS1.6, CS1.7. The model 1 represents the most changes of any Thiel model family, due mostly to it being able to accept trickle-down upgrades from the many products above it.

I posted a long version answer perhaps a year ago on this thread.

Almost *exactly* one year ago (link)

Just an fyi that TMR has listed a pair of CS 1.5s in Dark Cherry for $699.  Condition was listed as 7 out of 10 with some visible scuffs and nicks.

Jacksky - I posted a long version answer perhaps a year ago on this thread. 3 is the model 3 and .5 is the 5th generation. The CS5 is a 5-way, and has no passive radiators. The bass is sealed and all 3 woofers extend below 10Hz.

Jacksky - a long answer may be of interest to some on this thread. I just lost a few paragraphs and will find some time soon. Hint: the 1.6 is the sixth generation of the model 1 (with pre-history of O4 and O4a).
Tom

Tom/jafant,
is there a code to the different models names... i.e. 1.6 was named as such for the 1.6 cm interior volume.....or 3.5 stands for 3 series (like BMW) and 5 stands for number of drivers including passive radiators?

Happy Friday! All

Unsound - thank you for those links. I remember the Angelus; Bau was putting the tweeter into the (relative) infinite baffle domain (like Jim's desire for the CS5 to have a wide, curved baffle). And his woofer wanted a wider propagation environment at its high end. A rather quirky implementation of good ideas. Spica had a solid high-performance appeal. I've never heard one.

The Dunlavy interview is excellent. I would project the he and Jim would agree on everything. Dunlavy brought tons of ability and experience to his work and built a successful company which permitted his development of his good ideas. As I mentioned, I only heard his early products, which I judged as not thoroughly refined. But I would like to hear some later Dunlavy speakers. I bet they're excellent.

The elements of a speaker all work together as a whole - a pot of soup. Trying to separate any single element leads to confusion.

Still, the little tiny Spendor S3/5 speakers I have can sound spooky accurate to real human voices. And at the recent Toronto audio show I attended, voices played via the Harbeth speakers (thin wall, wider baffle design) sounded more human than any other speaker system I heard there, regardless of price.

I think it might be just a coincidence.  A lot of the "human" sounding probably has to do with driver selection and speaker voicing.  I don't think a "thin" wall speaker has any inherent advantage in term of able to reproduce a "human sounding" vocal although I know what you meant.
I've listened to "hard and stiff" wall speakers and a lot of them could reproduce voices very well so much so that listening to Diana Krall makes me think twice about getting married :-)

This is put in relief in comparison to the Joseph Audio speakers I have now (no I’m not getting rid of my Thiels!). The high frequencies of the Joseph speakers are shockingly pure and grain-free, without brightness.Cymbals pop out of the mix like a scrim of hash has been wiped away, and ring with more of the beauty of the real thing.

As Tom pointed out, the Joseph uses of the expensive soft dome tweeter from Seas probably has a lot to do with that.  Soft domes have come a long way.  In the past, soft domes although haave the sweet sound but they lack the transparency of hard domes, but nowaday the newer ones such as the Seas have both.  I think Thiels tweeters use metal based material (aluminum alloy I think) and although aluminum has a lot of details and extension, it may not sound as sophisticated or sweet as the best soft domes from Seas.

I think, no doubt, that the designer will say this is a result of the benefits that can be found in going with a higher order crossover, and (in the case of the Joseph speakers, at least purportedly having a steep crossover shelving), to allow drivers to operate optimally within their range with lower distortion and less crossover interaction.

I think it may be a "red herring" in this case, since I don't think "high order" is what responsible for what you've heard.  The drivers used in the Joseph play a large part to the characteristics of the sound.

A few previous posts ago, I said that the most apparent difference between first order vs. higher order is in the treble.

I also notice that first order filter speakers such as the Thiels make early 1980's recordings sounding more "musical" than they really are.  I have quite a few early recordings back in the early days of digital recordings that generally sound sort of flat, analytical, and very lean with very little presence.  But through first order, they actually sound musical and the sound has a fulsome quality that not there in typical conventional systems.  

tomthiel

Thank You for the sales figures. I know that you will succeed in your modifications. Looking forward to reading about the (4) pair outcomes.
Enjoy the Audio journey.

Happy Listening!

Tom,
Cool!

