Thiel Owners

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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. 

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!

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

@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 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

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

@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...)

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.

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.  

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.

@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?

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.

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? 

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).

@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

beetlemania,

Thanks.

Yes the 2.7 was reviewed in a number of magazines, in the USA, Europe and Asia.

Some here:

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/speaker/floor-standing/thiel-cs2-7-floorstanding-speaker/

Absolute sound (made the cover):

http://www.hificlub.pl/sites/default/files/marki/broszury/cs_2.7_the_absolute_sound.pdf

Europe:

http://www.hifitimereview.com/thiel-2-7-english/

Asia:

https://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&...=

Owner manual, info:

https://soundapproach.com/pdfs/CS2.7.pdf

@prof thanks for those links. No wonder I never saw those reviews. I haven’t read TAS in years, their credibility is near zero, IMO. And hometheaterhifi is not one I look for.

I didn’t read all of those links but they do say that the sides are plywood (that veneer job must be interesting) and that the baffle is 3” but without specifying the material. Hard to imagine that thickness would be any other than MDF.

Tom has an idea to identify cabinet surfaces with resonance issues but I was unsuccessful at helping him with my setup.

The side walls of the 2.7 are a smaller clip of the actual 3.7 panels, composed of multiple woods in assymetric layup with constrained layers - a technical tour-de-force for some high-buck brands to drool over. Thiel vacuum bagged the finish veneers, which they laid up in-house,  onto those panels in-house. Past tense seems a little weird. Curved walls geometrically resist standing wave resonance. Great idea, very difficult to make work. Imagine aligning everything for assembly!

The 3" baffle is MDF - which is nicely internally damped and pretty ideal except for the less than rigid driver recoil-launch characteristics, which I am addressing with penetrating hardener in and around the driver-mount recesses. No end to the fun.

Thanks for the 2.7 review leads. It is peculiar that Stereophile never reviewed it. The Thiel Audio company was sold within months of the 2.7 release, which may have broken the long-running history of mutual appreciation between Thiel and Stereophile. From the very beginning, Stereophile appreciated our efforts and consistently validated our results. I consider the review journals as among the best allies one could dream of.

prof - congratulations on your turntable isolation. Speakers add to the difficulty of managing isolation, the control of driver recoil and reflection-vibration, but without the luxury of isolating them from the cabinet which also serves as their spatial reference. Driver bounce reduces sonic incision.

You picked good materials for your isolation bases. Among woods, the maples have high internal damping which increases as frequencies descend, which is unusual and helpful in your situation. If your annual rings were running vertically (turntable-floor) then you minimized the sonically transmissive structures in the wood. As I mentioned, MDF is nicely damped. Two different thickness is a very good idea. By adding the SS bottom, you set up a wildly different resonance scheme, causing an impedance mis-match which serves to damp transmission. And because of the high tensile modulus of the steel, you turned the whole sandwich into an assymetric beam in bending (assuming the SS  is fixed to the MDF.) Materials with very different characteristics and dimensions works wonders.

Cheers

I just heard that Thiel is in bankruptcy

Yes. Most of the property relates to "New Thiel" inventory and their "Aurora" streaming club paraphernalia. The intellectual property will be sold and friendly buyers are welcome to raise their hands along with thielrules. I am in direct contact with the court and will post relevant developments.

Tom,

It’s helpful to read what you wrote about my turntable base. It represents the ideas I vaguely grasped while putting together the base, so it’s nice to see it gain some confirmation from a pro.

I’ve always been curious how many of the post-Jim speakers (e.g. Mark Mason designs) Thiel ended up selling. (And if they had any stock left).
I think they were designed to order.

It's interesting no owner of those speakers have found their way to this thread. Though I'd have to guess they wouldn't be the typical Thiel fans to begin with.

prof - When Rob bought the Thiel service department earlier this year, he saw the New Thiel inventory and they said that 3 pair had been sold. Perhaps a few more since then.

New Thiel missed the mark, failed to identify the narrow Thiel niche, and that extant conventional speakers covered the other bases completely. Three was not a typo, it may be incorrect, but it is in the ballpark. Lots of stock remains. The 3rd Avenue towers got 5 stars from a Stereophile reviewer. New Thiel had design and engineering talent and resources to do the job well. Their crossovers are assymetric/variable pitch as required. They may stand up well against other non-coherent offerings on the market.

That stock will be liquidated by the court at probable pennies on the dollar.

Wow, only 3!

And to think how many more Thiel may have sold if it where an authentic Thiel design - say if they had sent Stereophile the 2.7 instead. (Not saying, at that point in time in the company’s fortunes that the 2.7 would have sold bucket-loads, but I’d think more than 3!).

