Thiel Owners

tomthiel

how are you enjoying the Sony SCD-1 player in your hot rod garage or studio?  Do you utilize this player for CD, SACD or both on playback?

Any other spinners in your current possession? Excellent discussion on the whole time/phase front.

Happy Listening!

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your detail feedback.  Something just struck me that could give me a clue.  I keep thinking that music is limited to 20KHz, but that's not true, it's our hearing that is supposedly limited to 20KHz.  BUT musical instrument has no frequency limitation.  For example, when a drum is struck, the energy could be well above 20KHz.  So the speakers whether we are aware of it or not, are required to reproduced music at quite a bit higher than 20KHz.

Anyway, more to come.

Yes - the impulse response contains both time and frequency information which are related in known ways decipherable by Fourier and Hilbert Transforms. But, I am referring to the auditory-brain mechanisms which perceive frequency/tonality differently from impulse/time. This area is much more obscure and unstudied and, I believe, contains they key to understanding why some folks think phase/time coherence is valuable in music reproduction.

I land firmly in that camp - that it matters. But most of the audio engineering community (Toole and others) believe otherwise. My extensive personal experience leads me to value it and therefore try to understand it. I also know how easy it is to demonstrate the false negative premise - to 'prove' anything isn't so.

Over the years there have been many reviews and comments regarding how well details can be heard with Thiel speakers. Recall John Atkinson having to re-master a recording when getting the 2.2 for review, because he could hear edits and punches which had previously gone un-noticed. I recall a commenter stating how 'screwed-up' the Thiel 3.5 was because the orchestral recording sounded like the listener was hanging from the rafters! Guess what? The mics were hanging from the rafters. So, I consider his condemnation as a compliment - the speaker allowed apprehension of spatial presentation masked by even very expensive studio / mastering monitors.

This spatial ability is not related to frequency response. There are many speakers with far flatter frequency response because first order requires very broad range of all overlapping drivers, operating far out of their comfort zones. Thiel went to all that trouble to get flat-enough frequency response because we were and remain convinced of the musical importance of coherence, even if most people don't care and most experts dismiss its validity. That's what specialty companies do, they propose their unique vision. 

Hi Tom,

By tonality I suppose you meant frequency domain.  But time and frequency domain are the same.  You can convert from time domain to frequency domain and vice versa.  

For example, if you have a waveform in time domain, you can perform Fourier analysis into frequency domain, but then later on, if you want, you can convert the frequency domain back to the original time signal with no loss of information.

You probably had in mind steady state frequency response.  But when you convert from time domain to frequency domain, the phase information is still there, so no information is lost and the frequency domain is just as valid as in time domain.  One is no superior than the other.

Andy - in re-reading your question I see that your hypothetical speaker spec is entirely in the frequency domain, requiring playing and measuring sine wave tones. But, I am addressing the time domain. Jim specified some of our speakers in mS rise time. I don't have them at my fingertips. But in the lab during CS5 development I saw the rise-time graphs. Doing the math on those slopes results in 200kHz frequency domain equivalents. I'm saying that time and tonality are different animals and for best understanding should not be confused.

Andy - there's too much to chew on here. But I can comment a little.No I do not think we hear tone above 20kHz. And I know that dogs do, and that Natasha hears bats talk and that fish sense 50kHz signals.
David Blackmer (DBX founder) and others have demonstrated that we can detect the presence or absence of 40kHz tones when riding on audio frequency tones. We also know from auditory research that impulses are processed in the time domain. In other words a crack or snap is perceived directly as a crack or snap with directional and other information that is not tonal. That impulse is further decoded in the brain, to "hear" its component frequencies much like a Fourier Transform,.