Prof - the 2.7 baffle is 3" thick and well-braced. I doubt that it is moving much. The baffle treatment I am developing is a 3-layer felt and fabric overlay to make the baffle surface virtually disappear. This territory is new to me, and I am making progress, and have 4 pair under development with 3 co-conspirators.

JA - circling back to 1.6 and 1.7 sales: Rob says approximately 2500 pairs of 1.6 and 1000 pair of 1.7 were sold. The preponderance of evidence suggests the 1.7 has 4th order Butterworth XO slopes for time coincidence, but not phase coherence.

Yes, I’ve also wondered before about what might happen if the 2.7 baffle were further re-enforced. Though not being a speaker designer, I wouldn’t know the trade-offs. I’d imagine that if, say, you tried to re-enforce it from within, adding thickness with some material behind the baffle, you start intruding on inner cabinet volume, which could screw up some other parameters of the design?

BTW, I’ve now heard the much lauded Kii Three speakers twice, which use DSP to correct both for frequency response and time/phase coherence.

Maybe I still haven’t had a good demo of those speakers, but in neither set up did they sound as timbrally natural to my ears as my Thiels, nor did they image with the specificity and density of the Thiels.

Prof - there is some low-hanging fruit for the 2.7 upgrade. A 400uF electrolytic midrange series feed cap (although well bypassed) is certainly limiting the clarity-directness. Other XO tweaks too. The 2.7 baffle is nicely optimized, but I bet we'll gain some harmonic delicacy with treatment.

tomthiel,
My post was also meant to justify my interest in whatever possible upgrades show up for the 2.7s.  It would be intriguing if a bit more of that "sonic purity" I hear in the Josephs could be introduced in to the 2.7s.(Even *some* movement in that direction would be intriguing).

Prof - thank you for your thorough comparisons and commentary.I have read Stereophile's reviews of the Joseph Perspectives and admire the outcome. I am a big fan of magnesium as  a driver material - the SEAS Graphene material seems great to me. Thiel products never got to that level of refinement with their associated costs. But in my fantasies, I would develop a tweeter with such a diaphragm to take the breakup above 40K Hz without electronic intervention. My experience with microphones says that magic would flow.

For the record, we can improve the 3.7 performance with passive component upgrades (like Beetlemania's 2.4s) and a little baffle treatment. Don't sell them yet.

Unsound - wave guides might have merit in the right designer's toolkit. But I am not that guy. The famous "lobing" is caused by vertical offset between the tweeter and midrange as a function of wavelength and crossover slope mating. The 3.5 drivers are very close, providing a pretty large vertical window for any seated listener more than 8' away. I consider that set of parameters as baked in to the fundamental product design. Wide horizontal energy dispersion is also quite good in the stock product; I'm keeping stock geometry.I'm working with surface treatment to absorb the energy propagating along the baffle surfaces.

I do not know Bau's or Dunlavy's later work, but your near triangle makes good sense. Before I left Thiel Audio, I experimented with tapered cabinets, which require CNC router-cutters with differing angles per each taper angle. In a production environment, quite a bit of complexity is added, plus no matter how sophisticated the cutter, the sharp veneered panel edge is somewhat damaged. We stuck with rectangular panels where the CNC-mounted saw could cut precise, sharp mitres.

We have identified a replacement midrange, with a new tweeter in the works - giving me the courage to address this classic model, which sold more than 5000 pair in a 5 year run from 1987 to 1992. That in many ways was a high-point of connection with our audience and market. At this point, I cannot address the equalizer. And today there are good subwoofers to augment the 3.5's extraordinary sealed bass.

@tomthiel

Re the concept of accurate vs musicality, I don’t think they are opposed.But ultimately both sound systems and recordings are compromised and personally my main goal is to enjoy music through my system. I think the artist would also be happy that I enjoy his/her music too, rather than care too much if my system may have a bump at 50HZ or something.

But, I’m all for reducing distortion which very often has agreeable sonic results. One of the things I love about my Thiels is their even-handedness through the frequency range, but not doing so in a way that renders the presentation bloodless, but rather still has dynamic life and tonal richness.

I however have ALSO liked other speaker designs, even some that those seeking strict neutrality and the lowest distortion would denigrate or eschew. Because even some kind of wonky designs can bring some intriguing characteristics to the table.

