|
To Thiels owners, do you value time coherent above other aspects of sound reproduction?
|
mchan888
My pleasure. Happy Listening!
|
andy2
Yes. The time-coherent design offers a rich timbre that is not easily found in other Loudspeaker brands. Jim's speakers are quite unique.
Happy Listening!
|
|
To Andy
I have had Thiel speakers since 1988. I have had other excellent speakers also. But with Thiel I find it gives me a more complete sound, from the harmonic structures, dynamics, and a natural sound balance between all the sounds, so most things don't stick out as not fitting into the picture. And also everything has a little more character that makes it easier to enjoy and identify. So I find myself not dissecting my system, but listening into the music. So I guess that the coherence of Thiel's contribute to that.
|
marqmike
Good to see you here today. Right On!
Happy Listening!
|
more complete sound, from the harmonic structures, dynamics, and a natural sound balance between all the sounds, so most things don't stick out as not fitting into the picture.
I think you could find these qualities in other speakers too. Not just the Thiels.
|
|
Andy2 and all -
I say that neither Jim nor Thiel Audio would espouse valuing ’"time coherence above other aspects of sound reproduction". Our company was built around addressing and honoring ALL aspects of sonic/signal/musical reproduction as a whole. Most designers - products minimize the importance of the time-phase aspects of fidelity, especially in the day that we did it. Only a handful of brands made time/phase behavior important - including Thiel, Vandersteen and Dunlavy and Quad, and possibly some smaller attempts.
Note our attention to time-phase was not above other aspects, but as one among several necessary ingredients for faithful representation of the musical signal.
Having paid attention to this stuff for half a century, my perspective is that keeping time-phase correct allows the ear-brain to pay attention to the playback signal as though it were real - thereby permitting a more holistic, immersive experience of the music. Although we rarely admit it, we humans do not possess unlimited brain-power. Work is required to reconstruct a musical signal that is missing its time domain content into an interpretation that makes sense. That effort subtracts from the state of consciousness that is possible when experiencing real music, either in its un-recorded state or its time-phase correct played back state.
Among the most frequent comments re Thiel/Van/Dun/Quad, etc. are ’naturalness’ and ’image density’. These are psychoacoustic attributes facilitated by the addition of phase-time correctness to the other realms of dynamic and tonal correctness.
I assess that designing for all of the musical aspects rather than discounting or fudging against the time-phase aspect requires an order of magnitude more effort. Everything becomes extremely more complex and difficult.
I can only afford a summary overview, the details took a career to address, and the work is still not finished.
|
mchan888
PM received. New message sent.
Happy Listening!
|
I say that neither Jim nor Thiel Audio would espouse valuing ’"time coherence above other aspects of sound reproduction"
I think all speakers design is a compromise. If one aimed to achieve time coherence design, one compromise other aspects of the sound reproduction.
|
Indeed.
Thiel's requirements of passing a square wave / exhibiting a single, proper step response, etc. increase difficulty so much that most practitioners consider it impractical or even a fool's errand. We went for it despite the difficulties. We were young and idealistic, plus we wanted to make a mark and improve the art. Over the years, we invented improvements that managed the inherent problems.
The biggest problem/ limitation is dynamic range because each driver covers 7 octaves rather than 2 or 3. A driver acting outside its sweet spot has larger excursions, must dissipate more heat, enters break-up, etc. All those must be counter-acted with considerable difficulties. We began inventing new driver technologies withing the first several years.
It is also much harder to get smooth frequency response in a coherent system. Thiel's elaborate crossovers create complimentary circuits to correct driver anomalies that steeper slope filters would make less obvious. Also, we migrated to stiff diaphragms because their mis-behaviors are simpler, more predictable and therefore more manageable with circuitry. Those components introduce their own sonic degrades and add cost.
We addressed these issues as cost effectively as possible. Our performance per cost was extremely high. As manufacturing director and later consultant to other manufacturers, I know that our output/cost was a multiple of average and our margins were a fraction of average. We tried harder.
Thiel's results were often less than best in some respects, but generally first-rate if one values over-all high performance on all fronts. Our speakers addressed everything quite thoroughly rather than a few things brilliantly. We believe our products supported a more musically authentic experience than conventional approaches.
I can say that Jim / we might not have gone there if we had known how hard it would be. I suspect that hind-sight and insight would have led us to the later-stage insight that we used in home theater products. We could maintain respectable phase coherence and proper time alignment while considerably reducing difficulty with the fudge of keeping first order slopes for an octave on each side of the crosspoint and then migrating to second order symmetrical slopes beyond that. Out of band excursion and erratic behavior is greatly minimized while keeping the critical advantages of single step response and coincident time arrival. But you can't solve the puzzle until you know enough to solve it.
Most brands didn't and still don't even try what we we did. I'm glad we did.
|
Thanks for Tom as usual for your insights.
