Thiel Owners

@solobone22

I have a pair of Bel Canto REF600M’s coming this week. Current amps are a Krell TAS and a Bryston 3BST. More as I get the new units setup and broken in.

Anyone already tried Thiels with Class D amps?

I’d be very interested in how your Thiels make out with the Bel Canto REF’s! I’m looking to get more powerful amplification for my CS3.5’s, but a part of me is struggling with the associated increases in inefficiency that a more powerful class A, class A/B or tube amp is going to bring. Don’t get me wrong...a proven vintage Krell or something from Pass is still high on my list, but trading my Audio Research gear for an all PS Audio Stellar stack (mono M700 amps, Gain Cell pre and NuWave phono pre amp/DAC/ADC) has crossed my mind as well.

Anyway, apologies for rambling a bit. Good luck with those Bel Canto’s (they have gotten rave reviews) and please do let us know what you hear.

Enjoy the music!

Arvin

This subject reminds me of my turntable base.

I did a loooong thread detailing my flailing layman attempts to create an isolation base for my 55lb aluminum transrotor turntable.  It was fascinating investigating, to the extent I could, the vibration behaviour of various materials, footers etc.  I used a seismometer app on my ipad and iphone so that I could at least measure and see, objectively, the relative differences I could detect in damping vibrations.   It turned out a spring system under the bass had by far the most dramatic effect in de-coupling the base from any vibrations occurring beneath those springs.
If I stomped on the floor around my turntable rack without the springs/base, I could measure huge, ringing spikes of vibration.  But with the spring system under the base, I could stomp around and measure almost nothing.

Anyway, more apropos of the baffle tweak I was thinking of:  In constructing my turntable base I used a 2 1/2" thick mapble block, then under it two boards of thick MDF (different thicknesses) with sound damping lining in between as a sort of constrained layer effect.  At the last minute I went out and bought some 1/8" thick sheets of stainless steel cut to size.  I was amazed at the effect merely placing one of those sheets had underneath the MDF boards.   Rapping or knocking on the shelf produced a much more dead "thonk" than just the boards themselves.  This was true even when the 2 1/2" maple block was put on top of everything. So it was: Maple block/MDF layer/Steel sheet.  With the steel sheet at the bottom of that stack, knocking on the top of the Maple block felt more solid, and sounded more solid, than when the steel sheet way below was removed.

I gained an appreciation for just how darned solid steel is vs wood.
(Which was in the back of my mind, thinking of that baffle tweak).

Yes, front baffle of the CS2.4 is 3” MDF. Don’t know about the 2.7, but imagine it is the same. Was that model ever reviewed? 

Among the materials I have developed / tested are: fired ceramic panels, fiber reinforced hydrostone panels and/or corner braces, aluminum bars or channels, solid wood struts and, of course, the pierced MDF shelves in all Thiel cabinets. One thing that might not be readily apparent is that driving resonances higher in frequency is of great benefit. Heavy materials may be very stiff, but their mass pulls the cabinet modes lower where there is far more energy to activate them and the results are more harmfully audible. Also, damping materials spread resonances over broader ranges and make them last longer in time, becoming more audible. Each method carries its baggage.

Note that extremely expensive speakers spend lots of money on vibration control.

@prof,I’d be interested in what is the best way to brace a cabinet as well. I believe Merlin embedded some metal bars in the baffle for this purpose. I’d think something that was deeper than it was wide would be more effective at combatting cabinet wall flex. I also wondered about ceramic or porcelain floor tiles. They’re incredibly stiff and strong (and cheap). Would something like that attached to the inside of an MDF cabinet be better than aluminum?

There are multiple brace shelves stacked in the speaker. I will find resonant areas such as between woofer and passive on the 2.2 and devise a brace. I am also getting promising results soaking the driver mount areas with a wood hardener. My super charged idea is to add a hard spine up the back of the cabinet and connect all magnet assemblies to the spine with rods for combined cooling and anti-recoil effects. An aluminum plate seems unfeasible, or at least I haven't gotten any ideas.

Interesting Tom, thanks.  I thought it might be MDF.

It made me wonder what a "baffle" mod might look like.  What comes to mind (for someone like he who has never designed a speaker and hence is naive bout it), is simply re-enforcing the existing MDF baffle from within the speaker, by attaching a solid aluminum plate to the inner face of the baffle (cut out in the shape of the baffle).  Just to re-enforce stiffness.

