Thiel Owners

i just sent a response again and included my email and phone number but they are not letting it thru.  

I have had good luck with the Coda 16

velocityofhue

Good to read that you still enjoying spinning CDs on the AYRE and Luxman.

Both are excellent Players.

Happy Listening!

sdberman

Welcome!  Nice inheritance. Your ears do not deceive. Both McCormick and Sonic Frontiers are sonic matches for Thiel Audio speakers. A little Tube-Rolling and you are set.  Enjoy the Music.

Happy Listening!

Duramax:  here is a post i made last  year regarding the BAT VK80

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/that-transformational-piece-of-gear-we-all-wish-for

ronkent

Thanks for the link.I read the thread in its entirety last night.

After reading,  it only encourages me to want to demo the Rex 300/500 even more. The VK 90 was also on my radar as well. With the VK 90 there is the option to upgrade to the Rex 3 if one so desires. 

With the crossover changes I am making in the 7.2 I'm going to exercise restraint as there will be changes so need to keep gear the same until the testing is concluded.

All -

over on The Music Room (TMR) is a pair of CS6 loudspeakers in Oak finish.

I hope these speakers find the next good Home.

Happy Listening!

Hi, a +1 for Coherent Source Service for providing re-built tweeters for a older pair of Thiel CS2.3 speakers. I bought them from a local guy who had rattle-can spray painted them black!! Of course, the tweeters were blown, but I got them at a low price, so I was ready to spend some $ to re-furbish them. After refinishing the cabinets. the beautiful walnut veneer came to life. With the new tweeters installed, they sound pretty great. So, if you run across an older pair of Thiel speakers, don't be afraid to restore them to greatness.

duramax

Apologies if you covered this already, but can you clarify what you plan on doing "With the crossover changes I am making in the 7.2"

I have lived with Thiel CS7.2 speakers for a number of years now, so I'm curious what changes you would make to the crossovers.

oxfordamps

Welcome! back.  Good to see you here. What gear have you built around those CS 2.3 and CS 7.2 loudspeaker systems?  I look forward in reading more about your Musical tastes.

Happy Listening!

Jafant:  i must say you are an excellent moderator for this thread. 

ronkent

My pleasure Sir. Did you make it to the Audio Show in Raleigh?

Happy Listening!

I did go but for one day only.  not a big fan of shows as it is really hard to hear good music in good sound in those rooms.  Mostly go to hang with my old audio buddies that i worked with a gazillion years ago in the business.

oxfordamps,

Regarding crossover upgrades this is one of many steps to catapult the 7.2 into sonic nirvana. 

The notch filter upgrade for upper mids uses electrolytic caps as they are high value (4-100uf) and using a film cap instead would have been cost prohibitive when Thiel debuted the 7.2.

Fast forward and as endusers we are not in that dilemma. This upgrade is not relying on caps of higher quality for improvement. It is a better design and how to implement the caps with the formulation Tom devised. 

The object on this notch filter is it will become an immediate upgrade to other models as many have a notch filter, albeit not as large as the 7.2.

This test is a few different formulations as the cap values are not off the shelf caps. Tom works with winding companies to wind values and his unique design into a cap. Essentially its a cap within a cap within a cap etc... 

Once this test is concluded then the rest of the upper mid crossover will get implemented. Adding custom CU foil caps in Thiel's should excite every owner.

Then lower mids, HF, and LF will be upgraded to complete the four way. Toms Biflow technology will be utilized throughout the crossover. His internal wiring will bring an immediate sonic improvement as I've heard it.

There are many other upgrades too be added and I'll leave that to Tom to disclose. 

Hope this helps. 

My re-involvement with Thiel Audio began in earnest as I learned of New Thiel’s impending bankruptcy. I encouraged Rob Gillum to buy the service department, and worked with him over the years to fill in my knowledge blanks and share what I am learning. My work has been to assess whether I could bring substantive improvements to Jim’s life-work as the basis for a follow-on enterprise. Over the past 5 years, we have explored and tested and co-developed with generous contributors and beta testers a wide variety of new solutions. Bottom line is that Jim was extraordinarily expert at what value engineers call ’balancing his designs’. There is no cost that doesn’t carry its weight. As duramax said: we are now in a different milieu. We Thiel owners already have our speakers and any upgrades can be bought without the cost burden of the retail store. We can up their game within reasonable cost parameters.

We have developed multiple upgrades, all settling around propagation organization, whether electrical, electromagnetic, fluid dynamic - whether inside components, wire or in the space between them; in the analog layouts and/or field management around components; these new solutions would not have existed, and/or been affordable in Classic Thiel’s time, within its framework of packing maximum performance into minimum price. We are reaching for a new cost/performance plateau.

