Thiel Owners

For the record, I am also a fan of John Atkinson and what he has contributed to our industry. The 'fault' in the presentation of information goes to executive policy, which took its turns under multiple ownerships. Present ownership (Y2K+) deemed it politically incorrect to allow that phase coherence was a legitimate concern. Imagine the advertiser pressure if Stereophile continued to present phase / time as a real engineering benchmark! The arc of the journey began with an editorially open mind with JA collaborating with then-publisher Larry Archibald to explore the role of phase-time in the playback equation, and proceeded toward less respect.

Prof - please feel free if questions remain after consulting my previous Thiel measurement notes. Our measurement capability integrated with critical listening was at the very heart of our product and company development.

Happy Friday- All.

prof

I enjoy JA's measurements, as well as, Paul Miller of HiFi News & Record Review. These gentlemen are class acts to the Audio press. Each leaves the reader with an impressive body of work.

Happy Listening!

Excellent discussion, as always, Guys. Tom- not vicious at all. Truthful.
Jim's attention to the finer details and search for accuracy has certainly paid off in any of his loudspeaker models, IMO.  I was fortunate in those early CS 2.4 auditioning days to have the Vandy 2Ce and 2Ci speakers plus a pair of Triangle Celius speakers to switch off from one another and shoot-out against the CS 2.4 same room.  Thiel came out as the winner to my ears for its rich sound and presentation. 

Happy Listening!

@prof 
Tom Thiel described Thiel Audio’s measurements earlier in this thread, maybe February-May?

Thiel seems to have generally measured quite well, despite the limitations of the Stereophile methods.

A lot of manufacturers diss Stereophile and Atkinson for measurements that don't go their way.  But nonetheless, I am grateful for the work JA has done.  Even if flawed in ways, he's given us an amazing, wide-ranging body of work in terms of measurements of speakers and other audio gear, and attempts to correlate measurements to sound.  I can't think of any gathering of data on high end gear that approaches what JA has provided to the paying public.  (And even now, online, for free).

• Bad (compromised) information is in some ways more harmful than no information. Real anechoic chamber or outdoor measurements are expensive and Stereophile et al choose to side-step that expense without, in my opinion, proper contextualization / education for their readers.

I agree that JA often fails to include a few simple statements that can help the reader interpret the graphs, including how the measurements might be misleading of actual performance. IMO, the quality of that publication has slipped over the years.

It is impolite for manufacturers to raise such issues in print, thereby becoming complicit in the misleading measurements.

I recall at least two examples where Stereophile printed measurements provided by the manufacturer (Vandersteen and Avalon) but, yeah, risky for manufacturers to push back.

Tom,
How did Thiel measure speakers, and what type of facilities did Thiel have for measuring speakers?  Thanks.

Too bad they don't measure at distances that allow for proper driver integration, time accuracy or actual listening positions.

Most Thiels measured by Stereophile (at 50") show a suck out at the mid-tweeter XO point. Sometimes the text would explain that this was likely a problem of distance and sometimes not (but kudos to them for even trying!).
Soundstage measures at 2 m, about 79". If the CS2.4 was disadvantaged in their test you can't tell by the "listening window" graph. +/- 2 dB from about 33-20K! I've only noticed one other speaker in their database that can match that! (A $$$$ Magico - no thanks)

oops - that's vicious.

The problem of measurement distance is well understood by those educated in the art. In other words, the measurers do not think that their 50" or 80" measurements present an accurate performance picture of a multi-driver phase coherent speaker. But their limitations are real. Reflections in real rooms overwhelm the actual signal, so they must bracket the time window of their quasi anechoic measurements to eliminate the reflection - noise. And they publish their results in the name of 'level playing field' - all products subjected to the same test, despite its known shortcomings.

Collateral damage includes:

•  Bad (compromised) information is in some ways more harmful than no information. Real anechoic chamber or outdoor measurements are expensive and Stereophile et al choose to side-step that expense without, in my opinion, proper contextualization / education for their readers.
• The normal reader does not have the education / information to extrapolate the real meaning from the compromised measurements.
• It is impolite for manufacturers to raise such issues in print, thereby becoming complicit in the misleading measurements.
• Many manufacturers design to measure well in the Stereophile-type quasi-anechoic measurements, rather than a justified standard.
• There are no firm rules for record producers. They are second-guessing how a loudspeaker (without standards) might reproduce their mix.
• A vagueness cycle (neither viscous nor virtuous) ensues.