I have no idea how implausible this is, or if adding any thickness to the interior of the baffle would alter other parameters (cavity volume?) that could throw things off sonically.  

prof - I believe the 2.4 has an MDF baffle, as the model 2 has had from the beginning. Whereas earlier 2s had 2" thick, I think the 2.4 is 3" thick like the 3.6. beetlemania knows, he has been in there.

The baffle is one thing. Another is that the 3.7 XO is all high-quality film caps in all feeds and the only electrolytics are in a resonance / shaping circuit of the midrange and tweeter, which is the most benign place for them and they're bypassed with the custom 1uF styrene / tin foil cap. The 2.7 adds a 400uF electrolytic feed cap in the midrange feed. But it is bypassed with a 15uF PP and the 1uF styrene / tin. That electrolytic feed probably does a little damage.

Then there is geometry. Looks aside, the 3.7 aluminum nacelle rocks from a functional perspective both interior and exterior diffraction. And as you say, the aluminum baffle. More budget for the 3 than the 2. Our 2.7 hot-rod will replace all electrolytics with custom ClarityCap CSAs. We'll compare sonics for cost efficacy.

@tomthiel

Somewhere way back in the thread we discussed the design of the 2.7 vs the 3.7. I’d remarked that the 3.7 seemed to have an edge in a slightly more open and subtle level of detail. I believe you said this might be attributed to the fact the 3.7 had the aluminum front baffle whereas the 2.7 used a different material.

Do you happen to know which material the 2.7 uses for the front baffle?

(Now that I think of it, I’m sure Rob Gillum would know...)

I have a pair of Bel Canto REF600M's coming this week. Current amps are a Krell TAS and a Bryston 3BST.  More as I get the new units setup and broken in.

Anyone already tried Thiels with Class D amps?

3.6 Upstairs
1.6 Downstairs

@rojacob I intend to take pics when I build the new boards and I have several from when I replaced the resistors. Not sure where I might post these but perhaps Tom will share them with the kits - unless I eff it up! LOL

@andy2 I assume you mean non Thiels with a concentric driver? I’ve heard the TAD Ref 1; it has a concentric driver with diaphragms of an exotic material that I don’t recall. One of the very best speakers I’ve heard. Just stunning, but you’d hope so at that price!

My very short list of all time favorite speakers includes both time-phase correct and not. I don’t know if that part matters to my ears a ton but I will say that my favorite speakers at real world price points are Thiels and Vandersteens. One important feature, IMO, is that both of these designers use light and rigid materials in the midrange and with diaphragms <5”. This is super important to avoid distortion in the critical midband. It amazes me that some really high dollar speakers use 7” drivers for the midrange. No thanks!

rojacob
Thank You for sharing your information here. It is good to learn that we have another DIY guy on the panel.  Happy Listening!

First I don't mean to take this thread off topic.  Maybe just slightly side way.  But has anyone heard a speaker with concentric midrange/tweeter?   I can think of Kef but I personally have not heard it myself.

The reason I asked is that I am trying to narrow down the unique sound signature of the Thiel?  Would you say is it because of its time-coherent design or is it because of its concentric drivers?

beetlemania,

It's a very simple printed circuit board. Rob suggested connecting the leads to the new caps to other components that are connected to the same point on the circuit, which can be done without removing the board completely, though as I said, it makes the installation a bit difficult for one who doesn't do this sort of thing regularly. I did document what I did with photos and written notes, if anyone is interested. Not sure where I'd post it, though. It's in pdf format.

beetlemania
Absolutely!  There are other owners of the CS 2.4 that uses an Ayre AX-7 to drive without issue.  No doubt that the AX-5 is a very capable integrated amp as well.  Thank You for your input.
As above, we know that the big and heavy hitters (Classe' Krell, Mark Levinson and Pass Labs) can accomplish the job.
I believe that it is safe to report that Ayre and Bryston are worthy contenders to add to our Power Amp list as well. I would not mind seeing a few additional Integrated amp(s) making the grade.

Happy Listening!

Regarding amplification, either I don’t listen as loudly as others or your Thiel models are especially difficult loads. When I had CS1.6s, i drove them with an Ayre AX-7; 60 W into 8 ohms, doubling into 4 ohms. That amp had plenty of balls to drive the 1.6 to any SPL I cared for. Sounded terrific other than a distortion in the upper midrange or low treble with certain recordings of female vocalists. Pretty sure this was from the Thiels and not the Ayre. My room is 18x19 with a vaulted ceiling and two large openings on the rear wall.