I am not claiming that a coherent speaker plays higher tonally than an incoherent speaker, merely that the temporal content is processed and "heard". Some individuals are quite sensitive and others completely insensitive to this temporal / impulse information. My suspicion is that Thiel customers probably fall in the time-sensitive camp more often than normal. 
My upper limit is now 4kHz, dropping at 12dB/ octave. So I'm down more than 24dB at 20K. However, I can hear the artifacts of different digital filters working in the range of 20K and above. My point is that the sonic characteristic of tonality is only one aspect of hearing and does not define the limits of auditory input. In my opinion, which is in good company albeit in the distinct minority.
(A fascinating observation is when playing with the back-firing second speakers a couple weeks ago: I could tell more about the various digital filters when playing the filter changes from the rear-firing speakers than when playing from the front-firing speakers. Also, polarity reverse of the rear-firing speakers did not change my ability to perceive which filter was in use. Go figure!)

Perhaps more to the point in speaker design, we at Thiel systematically discovered the auditory - emotional - holistic importance of accurate phase/time component in the musical signal. In particular, the absence of phase distortion lifts a mental veil which allows the audio brain to see more thoroughly to the essence of the sound. Sound processing is processor (brain) intensive, and removing the big demand of reconstructing time/phase information in a scrambled signal frees the brainpower to perceive other subtleties of the signal (in my considered opinion.) That effect might be called psychoacoustic, but it is nonetheless real given the fact of auditory processing system limitation.

My present work on lifting a veil for the Renaissance revitalizations makes use of this insight. I would not even hear the veil on a higher order system. But I can on this minimum phase system, and I can hear considerable detail and make and test constructive hypothesis, all well below intelligibility on a high order system.

My study of audio and auditory neurology reveals that multiple parallel tracks decode the auditory stimulus, and the whole body is involved including the ears, mastoid process, sinus cavities, solar plexus and skin envelope - all working together to sense, decode and decide on the nature of incoming sound.

Hi Tom,

Do we know if our ear drum can vibrate at much higher frequency than 20KHz?  In order for out brain to process higher frequency, I guess at least mechanically, our ear drum is not the bottleneck which is something that can easily be determined.  We evolve from primitive animals and I am pretty sure they all possess ability to hear at much higher frequencies because is critical for their survival, but as we evolve it is not as critical for us so I guess our ability to process high frequency is no longer there.

One circumstance in play is that the temporal domain is not limited to the 20kHz frequency domain limit. Onset transient form and integrity which we can reliably hear, translate to wave-forms in the 200kHz range

That is an interesting claim.  Theoretically I suppose that's possible but how to prove it I can see it could be problematic.  I am no longer as young as I used to be, but when I play a 15KHz tone, I swear I could not hear it :-)  But music is more than just a single sinewave tone, so I guess it cannot be used as a proof.  Raise your hand if you can hear a 20KHz tone.  God blesses you :-)


But let remove our hearing aside and look at thing objectively.  Let's say if you were to design a speaker that acts purely as a transducer - that is it required to convert an electrical signal to acoustic sound pressure.  Usually you would come up with a spec that say something like:
My transducer can work from 0 - 200KHz or 2MHz or some frequencies with a certain harmonic distortion.  So you would have to be able to show data to prove the spec.  What you would do is playing various sinewave tone from 0 - 200KHz or to 2MHz and measure the sound pressure at various sinewave frequencies including distortion.

My guess is the higher the frequency, the higher the transducer will show distortion and phase shift, and up to a certain frequency, the distortion will get so large that the transducer will no longer able to produce a clean sinewave.  So with this method, you could objectively compare two different transducer.  

The problem with step response is it has such a wide range of frequency bandwidth that it is not easy to be used to compare or to characterize.

Back to speaker design, I would suspect a true time coherent speaker will be able to produce higher frequency tone vs non-coherent speaker with less distortion.  And of course, as we go higher and higher frequency above 20KHz, the distortion on average will get higher and higher for any speakers.

Back to Tom's claim that we can actually process signal as high as 200KHz, and as I have said in my previous post that the higher frequency that human can process, the more likely we can hear the difference in coherent speaker.

