What's wrong with Thiel?

I think that Thiel's are basically a very demanding speaker. At the same time, they are not very forgiving either. This can mean a LOT more work for someone interested in running them than if they chose a speaker that was "less accurate" and / or "less reactive".

As such, most of the task of getting the best from a set of Thiel's is proper placement, listening distance and finding complimentary equipment. While this is a large percentage of making any system "sing", such factors play a bigger role in specific situations. This is one of those situations.

The bottom line is that Thiel's will typically not allow you to "skimp" on any aspect of system performance i.e. components, placement or the amount of "elbow grease" that it takes to make every aspect as good as is possible. I would not call these speakers "user friendly" if one simply wants to be a "user" of a system. You will have to get actively involved in helping the system make music and figuring out what the best method to do so involves. Sean
>

While i don't know the specifics of the situation, i do know that the original Dunlavy SC IV's actually ran the midrange drivers down below their point of resonance. As anyone that has ever tinkered with speaker design knows, this is a BIG "no-no" if there ever was one. Mike aka "Magnetar" from AA had a pair of these and that is how i found this out. From what he told me, he had a "lot" of communications with Dunlavy about this and none of it was pleasant. Sean
>