One of the particular system limitations is the large capacitor banks that duramax mentions. Thiel controls its drivers over 7 octaves, necessitating notch filters at each driver’s fundamental resonance (or more) and first (or more) breakup modes. Common wisdom treats those circuits as functionary, without much sonic impact. Our trials say they contribute more sonic impact than given credit for. Our trials have been conducted on multiple models, but settled on the SCS4 due to its simplicity and shipability. They serve our team well. However, duramax has brought a focused interest at the top of the range, along with the listening room he built for sonic verification. Therefore, for these trials on capacitors to augment and/or replace the large electrolytic caps, we are running parallel trials on the SCS4 at my end and CS7.2 at his end.

To oxfordamps query: these prospective upgrades do not affect the frequency response. The speaker’s power balance remains the same, demonstrated by overlaying the curves. I should mention that in a Thiel design, any frequency range is affected by contributions from all drivers. You can’t merely change something in a particular circuit and expect a predicted result. That’s a major reason why most folks say true minimum phase / time aligned performance is (some form of) practically impossible. We can’t expect to improve on that core strength of Jim’s work. But, aural neurology doesn’t perceive only average power. It interprets elements such as increased clarity, definition. dynamic range and coherent alignment (quantum coherence). When those aspects get better, the area under consideration sounds more ’full, right, compelling, better’, even without factually being ’louder’. That’s what we’re working with: strengthening a weakness to bring that area into focus.

I’m not at liberty to explicate the particulars of how we’re doing what we’re doing, but I can tell you that 100% of the various levels of collaborators ’get it’. It’s not subtle, it is qualitative. Within weeks we should have results from various permutations on this particular (large cap) problem to give some meaningful observations.

tomthiel

Thank You for this Summer update.  I hope that you are well and preparing for a fruitful Fall season. It is on the horizon.

Happy Listening!

Tom Thiel and All,

My thinking is that everything matters, and everything is in the circuit. Every nut and bolt and fastener are part of the "Speaker System" While not directly hooked to the crossover the proximity of steel fasteners bend and alter the magnetic field which is part of the drive assembly. When these steel fasteners are removed and replaced with nonferrous the difference is immediately audible and more musical with a more open and resolved soundstage. While some of the improvement in performance is not measurable it certainly is audible. If you perceive improvements numerically and 1 upgrade makes a 5 % gain and you find four or other areas which you can be offered similar improvement, then you made for a net improvement of 25%. This 25% net gain in resolution will greatly offset the net loss of selling and replacing your current speakers or components.  Of course you must have a product of initial high quality to begin with such as the Thiel speakers..

Speaking of capacitors, and the same would be true of the resistors, all can be improved whether in series or in parallel with the drivers. Those in series with the drivers will be most important, those in parallel will add noise which is returned to the amplifier and will be added to the overall system. Energy always seeks ground and therefore all the component parts are important. Parts quality in notch filters are often discounted as not critical. My point is there are to those want to increase the overall resolution of their component /system by reducing interfering energy returning into their amplifier and then becoming part of the next signal.

TomD

. 

theaudiotweak

Excellent insight into our beloved gear and speaker systems. Thank You for being a valued Panel member.

Happy Listening!

Happy Friday! All

ronkent

Glad you made the trip to Raleigh.   Happy Listening!

Notch filter in. I am running tests in mono so I can directly compare to stock. 
I'm running current through the 7.2  and see where we are at when I hit the 40-50 marker. 

ronkent,

Keep those amps warmed up as I will head your way after I get back from my trip. Looking forward to meeting you and hearing your setup. 

Does anyone have Gary Dayton’s email address? I want to get a pair of CS2.3 coaxes rebuilt. 

@biannuzzi22 

Contact - Coherent Source Service

biannuzzi22

as above, consult Gary at Coherent Source Service.  Keep me posted on your rebuild experience.

Happy Listening!

I was wondering if anyone here has tried using two pairs of identical Thiels set up up with one pair back to back with the forward to the listener pair? If so, how did you set it up? How far from the back facing pair were they from the the wall they faced? Where they wired in phase (bi-polar) or out of phase (di-polar) from the forward to the listener pair? What did you notice? What did you prefer? Would you reccomend it?

unsound - you or someone on this forum may have the reference where Jim suggested that arrangement. What I do remember is that his response was a reaction, not a serious suggestion.

I have tried that setup for on-site recording playback monitors with both the CS5i and CS7.2. Large rooms, placement problems, need for large sweet-spot, plenty of big amplification on site. I put a pair of CS2.2s behind the main out-facing speakers. Speakers were tight back to back, duct-taped to avoid buzzing. BiPolar (same polarity) won.