Thank You andy2

Great resource , added to my bookmarks .

Rob

Prof, Andy and all - lotta stuff to chew here. We approached these matters a few months ago and got into trouble. I suggested that study was in order, not intending to disparage anyone - it is all quite subtle and worthy of more depth than we can enter here.
Prof: Toole's statement is false, and it carries lots of baggage. A: The basis of his mistake is that Jim candidly stated that it would be foolish for Thiel to approach the market with anything other than phase coherence. Note the difference in Toole's inference. B: It is nonsense. But Toole has a professional investment in the non-importance of phase coherence.
Andy: You state it well "Maybe our hearing is very tolerant". It is. It is more than that: hearing is a synthetic activity, we create the heard experience via very complex mechanisms. In a fiendish twist, the more sophisticated the listener, the less phase coherence matters, because s/he can create the heard experience despite the incoherent content.
As Andy alludes, the non-believers point to bandwidth limitations at 20kHz max to nullify the importance of waveform integrity. My study of audio and auditory neurology reveals that multiple parallel tracks decode the auditory stimulus, and the whole body is involved including the ears, mastoid process, sinus cavities, solar plexus and skin envelope - all working together to sense, decode and decide on the nature of incoming sound. The right and left ears transmit to different parts of the brain for different kinds of processing and the entirety is eventually reconciled into an aural image - what we think we heard. It is all very fascinating and far from completely understood science. I have been blessed to know some outstanding Otorhinolaryngologists as part of my learning. Audio engineers, even the best, barely scratch the surface.

One circumstance in play is that the temporal domain is not limited to the 20kHz frequency domain limit. Onset transient form and integrity which we can reliably hear, translate to wave-forms in the 200kHz range - that's 10x the frequency domain limit. Such variables are routinely ignored or dismissed by many audio scientists and engineers, in great part because they are inconvenient. The effort and knowledge to design and engineer a product (Thiel speaker) which honors time and phase along with the traditional domains, is orders of magnitude more complex than the generally accepted models would require.
Andy, your closing statement is true. "First order filter . . . does not have phase distortion". Again, we got in trouble over phase distortion earlier. First order is correct on all fronts. All other forms, such as 4th order linear phase, possess forms of phase distortion including pre-ringing and other anomalies. Those distortions can all be managed and valid products are designed with such work-arounds, the ear-brain is a magnificent synthetic filter. It has been said here before: the kinds of care required to produce a speaker which honors phase/time is by necessity a very thoroughly engineered speaker. Many subtle problems which can be ignored in non-coherent speakers become very obvious when phase coherence is introduced, because the auditory mind considers those sounds to be real rather than electronic facsimiles.

Andy, I think the step response may be the most useful tool in the kit. With knowledge, it contains the whole envelope, including frequency response.

Some are saying (on that thread) that perhaps somewhere down the line Jim realized it was of no sonic consequence, but kept doing the time/phase coherent design because Thiel had already built a reputation marketing that characteristic. I think that is nonsense.

John Atkinson at Stereophile once said that if everything else being equal, he did notice that speakers with time/phase coherent have and advantage in soundstage presentation. The difficult part is how to determine whether a pair of speakers is superior to another pair of speakers because of its time/phase coherent or something else. For example, the CS2.4 may have better soundstage vs. another pair of speakers but maybe because it is just a better design with better driver integration and not because of the time/phase coherent aspect. How can you 100% sure the CS2.4 is better because of its time/phase or something else? Maybe the CS2.4 superiority comes from its coax driver and the quality of the xover? So you end up comparing apples to oranges.

The proponents of time/phase always point out to the "step response". But then if "step response" is so important, then you would think that non time/phase coherent speakers shouldn’t be able to reproduce music at all period, since in theory, if you can’t replicate the actual input electrical signal, then in theory, the output is all wrong and therefore what you hear should be all garbage. But obviously, non-coherent speakers can reproduce music just fine, therefore it is a contradiction, and therefore the "step response" is not a valid criterion, right?