I think the CS5 is an example where time coherent was achieved at the expense of a speaker that sounds a bit reticent. I've read the Stereophile review that the xover consists of a total of 114 components. That is just too many in the signal path, and it probably contributes to the "reticent" sounding.
|
Andy - you’re on it, and the CS5 is the best example of thoroughness competing with directness. There are multiple reasons for that ’reticence’. A big one that Atkinson and Archibald underestimated is amplification. The amps they used were current starved, delivering more anemic sound than best of form. The underlying root cause there is the excessively low impedance. I think Jim could have done better there - for another discussion. But to your point there are lots of components. My count from the schematic is 106 including 16 that are 1uF bypass caps. Note, we developed that 1uF (yellow) bypass with a European aerospace supplier as state of the art Styrene film x tin foil. Note also that Jim was fundamentally an electronic circuit guy. He worked as if the well executed electronic circuit did the job as well as could be done. That is debatable.
Of those 106 components, 32 of them are in the conventional signal path. Not particularly over-excessive for a 5-way design.
42 are in resonance (shaping shunted to common) circuits. Quite a lot.
And 32 are in analog bucket brigade time delay circuits in the upper and lower midrange. This is a big deal where some history might shine some light.
We had gotten Japanese representation in the mid 80s which opened up the Asian market to us - quite rare for an upstart American company. Those importers pushed us for a ’statement’ product in a time where many such products were coming to market. Our best product was the CS3.5 at $ 2450/pair with EQ @ US retail. They wanted something at 10X that price, and we had 150 pairs pre-sold regardless of price. Jim was very cautious and less than wholly confident at that time that we could deliver high value in that class. In fact he didn’t want to make the leap and Kathy eased him into it over many months time. My (over-ridden) opinion was that this product-under-development had a ’natural’ retail price of $15K, but it was introduced at $9300. The other huge deal was time-line. The market wanted it now, and its natural development cycle was at least a year out. All that is to say there were significant stresses in the cycle, and stresses show in product strains.
Our signature straight-plane x tilted baffle format accommodated up to 3 driver set- backs by adjusting tilt and driver to driver distance. The CS5 had 6 drivers. It wanted a concave curved baffle for properly time-aligned driver to listener ear geometry. We solved the bass by placing the woofer between the two subwoofers (fore and aft the woofer launch plane) for a net single-point launch. The tweeter was time-aligned at the top of the stack. The upper and lower midrange had to be recessed about 5/8” and 1/2” respectively. The direct way to do that is geometrically. That would have required a thicker and more complex baffle, which could have all been accomplished with additional lead time, which the market wouldn’t grant. So Jim provided the electronic answer with analog delay, which he considered more elegant. This baffle fit our signature tilted flat plane. This long tale is to provide background behind how such products come to day.
I always pre-visualized new products as we developed our factory. A CS5.2 could use a shallow cone upper midrange instead of the 2” dome to solve much of the timing issue, and applying our patent-pending double cones to the midrange drivers would increase basket depth options. The more complex 3D baffle shaping was feasible if Jim and Kathy could be swayed. I wanted to compete in the more expensive arena; whereas Jim and Kathy were not enthusiastic. Home Theater was rearing its head and Jim wanted foremost an arena to invent new products. HT became that arena.
So, Andy, back to your point that more complexity constrains a design. I agree. I also add that working to surpass such constraints is the business of innovation. We worked ahead of the curve, inventing many solutions that gradually became part of the industry playbook. The CS5.2 could have put many of those future innovations, such as motor shunts, rare-earth focusing magnets, formed double cones, etc. to good use. Such a path became reality with coincident / coax upper drivers, reflex bass (which I discouraged in our statement products) and so forth and so on. It’s a long tale of a complex stew with an outcome that the CS5 was never revisited, much to my disappointment.
But, as time went on and lessons were learned, there were never any more time-delay circuits, and metal drivers allowed simpler shaping filters; and the speakers worked toward greater clarity and dynamics – and reticence was reduced.
|
|
roxy54
Good Catch! I hope those 3.5 speakers find the next home.
Happy Listening!
|
|
Hey gang, just wanted to wish everyone a happy Friday as I finish up work from my (home) office listening to a great pair of Thiel PCS belt out some tunes :)
|
JA - awhile back you commented on the sonic improvements from the CS1.5 to 1.6 and larger improvement to the CS1.7. I would love to hear your particulars about the 1.7 and how it seems better to you.
|
tomthiel
I found the CS 1.7 a measure better in clarity and focus in the High(s) and Mid(s).
Bass tighter as well. This particluar model is smaller footprint of loudspeakers CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 A perfect match for an Integrated Amp.
Happy Listening!
|
2nd Note
The CS 1.7 also presents a deeper and wider Soundstage in comparison to models CS 1.5/CS 1.6 I hope this helps -Tom.
Happy Listening!
|
I ask because the 1.7 is in a 1.6 enclosure. The chief differences are an additional bucking magnet on the tweeter, and the star-plane woofer. I hope to find a 1.7 to dissect, listen to and measure.