I’ve now moved up the chain to CS2.4SE driven by an Ayre AX-5: 125 W into 8 ohms, doubling into 4. Again, this “modest” amp has plenty of guts to drive the Thiels as loud as I care for without any sense of clipping or distress. YMMV.

That said, the impedance curve for the 5 certainly looks like a challenging load and I would pair that with something capable of delivering more current.

tomthiel
Thank You! for the latest update(s). We all look forward in reading about the preliminary data that you create as you test the XO project. A beta offering like this endeavor takes time to develop. You certainly have the capability, knowledge, skill sets and wisdom, to get this project off of the runway.

I know that Mr. Rob Gillum and others behind the scene are supporting you and beetlemania on this wonderful opportunity. Feel this thing out as you see fit. The panel here is staying tuned.
Happy Listening!

@rojacob does your 2.4 have a printed circuit board or point to point connections on masonite (or similar)? The pcb version must be soldered from the bottom. Hard to imagine that operation without removing the boards from the cabinet. 

I think the Bryston 7b St with the serial and parallel setting represents a solid neutral amp that allows for regular and low impedance speaker comparison and identify issues due to impedance.

Indeed - mixing amps is extremely treacherous, which was the main reason, along with mixing cables, that Jim axed the dual binding posts. Good points about cables and special considerations.

I suspect the bi-amp advantages are not special to the 3.5. Amps constrict in various ways when high current draw surpasses the reserves. Vertical bi-amping supplies double the power and also sequesters the problem area to itself. In other words it makes more sense if bass overdrive results in distorted bass (sequestered channel), than if bass overdrive results in distorted treble (full range channel).

By the way, please push me. I am feeling this out as I go.

tomthiel, I understand and appreciate your points. Please forgive me if I am belaboring the point. Although I would consider a modification that would allow bi-amping with my Thiel 3.5's, I suspect that might be due to the unique qualities of the 3.5's with their 4 Ohm nominal/minimum rating with not dropping below 5 Ohm independent testing, that opens the choices of appropriate multiple amplifiers at more reasonable costs, and of course as a way to restrict the influence the eq which applies to a few other Thiel loudspeakers as well. The special cabling required to make the Benchmark work with the eq's is not typical of how end users make connections. Some might be apprehensive to invest in custom cables that will have such limited alternate use. As such many might disqualify the Benchmark. I would think amps that have more universal appeal with all Thiel loudspeakers might be more advantageous. I think the idea to adapt Thiel's with more challenging impedances with bi-amping with modern amplification certainly has merit, especially considering what I suspect is a paucity of other options. On some level none of referenced speakers could be considered any thing like new, and I wonder if we should just accept that that ship has sailed, and just deal with it. Though appropriate amplifier choices might be limited, they exist and are often readably available.  At comparable
cost's; would two perhaps less capable modern amps be a better value than one capable one? Mixing amps can become problematic on it's own, doing so with first order cross-overs could make it even more complicated.

Thanks, tomthiel & beetlemania for your info and vote of confidence. I actually did Rob's upgrade to the caps without removing the xo board, which is what he recommended. I did, however, release the board from the speaker case to do the work. The leads from the drivers to the board were very short and I would probably recommend others doing this upgrade to remove the board completely, even though one would have to reattach the leads and (perhaps) install additional lead wire.

Thanks for sharing the summary of the upgrade choices, Tom.

@rojacob if you successfully upgraded the coax feed caps to SE then I can’t think why you could not also build an entire new board. You must have taken the coax board out to access the solder joint underneath, right. So, you can solder and have experience working in that space. 