For instance, one of the things that to me distinguishes real sound objects from reproduced (be it a voice or a sax) is the physical density and presence of the real sound. It sounds solid, occupying space in front of me. Whereas many speakers present vivid sonic "images" that are more wispy and weightless - hologram-like vs the solidity of the real thing.

There are some speaker designs that may be introducing canny colorations - e.g. thin-walled big box speakers that let the cabinet "sing" with the music - which seem to introduce that type of "density" in to the sound. It may come from some deviation from strict accuracy, but it DOES to my ears get by those methods to something sounding "more right, more like the real thing" in certain aspects.

Thiel speakers of course go the "remove cabinet sound" route, but get back some of that density in the presentation nonetheless, which could be attributed to the time/phase coherence perhaps.
Still, the little tiny Spendor S3/5 speakers I have can sound spooky accurate to real human voices. And at the recent Toronto audio show I attended, voices played via the Harbeth speakers (thin wall, wider baffle design) sounded more human than any other speaker system I heard there, regardless of price.

BTW, in regards to the performance of the 3.7 and 2.7...

I still think the 3.7 was probably the best overall speaker I’ve owned (among many), in terms of it’s near SOTA performance in many areas and it’s over all balance, tone, and lack of speakerly artifacts.

Though my recently acquired Joseph Audio Perspective speakers do give them a run-for-the-money in some areas, and I think exceed them in one or two. For a lack of "hash" to the sound, and for delineating instrumental timbre, I haven’t heard their better. Also, when it comes to the Thiel’s high frequencies (I think the 3.7s were a bit more refined vs the 2.7), I continue to laud the Thiels for the most part, with some caveats. The Thiels still have as coherent a sound as I’ve ever encountered from a speaker. And the high frequencies match to the rest is essentially perfect to my ear. I can’t hear out the tweeters at all, the sonic spectrum simply continues from bottom to top seamlessly disappearing in to the ether, with nice air and immediacy and smoothness (and importantly: the Thiels seem to maintain the "size" of the sound up in to the high frequencies - higher frequency instruments from cymbals to high flutes/woodwinds don’t dramatically thin out the way they do on many speakers).

My caveat is that although the Thiel high frequencies are truly excellent and coherent, they have never been quite as beautiful as I’ve heard from some other speakers. It’s a bit hard to describe, but the sheen of bow on strings was there...but not with the sophistication of texture and smoothness I’ve heard elsewhere. Drum cymbals too were...fine...but didn’t seem to have to tonal clarity, purity and timbral complexity I would hear in some other speakers. They didn’t really "pop" out and drive the music as much, almost like there was some slight scrim/veil holding those frequencies back.

This is put in relief in comparison to the Joseph Audio speakers I have now (no I’m not getting rid of my Thiels!). The high frequencies of the Joseph speakers are shockingly pure and grain-free, without brightness.Cymbals pop out of the mix like a scrim of hash has been wiped away, and ring with more of the beauty of the real thing. Same for orchestral string sessions - just a more finely rendered combination of vividness and silkiness. Basically, the high frequencies just sound "better," more real and sophisticated than from my Thiels. I think, no doubt, that the designer will say this is a result of the benefits that can be found in going with a higher order crossover, and (in the case of the Joseph speakers, at least purportedly having a steep crossover shelving), to allow drivers to operate optimally within their range with lower distortion and less crossover interaction.
I would leave it to people with more experience and knowledge to hash that stuff out. I’m just musing about my own experience comparing speakers.

Still, while I find plenty to praise in my new Joseph speakers, I think the Thiel 3.7s were still probably the overall more balanced, amazing achievement.

Unsound - in developing the CS5, I evaluated a tapered cabinet, large enough for the woofers at the bottom and as narrow as possible at the top. We never mocked up or tested it. The 3-dimensional cabinet geometry would have added considerable cost and production engineering time-to-market delays. CS5 product development was on the fast track. I hadn't heard of Jim's "wider baffle" statement.

I lobbied for a CS5.2 with that tapered 3-D geometry, plus a frontally-contoured baffle to put all the drivers in their proper physical alignment. Half of that extensive crossover (dozens of parts?) is for time delay for the upper and lower midrange drivers. That requirement would vanish and the signal path would be enormously shortened, allowing ultra-quality components. And so forth and so on.