What is on my radar is to recreate Jim's CS1.7, which exists in prototype form. New Thiel modified the crossovers somewhat away from Jim's intent and I wonder what a Jim Thiel 1.7 would sound like. Gary Dayton says Jim's was better to his ear.
There's always something.
Tom
|
tomthiel
Excellent! I believe that the Star-Plane Woofer is the most redeeming factor in CS 1.7, setting it apart and better than CS 1.5/CS 1.6 speakers. Very cool planning a recreation of Jim's CS 1.7 model in 2025. I cannot think of a better offering to kick off Thiel Renaissance.
Happy Listening!
|
mchan888
New PM sent.
Happy Listening!
|
For CS 2.4 owners, do you notice the soundstage lacking a bit of image height?
|
andy2
No. Not at all.
Happy Listening!
|
|
andy2 - Up and down is a weak point of minimum phase, multi-driver transducers. The coax is much better than discrete drivers, but coax to woofer geometry still comes into play. Right-left-depth is their strong suit. The up-down problem is exacerbated when the speaker’s aiming is marginal. You want its propagation axis pointing at your ear-plane such that you are at the center-sweet spot of its vertical propagation field.
The design axis assumes an ear position of 3’ off the floor and at least 2.5M - 8+’ away. You can mount a builder’s square, laser, etc. on the speaker at 36" up and parallel to the floor. Sight along that line. Adjust speaker tilt such that it sights to your ear height.
Now it gets trickier. The effective set-back of the drivers changes relative to how much the speakers are toed in, which is dictated primarily by your room’s side walls. If the sight line points at your ear when the speaker is aimed directly at you, it will act lower if pointed more perpendicular to the front wall. (Visualize looking at the side of the speaker rather than the baffle. There will be zero driver setback in that case vs 6° (depending on your model) when looking at the baffle.
Explained another way, if you use setup software, the proper height and tilt is the one that produces the best square wave, step response, etc. at your listening position. That optimized geometry will put your ear at the mid-point of the vertical wave propagation arc. Your soundstage height will be at its best, as well as frequency response and everything else.
|
andy2, I own the 2.4 and I know what you mean. In my experience, that behavior is a little bit amp dependent. I used to own locally manufactured class a/b monoblocks with which the stage hight sounded fine, and sometimes even a little bit on the overly large side. Since I switched to Bel Canto ref1000's (class D), the image seems on the small side.
|
lars888888
Good to see you here again. What other gear is in your current System?
Happy Listening!
|
Hello Folks,
For those of you who don't know, Gary Dayton has bought CSS from Rob Gillum who has retired for family needs. The transition has been January through May.
Gary has made a formal announcement and provided more detail on the Thiel Audio Legacy facebook page being run by Micah Sheveloff, Thiel's long-time publicity and PR agent.
|
tomthiel
Thank You for announcing Gary Dayton purchasing CSS. This is indeed Oustanding! Give our best to Mr. Rob Gillum for his legendary Thiel Audio service. He will be missed.
Happy Listening!
|
|
What does is it mean for CSS? Will it be viable for a long while?
|
Our plan is to have it available for a long, long while. There's plenty happening behind the curtain, but for now keep calling CSS as you have been for the past 7 years.
|
|
tomthiel
over on U.S. Audiomart there is a lot of Vifa D19 TD tweeters for sale. I thought that this could be of interest to you.
Happy Listening!
|
|
|
@tomthiel
Thanks for the notice about the change at CSS.
And it reminds me that I meant to ask Rob for something and never got around to it.
Not long after I purchased the 2.7s I purchased backup drivers from Rob - the coaxial, woofer and passive radiator. Just in case I ever have a driver failure or accident in the future.
I meant to ask Rob for some detailed instructions as to how to replace those drivers if it ever became necessary.
Is this something Gary could answer for me?
I don’t know if this is this type of thing that I could actually do or whether it would be necessary to call some professional who works with speakers if it ever came to that.
|
Prof - Gary can handle all your needs. He was a rising star at Thiel and after resigning in the early New Thiel era he became Bryston's USA sales manager and then worldwide Marantz brand manager for Sound United. When that company became turbulent, he was convinced to pick up the reins as CSS, my first-choice outcome for our beloved brand.
When at Thiel Gary was the out-facing technical service rep / the other half of Rob's repair department. They worked together. Since this past January Rob and Gary have worked together to increase Gary's fluency with hands-on techniques. Rob will also remain on call as needed. No worries. Gary was also Jim's lab assistant and the lead man for the development of the CS2.7 after Jim's death as well as the CS1.7 with its next-generation RadialWave coax and StarPlane woofer. He knows his stuff.
To your question, all Thiel speakers can be serviced in the field. Some mechanics may not be obvious; but once exposed to the solution you will be able to do what's required. Again, no worries.
|
|
Correction - the CS1.7 is the CS1.6 next-generation tweeter (not coax.)
|