Building a whole new board is not any more technical than that, just a much bigger project! And I imagine Rob Gillum could also assemble the new boards for a price but this would still require the user to replace the extant XOs. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. For the impatient adventuresome, you might proceed on your own with the clues Tom has shared. Otherwise, i suggest waiting for the kits. Some of the caps and coils are custom values unavailable from retailers such as partconnexion and sonic craft. For example, good luck finding a good quality foil cap in 14 uF. You can get the correct value by running caps in parallel but this adds to the size and expense plus could have negative sonic consequences.

jacob - we don't yet know what form the upgrades will take. One complicating factor is that Thiel crossovers since 1990 / CS2.2 use silver/tin solder which requires technical know-how. We will probably have a first-level upgrade of critical caps and all resistors that the adept user can implement. The higher levels are completely new layouts and will probably come as new boards with probable instructions for added cabinet braces and other tweaks. Too early to say. I know I shouldn't say. But, hey, you guys are family.

unsound - Thank you for your point of view. It is entirely valid and I do not intend to recommend the Benchmark for the reasons you cite. But my task is to find source and process equipment that operate at the edge of serviceability rather than big, bulletproof, proven amps which are known to be great. Dealers that succeeded with Thiel generally used Krell FPB-600 or Big Levinson / Ayre etc. etc. You guys know what works. I know that those will all work better with my designs. I must find solutions to the larger problem of most amps not working well enough with Thiel designs. 

I am hoping to mitigate what I judge as somewhat misplaced design focus on Jim's part. He considered amp performance as amp-maker's problems and if an amp can be found to drive his speakers, then there is no problem. A disconnect that I see includes that the internal hoops we jumped to keep prices affordable were overshadowed by the costs of suitable amps. (Indeed those amps can now be bought used for less. Good.) I am working on the assumption that those amps will perform well without my intervention. My mission includes implementing design strategies that produce great performance with less than ultimate amps.

One such strategy is the particular bi-amp configuration I mentioned. I hope to prove a cost-effective way to drive Thiel's brutal loads with less cost than big iron amps. I want a very different amp than my classic Classe configuration. I will final test with Rob's FPB-600s among others. But I also want to see what I can get with a pair of affordable new world amps costing less than $3K new.

unsound - you are right. There may be some backlash. But we here are an insider beta group sharing a development process. Indeed we will test at full power. BUT everything we are doing will improve performance at high power. That end of the use spectrum is not my concern. My concern is getting maximum bang for the maximum head count from the upgrades.

Someone asked for a list of amps which I have dismissed. I don't have such a list. I read widely and systematically. I know that amps color the signal and how that generally works. I look for clues and attitudes in reviews and user comments, and add that to my personal experience. I know that if I use tonally and temporally accurate equipment with well made source files that my results will be valid. I am looking for the needle in the haystack and have not itemized the haystack.

Beyond amps, I am using Klippel and SpectraFoo Phase Torch and signal analysis gear. I know symptoms from square wave behavior and am familiar with measurement vs listening protocols; I helped develop those protocols at Thiel. Jim went on to amass tens of thousands of hours of experience correlating data with listening. I can't claim that. But I do know the territory, including considerable live and recording experience beyond what Jim brought to the table. I am taking an alternative perspective.

I'll be straight with you guys. I do not have the financial means to buy a dozen amps for comparing and proving. I must choose some tools within my means which tell me as much as possible about what I am doing and where I am going. As the project might gain momentum, I might get access to amps on loan, etc. (For reference, at Thiel we always had more than a dozen amps on reciprocal trade from top manufacturers.) I hope that JAFant or others of you might create a recommendation / dis-rec list from your considerable combined experience - beyond the conversation we have been sharing. That list would provide a huge service / reference to the 4000+ members of this forum.

Off for now. I'm running sound at the Open Mic at our Village Arts Center.
Next week the Piano Guild is testing my alternative bridge in their project piano. The piano, the guitars and the speakers all co-inform my understanding. Interdisciplinary Boogie.

tomthiel

Will this upgrade be a board that replaces the existing board or a package of components for the user to assemble/install on the existing board? I recently upgraded my 2.4s using Rob's parts and am very pleased with the results, and I'd consider another, once yours is available, but am not sure I have the technical skill to rebuild the board with new parts.

Regarding 2.4: The XO part of the SE upgrade is simply replacing the 2 coax feed caps with ClairtyCapSA (best at the time). Rob @ CSS has them.