As a company we chose to concentrate on our core lower-price market, leading to home theater products and subwoofers and a lot of scrambling. A different Thiel Audio would have resulted from pursuing a 5.2 and other upscale products.

True enough, wider baffles isolate the waveform launch at the speaker, as opposed to the room. His included assumption is that the curved baffle is effectively diffusing meaningful surface anomalies and that an infinite baffle is ideal. I might agree with the later, but I am challenging the assumption of a perfect-curved baffle.

Also note that I judge models with similar side and top environments to sound more natural than those with small-dimension horizontals and large dimension verticals, both between drivers and above the tweeter. 

One of our forum members is outfitting his CS3.5s with my current surface treatment for comparison to the stock control unit.

Unsound - I think you took issue with my paradigm restatement (but I could be wrong.) I see a paradigm as a lens through which to view the territory under exploration. The values and results might not be challenged or changed. What changes is the perspective, the point of view. I came to realize that 80% of my CDs were not suitable for sharing or showing off or enjoying. I am adopting a new paradigm which takes responsibility for that situation.
Regarding Dunlavy, I had issues with John's approach (my exposure was late 90s). I didn't fall in love with his products. And soft baffles were just part of his rather inclusive approach. His cabinets had sharp corners and I could hear them more than Thiels'. Of parallel meaning to me is the early Vandersteen baffle-less cabinets, which reminded me of my own early work of hearing and minimizing diffraction effects. I liked the rounded edge solutions we developed at Thiel and those solutions were later refined with larger radius easing. But that seems to have been the end of the story, and it shouldn't have been, and wouldn't have been if I had stayed at Thiel.

My "Realizing the Artists' Dream" paradigm encouraged me to pursue why and by what methods the V and D products attracted so many avid adopters. Both brands were enormously successful compared to Thiel's limited appeal. Last summer, my explorations got serious when reading cabinet wall vibrations with a stethoscope and found significant chatter on the CS3.6s baffles. The baffles weren't moving detectably at 3" well braced thickness. The noise was on the surface. That noise sounded a lot like the "hardness" attributed to Thiel products at high volume and musical complexity; and the 3.6 was far worse than the 2.2, which was worse than the PowerPoint1.2. I gradually came to terms with accepting responsibility for whatever I might find - easier since I was personally involved with 2.2 and 3.6 cabinet development.
I am now several iterations deep into soft, layered overlays on Thiel's curved baffles. The results are different than my assumptions predicted, and very encouraging. My work is also informed via previous work with laminar and turbulent flow management. So, I am thinking and experimenting a lot with "soft" baffles.

Presently I seek out any and all CDs, regardless of pedigree, to learn what they might teach. And I am constantly surprised that nearly all of them pull me into their Artists' Dream, their musicality and charm. I cross-check every cut with Cans and stock 2.2s and 1.6s, stock and modified.

Regarding Andy's point of cost. Indeed products are limited by their budgets. Part of the appeal of this exploration is that an effective solution will cost less than premium components and wire; plus the improvements are in parallel to those electronic improvements. Not either-or, but both-and.

@tomethiel, I'm sure you'll do a fine job. I think have more of an issue with the concept description than the actual work. After your experience with Dunlavy, what do you think of using soft surfaces instead of hard surfaces on the baffles?

Tom,

You've talked me into a pair of 800s cans.  Thanks!!
So now I have the  008s and the  800s .Really causes a dilemma, as both are excellent. I'll still use the electrostatics to check new CD s, but most likely will use the 800s for pleasurable listening, as they make the soundstage in the 600s appear cramped, and with less HF resolution. (Female voices sound much better.)

George 

Unsound - I am being excruciatingly careful to avoid editorializing the sound. We called what many brands do "euphonic engineering" - to knowingly alter the sound-field for desired illusions.
A look behind the curtain: I used my modified CS1.6s as sound reinforcement for a live acoustic concert last night in our 12,000 cubic foot Village Arts Center. As usual during sound check, I compare the unamplified house sound to that in the headphones (Beyer770Pro), to that through the speakers. The naturalness was comment and question-worthy from the musicians, two attendees and the house manager. To date there are no changes to drivers or electronics or cabinet walls. The baffle surfaces have been modified for a qualitative improvement which genuinely pleases and encourages me. 

George - Nice system, nice room, and good solution.