I’ve been thinking about this but nothing came to fruition. I have a couple of explanations but really it could be anyone’s guess.

First, maybe our hearing is very tolerant. Even with non-coherent speakers, if it comes close to reproducing music, our hearing won’t really care much. But if the speakers happen to be coherent, then it would be icing on the cake. It’s like baking a cake. Anyone can bake a cake and most of the time, any cake would be fine, but if a really nice coherent cake comes a long, it would wake up our taste bud.

Secondly, and this one may be related to the first, is that the step response in theory has infinite frequency bandwidth, but our hearing is only limited to 20KHz. I won’t go into the mathematical details about the infinite bandwidth stuffs but you could look up. So the step response is not a valid "test" for our hearing since our hearing won’t care much for any high frequency content. I would imagine that if we human being has supersonic hearing capability all the way to the MHz range, then I am sure we could clearly hear differences between coherent vs. non-coherent speakers and the step response would be valid. Of course if a pair of speakers are just plain garbage then well anyone can tell :-)

Anyway, I’ll try to capture a step response in the next the post to illustrate the bandwidth limited theory. Looking at a simulation step response from one my design, it is consistent with what I said above with respect to our hearing bandwidth limited.

Regardless of time/phase or not, I DO see an advantage in first order design vs. higher order based on various listening experience. First order filter is the only filter that does not have phase distortion.

vair68robert

I will second playing those test disc(s) no louder than a moderate level. 
In fact, low level playback is preferred for system protection at all times.
Utilizing the frequency sweeps and tones are an excellent evaluation tool.

Happy Listening!

@tomthiel

Over on the AVSforum, there is a thread on the current science of loudspeaker design, essentially touting the "NRC/Harman Kardon" school of speaker design (itself based on lots of prior research).

The eminent Floyd Toole responded to an inquiry about whether he knew Jim Thiel with this comment:

Floyd Toole: I would occasionally see Jim Thiel at audio shows, but I never got to know him personally. We disagreed about the importance of phase, but for him it was a distinguishing feature for marketing, not science. He was always friendly.

As apparently inferred by others, that seems to say that Jim was designing for time/phase coherence for marketing purposes, not for it’s actual sonic properties. In other words "it’s just for marketing."
I have been saying I’m very skeptical of that account, as it seems obvious from what I’ve read of Jim (articles, interviews etc) that Jim certainly did see time/phase coherence as having sonic consequences. He says so explicitly in at least one interview, where he said his own tested demonstrated it to his own satisfaction, if not to skeptics or to a fully scientific level of evidence.


Some are saying (on that thread) that perhaps somewhere down the line Jim realized it was of no sonic consequence, but kept doing the time/phase coherent design because Thiel had already built a reputation marketing that characteristic.   I think that is nonsense.

TomThiel, could you add your comments on this? Thanks.

Yes, really tough to get a solid mechanical connection with the Cardas posts but, if you’re using Litz wire, the tinned ends necessitate a solder interface either way. I couldn’t compare other than the OEM wire and binding posts to the full Cardas but I can tell you the difference put a smile on my face. 

I’m looking forward to reading about your choices, progress and results.  

I have not used any high end binding posts.  The most expensive I've used so far only cost me a few dollars from Madisound.com.

I guess you won't know until you try out, but for those who have used expensive posts before, do they make a difference in the sound?

I've used Cardas posts in the past on a Carver amp ,
but they don't make ones with mechanical connections 
like Tom is recommending .
This will be one of the somethings that I will have to make a decision 
on , as you know from experience the dollars can add up quickly .

Does Anybody know anything about Tellerium ?
Audio Note makes them silver plated for only $57.00 each .

Wow, even the Cardas binding posts won’t set you back that much! I would buy them again - recommended.

a major part of the art is prioritizing the relative value of various aspects of the whole package

That's true.  Designing speakers is as much an science as much as an art.  Unfortunately some put too much science over the art part.