I liked the more powerful, room-filling deep bass with reduced eigenmodes.  There was also an increase in overall sense of spaciousness. But the 'sound' was less true to our remembered live-sound sources (in the same space, in the same session) as well as our headphone reference. In special circumstances it may have some appeal; but it requires deep pockets to implement. I would not recommend it for normal folks with pockets of typical Thiel users.

@tomthiel , Thank you for your prompt response, I am familiar with that response from Jim Thiel with regard to bi-amping CS 5’s. However it was this post:

Audiogon Discussion Forum from @erik_squires that got me thinking, as well as that it might be a consideration for me with CS 3.5s. I also seem to recall that @duramax747 had two pairs of CS 5i’s.

I’m not surprised that you prefered the bi-polar to di-polar layout, as to my ears di-polar speakers more often than not present a lumpy frequency response. I would imagine that having back to back pairs could even out in room bass response. The only bi-polar speakers I can recall, were some highly regarded (though I was unimpressed) Mirage models. They were however not symetrical front to rear in driver location or cross-over points.

I would have imagined that having identical speakers back to back would have been more advantageous? What would be the recommended distance from the facing wall of the backwards from listener pair of speakers? What would the ramifications of using the amps with bi-wiring capabilites on each front to back channels vs. dedicated channel amplification be?

unsound - I have remembered that I also tried 'your' configuration in my Middle Crossing studio where we had a fairly large, well-proportioned, well tweaked room. I believe that duramax has two pair of CS5is, but I'm not aware that he has done this experiment. I had two pairs of CS2.2s, back to back and unitized, each channel driven by a stereo Classé DR9, one channel driving each speaker, with another identical amp driving the other two back to back speakers.

Side-step to Thiel's conceptual model - to have each channel act as much as possible like an omni-directional microphone. That causes extra trouble for set-up because the wide dispersion interacts more with the room than narrow dispersion designs. Adding the back-firing speaker exacerbates that set of problems.

On the other hand, the psycho-acoustics favor the 2-speaker arrangement since they are driving the room (as seen and aurally interpreted by the listener) more like real 3D instruments in that room, more like that mythical omni mic. This configuration will add more power to the sides and back than to the front-firing energy. So, more space and/or critical wall treatment will be needed.

My room was 16' wide x 24' long with porous-resistive walls that acted like a much larger room. In that room my standard spacing put 5' from the front (solid) wall to the tweeter plates. Since the back wall was porous, I could pull the speakers into the room without bounce problems from the back wall. I recall bringing them forward to around 9'. I lacked room to spread them wider than their 9' ctr to ctr. That tuning operation is a combination of physical experimentation and experientially gathered positioning data from decades of setup work. Tedium that pays dividends.

Regarding bi-wiring. I put considerable effort into that proposition due to its popularity in the field. I dislike it, like Jim disliked it. In Thiel's coherent milieu, some bonded point must be assumed as all the circuitry and drivers act as a unified system from top to bottom. The only point that we get full control of that unified system is with all drivers driven from a single point of entry. I also found that in the real world of cost-benefit, a 'better' set of cables provides more value than two 'lesser' sets. But even if you could get two identical 'better' sets, their working parameters would be different than those of the speaker as designed due to their considerably longer length and reflection parameters. My best results (half-century and counting) have been with single runs from a stereo channel (not bridged) through a single pair of speaker cables. By the way, in those trials my best bi-wire results were with internally bi-wire in the same cable rather than separate home runs between amp and speaker.

Phase-time coherent speakers like Dunlavy, Thiel and Vandersteen may present a best case scenario for this bi-polar proposition. Their radiation field is already propagating in phase and in time from top to bottom as though it were a single driver. Another fully integrated radiating field would form the other half of a spherical radiation field. You may know that Jim was contemplating a spherical solution when he died. Among our pre-Thiel Audio experiments, we all loved the spherical driver he made out of dozens of headphone drivers. But as green 20-somethings pursuing that idea was a bridge too far. 

Hi all.  New to this thread - really because I had no idea this existed, but glad it does.  I'm the (VERY) proud owner of several (some past) pairs of Thiel speakers (1.2, 1.6, 2, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4's).  I fell in love with Thiel's since the first day I listened to them when I mistakenly walked into Omni Sound in Addison (Dallas sub) thinking it was just another stereo store I hadn't been to in about 1986/7.  Ended up buying a pair of 1.2's and a B&K ST-140 and still have both.  At some point I gave away the 2's and the 2.2's (for very little $) because the persons that I gave these to were listening to crap speakers but had good electronics (one had Mac stuff they other had something else just don't remember).