Andy - No 2.7 and 2.4 are not the same woofers.
Longer historic perspective answer:A new model from Thiel included new drivers, either specifically developed for the new model or trickled down from a more expensive recent product. Ex. the CS1.6 woofer was borrowed from the in-house developed CS7.2 mid-woofer. A newly named generation had new drivers.
The 2.7 woofer may use the same cone as the 2.4 (I don't know). But the 2.7 woofer was developed in conjunction with Warkwyn-Canada, along with the crossover. That development consumed tremendous costs, proving that outside engineering could not be afforded for Thiel to keep breaking new ground. In Jim's time I believe the 2.7 coax would have been a new driver based on the 3.7 concept. In fact, he spoke of developing such a 7.3 coax. A smaller diameter mid-plate would allow a higher crossover and perhaps a smaller tweeter to higher resonsnce-free extension. That hypothetical driver, along with a star cone, would then be trickled down into the model 2 - and called the 2.5, the next generation of the model 2.

The 2.7 is certainly an accomplishment, and a tribute to Home-Team- Thiel's dedication to creating a legacy worthy of Jim's 3.7 work. But it is less of a product than Jim would have engineered, given the time.

I was wondering if the CS2.7 uses the same bass driver as the CS2.4?  At least they visually look the same and about the same size.

I spent several weeks going to my dealer's showroom to audition the 3.7s and 2.7s. I took a widespread selection of my classical CDs with which I was very familiar. 
In the end, I selected the 2.7s, along with a SS2.2 sub to extend the lower bass. I'm still completely satisfied with the choice. Disclaimer: I listen to classical music, and not much else. 

Living room is 16 x 24 x 12, with a large opening along one side of one 24' wall.  Straight 12"ceiling.  Speakers equally spaced from side walls, 9' apart and 2' from the end wall. SS2.2 centered between the speakers.  

As their bass response and dispersion characteristics don't vary that much, I don't think there would be much difference in room adaptability between 2.7's and 3.7's.

batmanfan
Yup I went from the 3.7s to the 2.7s, not for sonic issues but aesthetic/ergonomic issues.
My room is 13' wide x 15 deep (that is at it's deepest point, which is the end of the bay windows behind the listening sofa, so really most of the room is between maybe 12 - 14 feet deep).   I have a large room opening to one side of the room, which no doubt helps.
The 3.7s worked perfectly in my room,  evenly balanced from top to bottom, and disappeared and imaged better than anything I've heard (except my MBL speakers).  

I actually think I found the 3.7s a bit easier to place for even sound than my 2.7s!
The Thiel designs are very well damped and controlled in the bass which I think makes them easier to place and work in smaller rooms than many other speakers.

Thanks for your comments @tomthiel. I am not familiar with the process of developing speakers so the description you gave of the engineering chamber where speakers were put up with tweeters 10’ above the ground made me imagine the Bat cave with Thiel on pedestals, lol!  I learn so much in this thread, thank you everyone.

Anyone other thoughts, especially from those who own (or have owned) 3.7s and/or 2.7s regarding the minimum size of a room for a pair of 3.7s? If you do provide dimensions, please let me know what assumptions you’re apply, such as how far into the room the speakers are placed and how loud they are played. Thank you!

@tomthiel, Perhaps not. ;-)

my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily so.

That is true albeit at a rather high cost.  If you were to build low cost speakers, then it's not likely you can get all three- neutrality, resolution and musicality.  Depending on the cost you may only get one out of three.  And the more you're willing to spend on R&D and manufacturing, the more likely you'll get all three in one package.  

The Thiel CS2.4 is one of those rare speakers that are close to getting all three.  In stock form, it has neutrality and musicality.  Its weakness is in the high frequency extension resolution.  Based on what others have done, it probably came down to the xover and internal cables, and it seems like if you upgraded the xover and cables, you can get quite good high frequency extension resolution as some have reported. 

Of course by the same extension, the same would apply to preamps, amplifiers, digital front ends, cables and so on.   

Batmanfan - I was long gone at 3.7 time, so I can only give you a sketch. Rob says nothing had changed since my days. The tonal balance and hard-core engineering was done in the chamber, which was semi-anechoic with previously delineated dimensions, but roughly 20' high x 30' wide x 40' long with the tweeter at 10' above the ground. Outdoor measurements and ground-plane measurements all went in the mix for tonal balance.

