What's wrong with Thiel?

I do have to take a little exception about the generalization of Thiel models becoming more benign loads as time goes by. My 2.2's are actually an easier load than the 2.3's which have succeeded them, and in a smaller room I was able to drive them very well with a (tube) 45wpc C-J MV-55, which has standard 4 ohm rated output taps. When I moved to a larger room, the C-J ran out of steam, and I now use VTL MB-185 Sig's (also tube) with excellent results.

For a room that is not very large, or for listening at moderate levels, I am sure that the choice of the Pass X-150 should be a fine one. When I was using SS amplification before on my 2.2's, I did not have good results, because Thiels demand better quality electronics than the NAD and entry-level Classe I owned at the time. With power as clean as the Pass, there will be nothing nasty to be revealed by the speakers in that department.

Tubemiser's experience with acoustic treatment is indicative of the wide dispersion Thiels feature. Keep your 2.3's well away from side walls, and set-up along the room's long wall (firing across the room) is often preferable if you can still maintain a 9' - 12' listening distance without putting your head closer than 18" from the rear wall. Toe-in is discouraged by Thiel in their literature, but most owners, myself included, have found that the speakers actually do not sound their best when aimed straight ahead, instead needing at least a little angling in, and I now point mine right at the ears in my bigger room.

Thiels sound good when set-up with wide separation, side wall clearances allowing. If your room permits (a 30" - 60" side distance is mandatory), try putting them around 9' - 10' apart and listening from 10' - 12' (again, toe-in will be required for focus). If the room is a little small for this, position the speakers as far apart as you can to still listen from the equilateral point or a little farther (however, if you can't get more than 8' minimum distance at the listening chair, then it's time to start looking for different speakers). Proper front wall distance will probably fall in the 24" - 48" range, depending on your room's bass characteristics. Also, your listening chair should be one that does not elevate your ears too much; the best listening axis is a little lower or no higher than the tweeter (if your floors are not carpeted, try getting cups to allow you to still use the spikes for their added height, as well as the stability and rigidity). And make sure you use speaker cable of a quality comensurate with the amp and speakers themselves, one that puts a lot of copper between 'em - wimpy wires here will screw up the whole thing.

(Then be prepared to start upgrading any sources not up to snuff, as they will have no place to hide! ;^)

I see that Tweek has not lost any of his enthusiasm for publicly doubting the 1.6's despite the fact that he still has not heard them. Tweek, did it ever occur to you (who apparently lives for spec's such as driver diameters) that JT made a very deliberate decision to limit the size of the 1.6's mid/woofer to be best suited for achieving seamless integration with the tweeter in a 2-way design? (FWIW, Talon has just introduced a $7,000 2-way with a 10" woofer - how well is *that* going to mate with the tweeter?) I think it's an eminently reasonable design compromise (and all designs are compromises) to sacrifice low bass extension in a small 2-way to achieve high efficiency and uniform power response. As for characterizing 9wr's input as "unbias(ed)" - as though you could even know - how about trying 'inexperienced' instead? I can't help but notice that he never claims to have actually heard any Thiel speakers; he's merely regurgitating JA's verdict with a negative spin in order to provoke comment.

OK 9rw, here's my comment then: Any adult-minded consumer knows that it's always possible for even the best-quality products to suffer the occasional defective example - for cryin' out loud, the freakin' space shuttle sometimes receives defective components. Not only would I wager that Thiel's QC is the equal of any in the industry (Dunlavy and Vandersteen included), but they supply a 10-year warranty standard, and are universally acknowledged champs at taking care of their customers after the sale, something I can personally attest to. If your criteria for becoming the purchaser of any marque is that they must never have experienced a defective sample, then enjoy listening to nothing but the sounds outside your window, my friend.

As to your 'point' about JA's review and the CS6's class "B" Stereophile recommendation, it was made quite explicit that the slight midrange quality JA perceived in his auditioning was indeed the very thing which kept this model from achieving an "A" ranking. The degree of this deficiency was obviously not found to be severe enough to prevent the CS6 from still qualifying as an excellent speaker overall, something the review also made clear. Far from being indicative of some sort of favoritism as you imply, a "B" ranking is in reality no great compliment to a speaker in the CS6's price range (that is, in this time of runaway 'grade inflation' in the rankings), and despite his owning a pair of CS2.2's for a while as a personal reference, I have found JA to be somewhat less than completely won over by Thiel products in general, respecting as he does their level of engineering and execution, but doubting a bit that JT's is necessarily the best approach (meaning mostly his priorities of time-aligned, first-order design).

You bring up Dunlavy and Vandersteen; it is my own feeling that, along with Thiel, both of these brands have also possibly suffered somewhat in Stereophile's rankings due to JA's acknowledged difficulty in accurately measuring full-size first-order designs. I do not take lightly the vast experience JA brings to judging speaker sound, but I have in the last few years become increasingly suspicious that JA's 'subjective' impressions are comforming too closely to his limited measurements for comfort. The infamous episode of the ranking demotion given the Dunlavy SC-IVa was the first example of JA's conferring this consequence upon a product he did not personally originally review. In that case, it was supposedly because JA allegedly felt the Dunlavy was too bright in narrow band of the low treble - *after measuring the speaker* (even though his public debate with John Dunlavy was ostensibly about ultimate bass extension) - but the net effect is that a speaker even more expensive than the CS6 is now also "B" ranked. (Compare such treatment to that bestowed the Triangle Celius, a $2,000 speaker JA hasn't auditioned or measured, but is "A" ranked by virture of ST's recommendation.) This is not to say that a "B" ranking shouldn't be regarded as a complimentary assessment in an ideal world (or that the Triangle might not be a fine speaker), but that if you're looking for evidence of a lack of integrity or consistency on the part of Stereophile (not difficult to find these days), you're going about it backwards - the "B" awarded the CS6 would probably qualify as one of the more realistic grades they've given, were their ratings system left with even a passing resemblence to its stated criteria.

As for your statement about saving "a lot of money", the last I looked, Dunlavys and Thiels were pretty comparable in that department across their respective line-ups. Vandersteens are generally cheaper for their size than those two, but also do not pretend to offer the same level of cabinetry luxuriousness (though the Five, with its half-veneered cabinet, reasonably falls within the bounds set by the other two brands). Actually, I find your criticism in this regard a little strange, because I think the truth is that all three of these fine brands sensibly exemplify a non-extravagant approach to pricing a quality product in the high end, and the sales are there to prove it.

Glad you've heard what you condemn, 9rw - only problem is, you don't offer your own opinion of them. As for refuting the remainder of my 'fine' arguments 'rather easily', well, I guess you must enjoy keeping us in suspenders. ;^)

IMO, Thiels will always attract the kind of negative attention this thread was started about, mostly because they do what they do so very well, and are quite successful in the market as a result. There is perpetual room in the high end for those who relish rooting against the overdog. Love 'em, hate 'em, or indifferent to 'em as speakers, the fact remains that were Thiel not so preeminent in the industry, they wouldn't be a target for this sort of thing. They're not the enemy, folks.