I recently acquired a nice pair of 2.4's and have been "fixing" them as the previous owner had no idea there were holes in the drivers, the bucking mags fell off of the woofers and various other abnormal things - but thought they sounded just fine - I think his hearing aids were on the blink personally.  Anyway, Rob, and now Gary, have helped me tremendously though the years and now helping me with these 2.4's.  Gary has rebuilt the coax drivers, helped with various parts and recently acquired a set of the Clarity Caps used in the 2.4SE's to bring mine up to the latest spec - or so I thought until I began reading this post over the past week or so.

In the process of gluing the bucking mags back onto the woofers and going to replace the caps in the coax section of the xover, but thought, what else should I replace on the coax board since I'm basically going to need to move some stuff around.

Being a noob to the thread - what else should I (or MUST) replace/upgrade that will make these already gorgeously sounding speakers even better.  Not really concerned about cost as long as I'm not spending thousands (but replacing these with something better is moving into the $10,000-15,000 category anyway) and open to any and all suggestions - I sort of an engineer hack to begin with so fire away.

 @tomthiel, thanks again. I don’t think I have enough room to pull the speakers from the front wall. But, if I did, well ……

It’s interesting that you preferred internal bi-wiring, as that’s the opposite to what Richard Vandersteen suggests. Then again many of his speakers have user adjustable controls on board. FWIW, Bruno Putzeys has suggested that with amplifiers distortion levels having decreased so much; the benefits of bi-wiring can now be appreciated. I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other(s).

In my fairly extensive wire and cable trials over the past few years, I found considerably more sonic variation between bi-wired cable and mono-wired cable. Since Thiel speakers were thoroughly engineered for single wire, that form represents the target performance. I can't replicate the claimed improvements for bi-wiring. 

I recognize that wire/cable is used to alter performance towards personal preferences, which is the owners' prerogative. I am keeping Jim's designs intact and looking for ways to improve performance while honoring the original intents and methods. Single speaker cable is among those design decisions.

wisinskt

Welcome!  good to see you here. Nice score on those CS 2.4 speakers. Thank You for citing your CSS experience with Rob, now Gary. Glad you had a positive rebuild.  Currently, what gear is in your System? Are you still located in the Dallas / Metroplex area?

Happy Listening!

beetlemania

PM sent.

Happy Listening!

unsound,

Yes sir two pair of CS5i. Running one set with Class A mono’s is a test of endurance in addition to the heat generated that it being summer in the south. 

Running two sets in same room would be as hot as fish grease I’m sure,  but I’m game to try it sometime. 

I enjoy reading your posts and the thought put into them. 

Unsound

Funny you mentioned this back to back speaker configuration, I have often thought about this but always thought that since you were firing a driver from the rear of the speaker you would need a different type driver configuration as the sound would be traveling at twice the distance.

So funny thing I happen to have an additional pair of crossovers and upper range driver for the CS 6's, I can build a enclosure and mount the driver at the same height as the driver in the CS 6. I have a separate amp I could drive this from from the same preamp, I even has a passive preamp that I can use to adjust the volume for the experiment.

With the upcoming cooler weather I will be able to get back into my room upstairs to experiment.

I'll have to let you know how it goes.    

Jafant, 

Still here in Dallas.  Can’t say enough good about the CSS guys…  Rob rebuilt a number of drivers for me (2.3’s) and now Gary has been for the 2.4’s and really helped on various other crazy ideas I’m trying to pull off.

My current setup is obviously my recent acquisition of the CS2.4’s powered by a Parasound A21 amp and Parasound JC2BP preamp.  As for sources, I have a Marantz AV7600 proc, a Linn LP12, a PS Audio Direct Stream Jr./Roon, an Oppo 105 modded to output i2s for SACD and 5 PowerPlane 1.2’s for surrounds.  I have a 2nd setup out at our ranch that is a pair of CS1.6’s (1.2’s are there in a closet as I can’t part with them), a B&K ST-140 amp, a PS Audio 4.6 pre, another Marantz proc and a BlueSound Node for streaming.

wisinskt

Thank You for the System follow up.  Parasound is a sonic match for Thiel speakers. Nice to read that you hung onto those CS 1.6 speakers as well.

Happy Listening!