Listening was done in our built-to-purpose room at 14' high x 22' wide x 34' long (more or less from memory). Big room with furniture, plants and some wall panels. Big enough to support and report on what the product was doing. Smaller rooms, especially approaching cubical and/or with half or double dimensions are more problematic. There are various ratios known to work better than others.
A room that sounds good is good. And women tend to feel it wen it's right. Good luck.

Hi Everyone,

3.7s owners I would like your feedback.  What is the minimum size room you think is appropriate for them?  I'm not asking for the optimal size, but one whereby if you went any smaller, it significantly damages the ability for the 3.7s to image properly.  If you've moved from a 3.7s to 2.7s (I think that includes you Prof if I'm not mistaken), or moved from 2.7s to 3.7s, I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts.  I've got a pair of 2.7s and there are a couple of 3.7s on the market that are whetting my appetite.  The 2.7s are perfect for my current listening room right now but we're in the process of moving so I'm curious as to what size room I should have to fit a pair of 3.7s appropriately.  Not sure the wife agrees with my priority list for the new home though:
- Short commute distance to work
- Quality schools for the kids
- Properly sized listening room for 3.7s... 

Tom,
Curious when Jim was developing the 3.7s did he use a particular room for listening/voicing them?  If so, what size was that room?  Or was not a part of the equation?

Sincerely,
Batmanfan

Prof - my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily so.

And Unsound's slippery slope is certainly slippery, but perhaps doesn't slope the way we thought.

The work I am doing seems to increase A/N/R and increase Musicality by removing some sources of propagation aberration which have plagued Thiel speakers in varying degrees over the decades. Trials in progress.

Thanks Tom, makes sense.
I keep meaning to address a very interesting issue you brought up earlier about the quest for neutrality vs...I guess..."musicality?"
I'll try to get back to this.

Prof - The 2.7 is on my long list. I am gaining experience by taking on older designs with more room for improvement and more urgent end of capacitor life issues. I am learning a lot as I go that will all apply to more recent models such as the 2.7, which I consider at the pinnacle with the 3.7 of Jim's art. I hope to form some sort of organization to implement the design modifications I am creating. But for now, the 2.7 seems stable and respectable as it is.

The CS1.7 is a different story. Its development was finalized by New Thiel via Mark Mason, formerly of PSB. Shortly after the sale, Steve DeFuria was hired as national sales manager and he contacted me to arrange a consultancy for product/ philosophical/ historical backgrounding for the new owners. The new owners were not interested in the "old perspective" and I was not invited until a couple of executive generations later when I judged all had been lost.  The 1.7 was a focus of contention for Steve. The new CEO wanted to call it "Coherent Source", a moniker they had bought. Steve judged that it could not honestly be called such due to its 4th order crossovers and resulting phase distortion. I have read conflicting reports re its slopes, so I don't know where that argument landed.

The 1.7 had an upgraded tweeter and a woofer with a star diaphragm. It got some good reviews, but did not get formal reviews from Stereophile or Absolute Sound. I'm guessing it sold very poorly in the confusions of leadership transition.

The 1.6 was introduced in 2002 and sold approximately 3000 pair in its 10 year run, about the same as the CS1.5 from 1993 to 2002. All 1.6 cabinets, drivers, final assembly and testing was done in Lexington.  My #1611-12 pair have Lex crossovers with Axon caps on printed circuit boards. "Late-date"CS1.6s (probably after Jim's death in 2009)  had crossovers from FST.
I have done considerable investigation with the 1.6. I find it to be quite strong in all respects. My upgrade work has centered on physical elements with electronics review to come later. I am quieting the baffle for surprising increases in delecacy, harmonic detail and spatiality (as also is shown even more-so in the 2.2).I credit this forum for inspiring this exploration -specifically the questions about the Vandersteen baffle-less approach and the comments about being "harsh, aggressive, shouty". In reconstructing the product time-line, I realized that I had effectively dropped out of design evaluation by the time of mid 90s 3.6 finalization; and I would have been the person to explore non-electronic causes of subtle distortions. So, I'm playing catch-up 25 years later. And the results are enlightening on many levels of product performance and life's deeper questions.

Probably several hundred pairs of CS1.6 out there but, I would guess, not many 1.7. I had an early pair of 1.6 (2002) and I think the serial number was in the 200s. I could ask the man I sold them to.