And stuff like that. Note that the ear-brain, adept at synthesizing (remembering) how a real (insert instrument here) bass, etc. would sound in this playback room, (and should have sounded in that recording space - remember, we construct what we hear) can judge the more correct representation when given comparative choices. We at Thiel decided, at the beginning, that the only justifiable approach (to our understanding) was to design to anechoic-flat, just as a microphone is designed to anechoic-flat, except when it's not because Shure et al think that singers want to enhance their upper midrange formant. And the slippery slope gets slipperier and slipperier. I notice that there is more agreement now than 20-30 years ago about what is more correct. But, has there ever been an attempt by the Society of Audio Recording Engineers (and so forth) to standardize the design goal of the loudspeaker? Wouldn't that be a worthy undertaking? And the beat goes on - Amen.

Jim does not add the customary underdamped bass hump, so Thiel bass is honest.

Teeheehee. I think I know which brand you're referring to ;^)
Soundstage's loudspeaker measurements are done in a true anechoic chamber and, therefore, do not suffer the compromises of quasi-anechoic measurements done by Stereophile. Anyhow, if you look at their measurement library, the CS2.4 is down 6dB, relative the level at 1K, at ~31 cycles. This compares very favorably to other much more costly designs such as the Wilson W/P 8 (~38) and KEF Blade2 (~31). Nevertheless, some of the other designs with slower roll off can benefit from boundary reinforcement to increase low bass in an actual room.

When I got the CS2.4s, the first thing I noticed was improved bass definition relative to the otherwise well-accomplished Vandersteen 2Ce. I listened to many tracks before noticing the 2.4s don't go quite as low (specifically, a Tracy Chapman song with organ tones).

Correct - most designers shape the soundscape toward 'easier to handle'. Jim looked for honesty before all else. Most designers roll off the treble to match the bass roll-off. Jim kept the treble extension regardless of the bass extension. The 1.6 with folk music or a sub-woofer is voiced like the 3.6, etc. His approach was toward accurately reproducing the input signal.

^...Or a treble roll off. Which is why I think the smaller models sometimes can sound a bit tilted up compared to some of the competition. The more full range (and having the room to properly accommodate that can not be over emphasized) Thiel's are less likely (when properly amplified and set up) to sound bright.

Andy - couple of quick thoughts. 

1) Correct. A primary difference between the model 2 and model 3 is bass quantity and extension. The model 3 has a 10" woofer with longer excursion and larger passive to produce more than 1.75X the bass of the 2.
2) Jim does not add the customary underdamped bass hump, so Thiel bass is honest.

I have also a set off Kef's R900, bass of the CS2.4 is the better one for sure. 

It depends on the size of your listening room.  As good as the CS2.4, as far as the bass is concerned, it cannot compete with other speakers with 10in. or 2x10in bass drivers.

@andy2 The CS2.4 goes down to about 30 cycles in my room and I have them well away from walls. That’s enough to reproduce all but the left most one or two keys on a piano. Not much music down there. My previous speaker was Vandy 2CE Sig II, useful output into the mid 20s. My collection includes a single song wherein I noticed the deficit via the 2.4s. If you can afford Vandersteen 7s, go for it. They are fanatstic *and* have full output down to about 20 cycles. Or, if you really want those last couple of notes, you can add a subwoofer or pair to the 2.4s. I seriously considered subwoofers when I had the CS1.6 but that model quits at about 50 cycles. I have zero desire to add subwoofers to my 2.4s.

There seems to be some talks of what if you want to upgrade the CS2.4?  Overall I still think its only real weakness is the lack of low bass.  For clarity and detail and natural integration, it's probably still some of the best even for today.  Some newer speakers now are using fancier tweeters such as be dome, ceramic which may offer better treble detail but I am not sure it's necessarily better.  For speakers using higher order filter, they can afford to add like a 10in. driver such as the Wilson or Dynaudio and so on, but for the CS2.4 being first order time coherent, it's not that trivial and given the constraints I am not sure if it's even possible.  So with larger bass driver such as 10in, you get a more fuller sounstage abeit with higher order type of sound.  I guess it's all a compromise.  You choose the CS2.4 for all its strengths, but have to accept its lack of low end grunt.

But can we add an active subwoofer with some type of room correction DSP?  Probably - just like what Vadersteen did with their top of the line offerings that costing even above $50K, which is why I am a bit surprise why none of the Thiel speakers follow this strategy which would not only solve the low impedance issue but still retains the time coherent characteristics.

So the best upgrade for the CS2.4 would probably be some of the Vandersteen top of the line speakers (although a lot more expensive) with a built-in subwoofer.

sandydennis11

Sad to read that you let your CS 3.7 speakers go. Agreed, the buyer is no doubt- loving his new acquisition.  Happy Listening!