Rob - a major part of the art is prioritizing the relative value of various aspects of the whole package. There is some experience on this forum - post your ideas and hope the guys will keep you out of trouble.

Thanks George
I think one reason I was hesitent to start the speaker project is COST .

Thank you Tom
I wasn't clear , I was meaning from speaker post to xo boards ,

" WBT-0710Ag nextgen passivated pure silver posts... $398/set of four "

from Michael Perry Audio.

something I wasn't thinking of but Thanks Tom your suggestions and guildence are very much welcomed and appreciated .

my bank account is already having heart pelpitations and this is just the start !  Ha Ha Ha 

Maybe a different hobby like building sand castles .

Rob

Time for spinning vinyl .

Rob

As you're retired, you might have some fun reviewing the Thiele/Small Parameters. 

I built my own speakers back in the monaural and early stereo days - - well before the Thiele/Small parameters were published.   Wish they'd been available then. 

Lotsa' fun.

George  (also really retired)

Rob - to be clear, I meant to keep the 18 gauge going to the drivers, but you can increase the size between binding posts and XO panel.
Normal binding posts work. I'm saying to wrap the wire tightly before soldering. Let us all know when you find the perfect binding posts.

Tom and beetle

You guys are the greatest and are stimulating me to start the speaker project earlier , like after ThanksGiving .
The info you are giving me ( and all Thiel owners ) is priceless 
and knowing you are willing to offer such great advise alleviates 
all my anxiety .

Larger gauge in than out , I would have never of thought about that ,
at the same time Tom is saying don't increase the size .

I will start researching speaker terminals with internal mechanical connections , like a Furutech IEC connector I installed on my amp 
This sounds like a good first step along
with the thicker gauge in and out .

And yes I will keep the thread posted , but the 2.7 is so new I doubt  many owners are thinking about mesing with them yet .

Thank You Guys for all your help and expertise .
Rob 

This is alot more fun than just plain retirement !

Excuse me - I mis-remembered Rob's model.

Rob will only have the CC SAs which were CC's best at the time, for the series feeds.

Appears that @vair68robert has CS2.7, not CS2.4, so Rob's Clarity SAs are almost certainly incorrect capacitance

I do have a question for you beetemainia and holco ,
did you change or increase the wiring guage ?

 From my 5 March 2019 post in this thread:

I replaced every passive part from the binding posts to the driver hookup wire.
Binding posts: Cardas "CPBP" (rhodium over silver), dual for biwire
Woofer in: Cardas 2x15 ga twisted pair plus 2x17.5 ga hand twisted (~14 ga equivalent)
Woofer out: Cardas 2x15 ga twisted pair
Coax in: Cardas 2x15 ga twisted pair
Coax out: Cardas 2x17.5 ga hand twisted
(wire gauge per Tom Thiel recommendation; OEM wire was 18 ga throughout)

Rob - I have done considerable work comparing and choosing caps and resistors, both with Beetle and consulting with folks at Thiel. I chose Mills MRA-12 resistors and ClarityCap CSA feed capacitors plus some CC customs for shunts. It is likely that large shunt caps will actually be electrolytics, which I have not chosen. I have not yet done the iterations re which caps matter enough for which price points, etc. But I have chosen candidate caps for each spot. Rob will only have the CC SAs which were CC's best at the time, for the series feeds. My legal status is not finalized for Thiel bankruptcy, so I can't now share schematics, etc. I consider Thiel coils world-class. Do not increase wire size in coils, since their resistance IS critical to the circuit performance. We learned that later CS2.4 XOs were made in China with inferior wire. Rob G might know the serial # watershed and might have Thiel coils. If so, I recommend upgrading at least the series feed coil in the midrange circuit. I am using custom coils from ERSE or Jensen as world-class equals. 