Our upgrades are trumping that in spades. We are replacing all components with carefully chosen, cost effective, high performance parts, and then backing off for a few less expensive cost/performance plateaus. beetlemania and I are addressing the 2.4.
Highlights: later 2.4 XOs were made in China and have less than best coils. We are replacing with old Thiel spec high-test coils in shunts and high-test foil coils in feeds. Resistors were sand-cast and we are using Mills MRA-12s, best of form, great improvement for the buck and near best at any price. beetle has tested and I have confirmed. It's a go.
Caps are ClarityCap for lots of reasons, will explain more later. Two generations past the SA. The CSA is state-of-the-art. All CSAs including replacing all electrolytics with a custom CSA. Bypasses are combination of Thiel custom styrene/tin 1uF with ultra-bypasses: MultiCap RTX or CC-CMR and/or various silver mica and other ultra caps being auditioned. That's the highlights. These parts are CS7.2 and better plus a return to hardwire point to point boards, with added thermal sinking and vibrational damping. Serious stuff toward considerably higher refinement than Thiel's traditional max bang for the buck orientation. We're looking very closely at cost, but making the assumption that you, the owner, has and loves the speaker and will consider this upgrade compared with buying a different speaker. I am confident we will create an exquisite sonic outcome for reasonable cost. Stay tuned. Sorry for delays. Life intervenes.

The maximum wattage that can be produced by a 120 VAC, 15 ampere supply, depending on the amp's efficiency, is about 1500 watts.

I have a Audio-GD Master 3 power amp (250W 8ohm / 500W 4ohm / 1000W 2ohm), it drives my CS 2.4 perfectly. 

Thanks for your input andy2, much appreciated :-)  

I have the xover network,
https://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/16061554/1024/Thiel-CS-2.4/CS-2.4%3ESE.png

but what about the resistors in series on the tweeter/mid crossovers?
They are not part of the 6db crossover but the signal is going true them, confused!!??

There are two possibilities:

1. The resistor is in series with cap that eventual leads to the mid/tweeter.
    In this case, it is worth upgrading them to better spec resistors.

2. The resistor is in shunt to the mid/tweeter network then it is not in the critical path which means it is not critical so upgrading will not yield any meaningful improvement.  But resistors are mostly less expensive so since you're already in there, might as well upgrading then as well.

I have not seen the xover network in person yet so I am not sure if the resistor is either #1 or #2.

Also, in my experience, caps make a lot more differences vs. inductors so upgrading the inductors may not yield a lot of improvement.  That said, there is sonic difference between foil and wire type inductor.  Having seen the xover in picture, the inductor coil in the bass xover is of wire wound coil inductor so it may be better to replace it with another wire wound type inductor.  The original inductor looks like having a 16 AWG, so upgrading to something like 12AWG inductor may give you slightly more bass.

Also looking at some of the xover pictures, the wiring may deserve some upgrading as well.  I guess it won't be much work to upgrade to something like Supra wire from Madisound.com.

Hi Thiel lover's,

Sorry for my crooked English.

I am a new proud owner of a set CS 2.4 loudspeakers,  running them with Audio-GD pre/DAC/amp and a Mano Ultra streamer.

Really love the CS 2.4 and in my experience the best sounding loudspeakers I ever had, but knowing the crossovers are always a compromise to keep loudspeakers affordable I upgraded the crossovers of the tweeter/mid unit with Jantzen caps, see also,
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-cs2-4-upgrade-to-cs-2-4-se

Because off the great!! improvement I like tho do the whole crossover but I am not sure what to upgrade, only thing I can think of is to replace the woofer coil for a nice Jantzen  wax coil, but what about the resistors in series on the tweeter/mid crossovers?
They are not part of the 6db crossover but the signal is going true them, confused!!??

Greetings from Holland, 

Mario

@andy2 lots of upgrade info this this thread also. In particular, look for posts by Tom Thiel starting about March 2018. Quite a lot to read and there probably isn’t any one post with the latest info but worth your time if you’re serious about an upgrade. Tom still hopes to offer kits but timeline is unknown (he originally hoped to have 2.4 kits by the end of the year - the best laid plans . . .). 

I was able to obtain the CS2.4 oxver upgrade information from the other thread.  Doesn't seem that difficult and I can't see why there would be any problem.  I think I'll give it a try next week.

Tom,You wrote: "I have ruled out many amps as very good, but . . . somehow not neutral or transparent. "

Could you please list these for our enlightenment?
Todd

Doesn’t the guy who runs the old thiel service rebuild them albeit at a hefty price?

Great to hear that you are reconsidering creating an upgrade for the 3.5 I'll be curious.

bcupari - and all - keep your radar out for spare 3.5 drivers. They are no longer made and in short supply. If enough interest develops, I hope to address the 3.5 upgrade in a subsequent round.