Just sold my pair of CS 3.7’s to a gentleman in Southern Cal who has a a pair of 90 grand tube amps and similar pre. He’s loving it .
Shipping from San Fran with special care was 1500.00.
So glad he’s -happy.  $8800.00 plus shipping.

thosb

Thank You for citing your amp upgrade and matching Cardas power cord (PC). There is much information in these Audio forums on B.A.T. gear and tube rolling to achieve a personal "sound". I do know that Cardas Clear and Beyond PC mate well with tubed gear.  Keep me posted as you massage the VK-55 into your room, system.

Happy Listening!

Bert - the CS1 series weighs very little. The CS1.6 is on the upgrade list.

Craigslist is also a place to find strong, young movers!

As I am elderly and live in a condo I had to nix the deal when I found out they
weighed over 100 lbs !
Sounded great though .

If they need help, Rob will help you. If you want to take them to the next performance level, we'll have an upgrade path for you.

 

IMNSHO, buying a nice pair of used Thiels might become the most-cost-effective way to get near SOTA sound. For starters, the stock versions are already excellent (as Tom noted), sonically competing with new models many times their price. Buying a used Thiel is not worrisome given the available service and parts from Coherent Source Service.

Tom Theil’s crossover upgrades should push sonic performance to the next tier. We’ll soon know. If that’s true, you can buy a nice used pair and upgrade the passive parts to get something that approaches SOTA sound. As a bonus, you have speakers that look really good in your listening room.  

jon - I know it's thin ice for a manufacturer to speak up. But I'm out of the game, so here goes. Over the years, our products were competitively evaluated by some big name as well as audiophile manufacturers. Their 'business formula' would assign a sell price of up to 10x our sell price, and then back out some 'extraneous costs', which is what they call giving the customer more than he knows. Point is that for the customer whose values are aligned with ours, Thiel prices are extremely slim.

Schubert, have a great time with your 3.6s. If they need help, Rob will help you. If you want to take them to the next performance level, we'll have an upgrade path for you. Welcome to the Thiel corner of the world. 

Pick a dozen brands / products at $20K and compare your new 3.6s toe to toe. I bet you'll be thrilled.

Yes! There are 2, maybe 3, speakers south of $20K that I would *consider* trading my CS2.4SEs for. And that's before I finish my XO upgrade . . .

the relationship between price and performance is extremely weak

Indeed, I can think think of a few models as high as $40K that I would not trade my 2.4s for. But I can also think of a handful north of $40K that I would pick over any Thiel (maybe I would change my mind after a Tom Thiel XO upgrade?). But they damn well should sound better given the chasm in pricing. The bottom line is an audiophile can be *really* happy with a pair of used Thiels and not have to worry about how to get some incremental SQ improvement . . . until after winning the lottery.
:)

Tom is right about the value here.  It's one of the reasons I have such a dim view of audiophiles in general.  They'll spend ridiculous amounts of money for stuff that simply doesn't perform that well.  Thiels are a bargain at MSRP and they historically haven't held value that well so you can get an obscene bargain for the performance if you buy used.  When I bought used 2 2s it really opened my eyes to this.  They replaced a pair of 3k msrp speakers from a larger company in a second system.  They were so obviously, laughably superior that I don't think there's a single person on earth that wouldn't have recognized it.  It took a while for me to accept it but I eventually concluded that the relationship between price and performance is extremely weak.  I don't know what "audiophiles" want but it's clearly not the truth.  

Viewed another way, you got an unbelievable bargain. In the realm of passive speakers, which is still the norm in home systems, their design-engineering equates to products selling in 5 figures. I know factually that multiple other manufacturers would claim $15,000 as cabinet value alone.

I understand the desire to buy stuff as cheap as possible. But, I also encourage you to consider the intrinsic value of the goods. Pick a dozen brands / products at $20K and compare your new 3.6s toe to toe. I bet you'll be thrilled.

Give us a review at some point 

Ha , You got those Shubert . Been waiting for him to lower the price to under a grand . Seen too many sold listings on hifishark under 1k . I offered him $800 . LOL

Got a pr of 3.6 that look cherry on Cragslist at 1300 $ .Good deal , bad deal ?

jab

Go for it!  Happy Listening!

tomthiel

Much Thanks! for another Thiel Audio historical perspective.  Enjoy your day and the music.  Happy Listening!

tmsrdg

Thanks for citing your CS 3.7 Serial numbers.  Happy Listening!

About those 2.3s and other products not on my hot-rod list. Please understand that I am not diminishing those products nor suggesting any deficiencies. A product developer (myself) must look at many aspects including item count, projected life, and so forth to try for greatest and fastest success. The 2.4 was chosen because of its darling status, higher item count and more vocal fan base. The 2.2 has more to do with my personal situation than its worthiness - but it did out-live and out-sell the 2.3 by a wide margin.