Regarding wire, as I've mentioned, that stock wire is world-class and carefully chosen. There is a widespread belief that sexier wire is better, and I concur in general. However, remember that increasing size will reduce resistance and that the wire resistance is part of the overall circuit design. Eventually I will measure the differences and compensate. For now, I suggest experimenting with different type (such as litz) at the same gauge, especially the long runs between XO and drivers. There is a spot which I perceive advantage without much alteration. Between the input terminals and the XO carries both direct and shunt signal and therefore acts as a choke point, both + and -. I like it thicker, but haven't measured it until I get to work on the XO as a whole.

There is room for improvement via better input terminals. I suggest tight mechanical connections before soldering. BTW, bare copper or silver on copper rocks. Gold isn't that great and brass is poor. CAIG Labs makes a conductive paste with cleaner-antioxidant in it. Keeps non-gold connections clean and conductive.  

Keep us posted.

Thank you Tom

I haven't taken the speakers out yet , not until I start the crossovers upgrad project .

To answer beetemania's question and maybe more insight into the issue.
When playing the IBE cd louder than normal something vibrating 
making a noise like jon-5912's story about sub's virating pan on the oven ( I'm still laughing about that ) . 
The vibration starts at about 30hz and ends about 105hz .
This is not coming from the speaker but from behind it ,
the bass is sound is not affected .
Thanks again for the info about the EBI cd , I printed out the 
freqeuncy and timing chart .

I do have a question for you beetemainia and holco ,
did you change or increase the wiring guage ?
Tom what would be you opinion on increasing the wiring gauge ?
I was thinking of using Cardas 11.5 gauge with WBT fastons .

Until I open the speaker up and inventory componets on the boards 
or I hope Rob can give me info or schematics 
I can only guess at what componts I'll use ,
but I will ask you guys what you used and why .

Happy Monday 
Rob

As a general observation, wire management is a big deal. Thiel buried long runs in channels routed into cabinet walls, sometimes used goo to attach to braces and generally made a spiral by rotating the driver as it goes into position. If you've had drivers out, you may have wire rattle.

Jupiter copper is supposed to sound superb. i considered those as bypasses. Of course, you can’t do the whole board with those even if you have unlimited budget (and space). Jupiter Cu capacitance is nowhere near the values on a Thiel XO.

I’m still confused as to what you did when you experienced the resonance.

Ayre recommends playing the IBE at “moderate” levels which I interpret as less than typical SPL for music.

When I did my XO rebuild, I searched for cabinet modes with steady tones (ie, not IBE). At higher SPLs, there were many frequencies that caused distressing distortions. I never determined the cause - amp or speaker - but immediately stopped that exploration!

Thank G*d, actual music sounds sublime!

Wow Thanks beetlemania

None yet , that project will begin right after New Year .
Still working on the amp , 32 caps and 3 resistors 
with 2 resistors and 4 recitifiers going in next week end 
leaving just 10 more caps and 8 resistors to go .
I doing this in small groups to see how they affect the sound 
and control any problems .
I've been using Hovland and Nichicon caps 
but for the speakers I think I'll use Jupitor CU caps .

1:04 on the Ayre IBE long glide tone is ~28 Hz. Charles Hansen posted the formula on audioasylum.

What caps did you replace? In the 2.7s?

Thank you jon-5912 and brayeagle 

I feel relieved and I to have only heard it with the test CD .

I'll be running it again next week when I replace 
the recitifiers on the amp that are faster and have a softer recovery  .



 

agree with jon.

Test tomes resulted in weird noises, both earlier 3.5s and now the 2.7s. 

I played around with test tones on my 3.7s and heard some mild vibration in the crossover.  Something is resonating down there but I've never heard it with anything other than the test tone cd so I don't worry about it.  Test tones can do funny things.  When I bought a big sub and was running frequency sweeps I heard a loud weird sound upstairs that scared me.  Turned out the pan in the oven was going crazy with a particular frequency played loudly by the sub.  Never noticed that with anything other than test tones either.  All sorts of stuff can start resonating with a continuous signal at a particular frequency.  Since music doesn't normally contain long continuous single frequency notes like that you'll likely never excite those resonances to near the degree you can with tones.