In my opinion, there was room for Classic Thiel to improve and grow dramatically within the parameters of the original design thesis. Imagine coherent offerings designed around the last-generation coincident drivers with additional coincident lower midrange, active throughout or an amplified woofer section - higher impedances through improved drivers requiring less compensation - carbon diaphragms with integral voice coils, and so forth and so on. Expand the niche to include high-end recordists and ultra performance luxury goods for the elite and perhaps . . . who knows what. All could be done on the shoulders of Jim's work and in harmony with tens of thousands of extant customer base.

Judging from the Stereophile review and measurements (never heard on for myself), the New Thiel TT1 seems like a competent design. But why buy one? If I want a competent (but still sourced from the Far East) speaker using "conventional" engineering I would just go with something like a Revel (better yet, the Canadian made Bryston). It is not surprising to me that the New Thiels were duds at the dealers.

On an alternate timeline, New Thiel continues to make CS1.7, 2.7 and 3.7, perhaps increasing the parts quality in the XOs much like Tom Thiel is proposing for the legacy Thiels. But even this would eventually need an engineer to keep advancing the product line . . . while staying true to Jim Thiel’s basic design principles.

That said, we Thiel owners are fortunate to have Rob Gillum available with service and parts, as well as a potential upgrade path via Tom Thiel’s mods.

I'd guess the reason the 2.7 didn't get a Stereophile review was because Wes Phillips had stopped writing.  He reviewed the 3.7 and I think bought them.  He reviewed a lot of Thiels over the years.  I think by the time the 2.7s came out he was in poor health.  He died a couple of years ago.

The Thiel TM3 stand mount and the aurora portable speakers have been on Amazon for a long time.  Overpriced, though.  No reviews on any of them so I don't think anybody is buying.  If they really have a big inventory of all of the newer Thiel lines I'd bet those will be real bargains at some point.  Overpriced at 5k is probably great at $1,000.  It's been a while since a lot of gear ended up on the market at crazy low prices.  Maybe not since Tweeter closed.  

solobone22
Good to see you here. I have not read about too many Thiel users and Class D power amps. Looking for ward in read more about your system.Keep me posted on the Bel Canto / Thiel combo vs. Bryston and Krell.
Happy Listening!

jon_5912
Most likely so as Wes Phillips was very fond of Thiel Audio loudspeakers.
He gave the CS 2.4 a glowing review.  Happy Listening!

Guys,
I can report, having carried both models, the CS 2.4SE is a touch more solid in its cabinet (Canadian Maple) than the stock CS 2.4 loudspeaker.A little less resonate in sound as well. I do not know if the SE has more anti-vibration innards vs. the regular 2.4-
Happy Listening!

Can you imagine if they would have taken  the cs5 and did the improvements tom talked about removing the bucket brigade resistors, up shimming the woofers and setting them up for bi amping! Using the new speaker material technology! How would that Have been for a flagship model ! Oh What could have been!

I think the new owners may not have understood the nature of the speaker market.  In speaker designs, there are a lot of good brands.  If you want something, most likely there are ten brands will compete to offer you that "something".  So it's not like there is a shortage of speakers out there.  And each brand already has its own loyal customer base.

The new Thiel attempts to build speakers that may be good in themselves, but they are no more special than what already available out there which themselves already has its own followings.  Why would the existing customers have to take a chance to purchase the new Thiel speakers while they already know their current preferred brand fairly well?

It's hard to build up a brand image that people can identify with, especially in the speaker industry where most stuffs are more or less a commodity especially at the price point the new Thiel was trying to compete.  It's tough to compete in that segment.  Someone once told me that if want to go into doing business, target either the very high end or the very low end.  The middle end is very tough.  It seems like the new Thiel strategy was going for something in the middle in both price and technology - just another headwind for them.  The old Thiel although in term of pricing, it is somewhat in the middle but it's technology was at the very high end of the market.  

I've seen some very successful brands such as Dynaudio,  B&W, Spendor, Sonus Faber and so on ... I think part of their success are as much on life style as their sound.  People buy them for decorative purpose as much as the music.  Seems like the new Thiel was trying to position themselves into this market but I guess it didn't work out for them. 

jafant

"I have not read about too many Thiel users and Class D power amps."

There's one in my SS2.2   :-)  ;-)   :-)

George  (The Old Fud)

There's a much sought after, classic Conrad-Johnson Premier 350 (350w) amp for sale right on on Agon!  

A number of Thiel owners over the years have thought this was the best amp they ever tried on Thiels.  They don't come up very often and if timing were better for me I probably would have snatched this one up!

prof
Nice catch. Unforyunately, the seller is a flake, to state the very least.Hope you are feeling better and enjoying this Fall season.
Happy Listening!

brayeagle,Much Thanks! for the report regarding the SS 2.2 subwoofer system.Happy Listening!