Well guys, I have been doing homework on the (new) Thiel, LLC bankruptcy as well as making slow progress on classic hot-rods. First project will be beetlemania's CS2.4s - pretty full-blown in scope.

What has been getting clearer is that the low-impedance problem rests at the root of much of the system limit. We can't change the low impedance load. I also want to avoid dodging the issue by requiring heavy iron amplifiers, which are few and expensive and, of course, can work very well, but the matching problem persists. I am exploring a different way to address the issues while avoiding the pitfalls of bi-amping with different amps and different cables. Here goes.

Most amps behave better into low impedance (heavy) loads in their normal 8-ohm / stereo (or 4 ohm if tubes) configuration rather than strapped to mono. I will be testing amps in a vertical bi-amp configuration, where one channel drives the woofer and the other the uppers, however that breaks out depending on model. We sequester various load and performance problems into the respective ranges. We can also internally hard-jumper for single input operation. We specify short runs of specialty cables - same lengths, same configuration, preferably 4 runs in same loom for even-handed capacitance and inductive cable reactances. I have ordered Morrow SP-4 bi-amp in this configuration. We will need special splitter interconnects with single source and double load (at power amp end) terminations. We add potential solutions without limiting our operating options.

I will be using my workhorse Classé DR-6 pre and DR-9 poweramps. Old, but decent and well known to me. I also hope to gain use of an older Ayre amp of suitable capability. Again, not the giant super studs, but something more affordable which many users could obtain. I have ruled out many amps as very good, but . . . somehow not neutral or transparent. For my learning and proving the designs, I need neutral, uncolored signal. I have about decided on the Benchmark AHB-2. It is a new hybrid configuration and loved in pro circles as a very great truth-teller (that I can afford). Two of them will allow trials in single amp stereo, strapped mono and vertical bi-amp as described above. John Siau (its designer) has endorsed its ability to support our heavy loads.

I am accustomed to working in mono with one speaker. So I will keep an original reference for comparison as I iterate the mate. Things are coming together to actually get to work. I am both excited and apprehensive. The apprehension centers on the nature of proposed improvements. Resolution / detail / articulation is the strong suit of Thiel designs. Most of our projected improvements will be in that same arena. We will be lavishing costs on an area of performance which is already first-rate and therefore not functionally a system limit. But, I for one and possibly some of you might find meaningful improvement in what we are undertaking. May it be so. That's the exciting part.

bcupari

Welcome!  Good to read that you found us here. Nice score on the 3.5 loudspeaker. It has quite a following here and is a favorite of oblgny.

Take your time and read through this thread for valuable information regarding all things Thiel Audio. We have an outstanding panel of contributors and fans of this brand. I look forward in reading more about you and your system.

Happy Listening!

I’m excited to report that I recently scored a very nice pair of 3.5s at a vintage resale shop for $275.  I love them and while I know they have been well surpassed they now sit in my living room making great music!

Happy Friday - All.

audiojessl

Welcome! Good to read that you found us here. As you will read, the 3.5 and 3.6 models are quite popular. Looking forward in reading more about you and your system.  Happy Listening!

Tom,

". . . their lab/listening reference monitor was the Thiel CS3.5. Now, isn't that special? "

At least some one had good taste!

(Former 3.5 owner)   

^Oh, the irony!

beetle - I moved to New Hampshire in 1996 and have been active in the New England Luthiers Group - serious guitar-makers. A few of them have worked for Bose, with stories to tell! One story of interest is that their lab/listening reference monitor was the Thiel CS3.5. Now, isn't that special?

TomThiel,
 it's very clear that you are the most reputable source here concerning Thiel's history and secrets. I've to confess that I fell in love with Thiel's thinking and soul before I became a owner of this amazing speakers. I found in your company, in you all very first founders a blend of uncommon passion, top technical competence and quality in construction second to none, I perceived all this years ago reading severals interviews to Jim, listening to all those ultra positive assessments from worldwide owners and eventually through my personal listening experiences attending to several audio show. After some time I wanted learn more on the Coherent Source concept and its really meaning and I ended with the thinking that it appeared to me to be the most serious and credible attempt to come as close as possible to the truth, musically speaking.
Now I'm a proud Thiel's speakers owner with no intention to get rid of them... maybe a pair more.
Thank you Tom , you all really did a memorable job, a milestone in the audio history.