With both speakers it could be a room mode or other boundary effect. Test it by changing locations in the room.

Vibrations from Both speakers at low hz , could it be the wires ?

I have a CD called Irrational, But Efficacious!  by Ayre and Cardas .
I play this as break-in sound every time I've installed new components  on my amp project. The CD has a track called full glide tone 
that sweeps from 5hz to 20,000hz , my CS2.7s do not start to 
produce sound until 1min. 4secs ( 30hz ? ) .
In the past I played this disc at listening level but the other day 
I had replaced all the power capacitors so I thought that I'd
try a louder setting.  
Both speakers had this vibrating noise that sounded like a metal plate 
or my thoughts speaker wires touching the bass basket .
There wasn't any distortion to the sound , just this added vibration noise 
that would go away as the frequency increased during the sweep .

Have any of you experienced this ?
Do any of you have any ideas about what it could be ?

I plan on e-mailing Rob for information about getting to the crossover
boards ( something that I've been working up the courage to do ) . 

I'd like to thank holco for his beautiful system images that help me visualize the Xover boards .

Rob




                                                                

R. I. P. Ginger Baker. 

While waiting for my braised brisket to cook, I went to the "Speakers" topic and went to the beginning, hoping to find threads about AR3a speakers.    Found this:    Not much has changed.

Thiel 30 April 2000 thread:

"Looking for advice in driving Thiel 2.2s. I love the clean, detailed sound they provide with $10,000 amps, but my current gear (mass-market junk) doesn't cut it. Advice? I need both an amp and a preamp, and am willing to spend up to about $3500 total."

Tomthiel, 

Your baffle modifications sound very interesting. I'm excited to see exactly what will be implemented and what the sonic effects will be. I'm planning to keep my CS2.2 speakers and willing to invest in effective tweaks/updates that make a great speaker even greater.

My thought has always been that the core system should be as accurate as possible but allow for an alternative when you want to listen to something that is hard to tolerate without some softening.  In the past I've run two paths, one using the balanced and the other the RCA jacks.  I ran the RCA path through a tube buffer that would warm the signal up a tad.  It let me easily switch back and forth just by using the source switch on the preamp.  I'm sure there are people who will have a problem with there being two sets of interconnects hooked up but if they're short I don't think it's a problem.  

I think the way to go if you want to manipulate the signal a little bit is to get digital eq.  I'm 100% on board with the speakers being as accurate as possible.  Accuracy is a difficult enough to achieve without trying to somehow modify the sound to have a particular character.  

Wow, Tom, thank you for that candid post.

Regarding my upgrade, I would not hesitate to do it again. Some may consider it expensive, especially relative to the price of used Thiels, But the result is a speaker that compares favorably against other models up to $30k and is not embarrassed by the very best I’ve heard.

 I am very curious about your baffle treatment. I need to know more but am a likely candidate! 

I have searched the thread and not found an answer. Apologies if it exists and I have missed it.

I own some beautiful CS5s and am considering a  set of Parasound JC1s. Anyone every hear the combo? 2 channel audio only. Thank you in advance.

All - I think this lovely Autumn Friday in New Hampshire is a good time to share some recent developments. Several months ago, there were posts here about the Thiel midrange being shouty and harsh, and I pushed back to have set up scores of shows where that simply wasn't the case. I then began some soul-searching and tried to thank the poster off-line, but he had taken down his post. I want to thank him for a very productive period of my life. I apologize for not keeping your names straight, but time required to review the thread is more than I have. Here goes.