Happy Friday! All

Jafant, I tried several amps with the 2.4’s.  The parasound was a great match for the 2.3’s as well.  The other amps that came close were the Electron Kinetics Eagle, Moscode 300/600 and the CJ 45 - but the A21 just makes the 2.4’s sing.  About ready to do the cap upgrade.  Have you ever been able to compare the 2.4’s with the 2.4SE’s?  Just wondering what to expect if you have.  Also, about to buy a pair of the JC1’s but want to do incremental upgrades so I can judge the upgrade.

Thoughts? 

wisinskt

Yes! I spent a few months auditioning the CS 2.4 and CS 2.4SE. My impressions and thoughts are well annotated here in this thread.  In short, I chose the CS 2.4SE for my System. To my ears, the CS 2.4SE adds a measure of richness and timbre.

Very subtle in presentation and sound.  Plus, the SE requires Outriggers, while the standard CS 2.4 does not.

Happy Listening!

@jafant when you say that the CS2.4SE’s require the outriggers, is that a personal preference? Also, does anyone on this thread have a lead on the outriggers?  I’d log a set of those.  I got a set of those for my 1.6’s and using a set of the ISOa’s with them and are phenomenal!  The ISOa Gaia III are real.  I thought they would be BS, but can’t believe the improvement.

wisinskt

The Outriggers for CS 2.4SE is not a preference. This Model is properly coupled with Outriggers in place.

Happy Listening!

Jafant (and everyone else),

I hope I’m not breaking any rules here, but I am having some CS2.4 outriggers made here in Dallas at a local shop that are identical to the originals (without spikes or caps).  I’m not offering anything for sale, but if there is any interest in obtaining a set of these I can put you in touch with the shop.  Full disclosure, I am in now way connected to the shop or making any money from this - just a conduit to get a set of these are they are almost impossible to find.  If there is any interest send me an email: wisinskt@gmail.com

@wisinskt , Perhaps, I’m mistaken but I seem to recall that respected forum contributor @duramax747 with his somewhat unique professional skills was working on a similar project.

 Keep in mind that depending on one’s room and in particular that rooms flooring, and depending how these devices are coupled or as the case may be decoupled, can make things sound just as easily worse or better. YMMV!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oH4runQr6I8

I have mixed feelings... Feel free to skip to 11:25 or so.

@unsound , thanks for the info re: @duramax747!  Good to be amongst tinkerers (as I'm new to this thread).  I started by trying to find the outriggers on various forums, websites, hifishark, etc... and then went down the rabbit trail of getting these milled.  I have a set for my 1.6's out at my ranch but not the 2.4's.  Instead of spikes I'm using the IsoA Gaia's and they worked so well with the 1.6 setup that I went down the 2.4 path as the rooms in both places are pretty similar (partialy sits on wood and rug).  I have been reading through the posts and think after a week I'm on page 30 or so.  Great discussions going on here and appreciate everything.  I also appreciate the fact that everyone seems pretty collegial unlike a lot of other threads out there.  Glad I found this place!

devinplombier - no worries. I have consulted a variety of designers for feedback and input for our upgrade design approach and particulars. In this case we're re-balancing the SCS4 (as an option) for stand-mounting rather than bookshelf environment. Danny also provided feedback re components and circuits from his perspective.

By the way, I highly recommend Danny's Electra Tube Connectors as input terminals. They fit our paradigm of propagation field integrity in a simple, well executed, affordable package. The best I've found at any price.

Regarding Outriggers - Floor coupling is an important dimension for all speakers. Thiel’s outriggers broaden the base of support / footprint, with built-in adjustability for plumb and tilt. Their aesthetic matches later Thiel models nicely. Nice upgrade.

I have examined most of the market solutions in this arena, including the Gaias, and found room for improvement. A major problem, as unsound says, is that all flooring systems are not created equal  . . .  so one solution doesn’t fit all situations.

Thiel Renaissance has designed a family of interface products, which we call ’suspension systems’, in the form of sets of feet and a monitor stand that houses an outboard crossover. They create a  mechanical path rigid enough to keep the speaker anchored in space, while supplying an adjustable energy path to tune-out return-energy from the floor. The system is user-adjustable to match everything from bare concrete to carpet on wood, etc. There are 4 separate legs, in 3 sizes for small, medium and large speakers. Each leg anchors to a corner of the speaker base with its inboard end anchored to the speaker bottom to quiet its vibratory behavior. The outboard end accepts a threaded capsule (foot) with an interior bore for a reversible pin (toe) with a pointed or flat end. That toe rides on various washers and greases to tune the suspension to its unique work.

With so many balls in the air, it is unknown when we might bring this or other products to market. I feel no conflict with wisinskt’s proposal. Thiel outriggers are part of classic Thiel’s solutions that do their job well.

Stay tuned for news of Thiel Renaissance’s Speaker Suspensions.