So, if this project is so fortunate as to continue, it is possible that we will apply what we learn and develop a 2.3 package, at a later date as we readdress possibilities.  To that end, any schematic or layout information for the 2.3 would be helpful; none exists that I can find. A carefully taken photo of the XO with nameplate data listed separately is about all I need for starting point documentation.

Todd, I am piecing together a tapestry of facts, but Rob should have more direct knowledge. Please ask and report back.

We chose the Chiquitano because of their protected generational custody of their land, factually safe from the intrusion of MacDonalds slash and burn farming. Poverty with Gringo beef practices is the root cause of tropical deforestation. When you buy Thiel Morado or Amberwood, you are buying a significant and unusual piece of integrated ethical policy.

That is fantastic! Yet another reason to own Thiel speakers!

Tom --The story behind Morado and Amberwood that you relate is amazing and rich! I'm looking at the Amberwood finish on my 2.2s right now. Absolutely beautiful and amazing.

I have a question. The 3.7s are the models currently "in my system," and you mentioned in a previous post that the electronics had gone through several upgrades during the lifetime of the run. I have serial numbers 1041 and 1042. Are you able to speak to where these belong on that continuity? Or would Rob know about this?Todd

Heart warming. Great way to go. Thanks

jab - Audio Consultants is a very high quality dealer.

History time. Amberwood and Morado are related species which grow in Bolivia. They are routinely pirated by the Germans, taken overland via Brazil's Mato Grosso do Sul to the Atlantic port of Santos and resold to Scandanavian furniture makers as Santos Rosewood. (It is neither a Rosewood, nor does it grow within thousands of miles of Santos.) Such are the ways of woods of the world. I traveled South America in the late 80s, establishing primary, ethical sources for our woods. Machaerium (sp) was established as our standard-exotic with the CS2.2 introduction in 1990. The locals distinguish the two Machaerium species which I roughly translated as Amberwood and Morado. The lighter-colored Amberwood grows upland on the dry eastern Andes steppes and is a little harder and more contrasty than the darker, more homogeneous Morado which grows lower in the Amazon headwaters jungles.

I co-developed a program with my supplier-partner Jim Martin whereby we sponsored (with the financial help of The Forestry Fund) a planting program with the Chiquitano People to co-plant Morado with Black Locust as a nitrogen-fixing nurse species. Shade coffee was interplanted within 3 years of launch and the project was net black ink within 5 years. It went on to become the backbone of the tribe's monitary stability, at at 75 years' climax will have produced over $3M/hectare of income. One benefit was that we (Thiel) got first dibs on the raw veneer, sliced in Bolivia, which we transported by water to the Port of Louisville, a commercial port on the Ohio River within 80 miles of Lexington.

We laid up our own veneer faces in speaker-pair sets and pressed onto MDF, etc. substrate rather than most folks' solution of buying pre-laminated panels as 4'x 8' panels and chopping their parts. Ever notice how Lex Thiels have every panel mirror-matched? The 4 pair-sides are identical sequence-matches and the back-top-fronts are veneered as a pair unit and cross-cut into 3 mirror-or bookmatched parts. I mention these details because the reviewers who comment only say something like 'the fronts of the two speakers matched'.

Back to the Chiquitano People. The University of Santa Cruz interfaced with the Chief who personally escorted us across the boundary swamps to work with the native project managers. Those swamps are infested with Piranha, Allegators and various big snakes. So when the guards hit you with Curare darts, there is no pesky body to hide. We chose the Chiquitano because of their protected generational custody of their land, factually safe from the intrusion of MacDonalds slash and burn farming. Poverty with Gringo beef practices is the root cause of tropical deforestation. When you buy Thiel Morado or Amberwood, you are buying a significant and unusual piece of integrated ethical policy. Much more to tell, but work beckons.

beetlemania

Thank You for the update. Holco, Tom and your hard work, will not go un-noticed.  Hope you guys are well and having fun with the XO project.

Happy Listening!

Thank You for the continued research and development on Caps, Drivers and XO upgrades.

Just received caps, coils, pre-drilled boards, and other parts from Tom Thiel. Something of a pre-cursor for what the kits might look like. I am impressed by the quality of parts and the attention detail Tom lavished on the boards/layout. Probably some bumps in the road await but this is a good starting place.

Last few parts from other suppliers are on the way but I am going to start assembling the new boards this week. If all goes well, one channel will be live next weekend. I plan to share a journal of my process. I wish this forum had a way to include pics. Anyone know if audiogon’s TOS prohibit cross-posting? I might double-post over at audioasylum which allows image uploads.

tomthiel

Thank You for the continued research and development on Caps, Drivers and XO upgrades.  Happy Listening!