A tremendous amount of effort by Thiel aficionados goes into finding music, hardware, cables and room conditions to make their Thiels sing. We all do it. Thiel did it. Notice the Krell, Levinson, Pass and other amps that work, sometimes costing a large multiple of the speakers' price. I have musician friends who invest their lives in making their CD the best they can make it. And often on my reference system, built around CS2.2s, it can sound shouty and harsh, with midrange glare most evident when the music gets loud and complex. Same goes for rock, jazz and symphonies. We tend to blame the record producer because stellar CDs do sound good. Beetle (I think) asked here about that and I agreed with his assertion that Jim only valued good playback on excellent CDs, with no excuses for poorly engineered material.

Fair enough as far as it goes, but there is a lot of room between the few best examples and most of the remainder. In the past few months, I have listened to hundreds of (non audiophile) CDs, and don't like what I hear on most of them. I shifted the hypothetical responsibility away from the record producer and onto myself, and over a few weeks' time, I believe I am approaching a core paradigm shift. Whereas Jim's paradigm, shared by the whole Thiel team might be summarized: 'Complete Fidelity to the speaker's Input Signal', mine is developing more like: 'Translation of the artists' Dream'. I know that is fraught with philosophical burdens, but it also serves to take responsibility for a bigger slice of the pie. For instance, the new paradigm would have prohibited the low Thiel impedances because the Artists' Dream is to reach a populace which includes sub $$$$ amps. And so forth and so on.

A self-limiting assumption is that making the music more accessible will de facto reduce its accuracy. That will not be tolerated. I am proposing keeping present performance as a performance base line. After months of inner work, I have identified a sphere of great promise. And I appreciate those of you who are co-developing and testing with me, just as I appreciate Beetle and Holco and others off list who have co-developed crossover solutions. What we tried in Beetle's 2.4s achieves very  high-quality results, but the cost would be in three figures. And my verification here showed that something still seemed un-addressed. "It" became more evident with the (new to me) 3.6s from the hotrod garage. Despite their greater power, deeper bass and higher resolution than the 2.2s, there is also more upper midrange congestion, harshness, glare; more so on complex and loud music. My trusty stethoscope helped me find some sort of hash on the baffle flats that sounds a lot like the in-room "problem". Further dots were connected with the Vandersteen baffle discussion here, as well as my experiences with Dunlavy and Hales over the years. I am in the 4th iteration of baffle treatment which produces more, not less, inner detail and image size-height, while reducing that "glare" to where the large majority of music becomes enticing and enjoyable, rather than requiring excuses. I have trouble staying out of the studio to do my required work on other projects!
I am now assembling some kits for some of you to try, and feed back what you learn. I simply lack the upper frequency hearing, and face a shortage of appropriate listeners in my small village. Thanks guys. Present work addresses multiple cabinet aspects. I was part of 2.2 and 3.6 cabinet development, and proud of it. So it surprises me that so much work was left undone, due primarily to riding the wild bronco of manufacturing development and growth. The largest surprise to me is that for a fraction of the cost of crossover upgrades, we can make a qualitative improvement in the sonic presentation, in the musical assessibility. I know that's hard for insiders to believe and it puts a huge burden of proof on me;  I'm not asking you to believe anything. But, I am looking forward to user critique more than I ever have in the past.

Jafant - I catch all the posts, but try to limit my input to matters that matter. Rob has told me about the 2.3 x MCS coax, but third-party verification is always in order before anyone commits cash.

tomthiel
I was hoping your eyes would catch this post by our newest contributor from France.  That would be very cool as there are many pairs of CS 2.3 on the secondary internet marketplace.  Hope you are well this Fall day and having fun in your Hot Rod garage.
Happy Listening!

Ambroiseg - I believe the MCS-1 shares the coax with the CS2.3

Happy Friday! All

ambroiseg
Good to see you again here.  At your leisure, take time to read this thread from the beginning. I believe that you will find a plethora of information.
There are a few international members of the Panel here. To my knowledge, you are the first from Paris. Thiel Audio is truly represented around the world. I hope Rob is able to assist your initial query. I like your musical tastes.
Happy Listening!