sdecker
Responses from sdecker
| Thiel Owners Thiels have been my primary speakers for nearly twenty years now, first CS2.3 then CS2.4 in 2006. A dispute with a new condo neighbor hypersensitive to sound caused me to buy a pair of the new KEF LS50 Meta stand-mounted speakers for substanti... | |
| Thiel Owners Totally agree unsound. 'Time coherent' was never accurately defined with marketing or general knowledge or the physics that create true phase/time coherency like Thiels. 'Point source' is also too broadly marketed, but easier to accurately defin... | |
| Thiel Owners Point source, yes, absolutely, at least in their LS50 with no other drivers. But that's only one non-essential attribute of full-coherence. Vandersteens' achieve it all without any concentric drivers. All Thiels except the SCS4 (?) have the wid... | |
| Thiel Owners jazzman7: The KEF Uni-Q would seem to disqualify itself from this discussion due (at least) to their use of a second-order crossover. Indeed, the step response plots from Stereophile look nothing like a time/phase coherent loudspeaker:https://w... | |
| KEF LS50 Speaker Stands I just recently bought Metas, my first non-floor-standers, so I needed stands. I looked at KEF's LS50-specific stands that recommend the tweeter being 32" off the floor, despite typical ear height of 36". Picked up these through Audio Adviso... | |
| Thiel Owners Actually it took three upgrades to make mine *perfect*, though the first one was just the ’basic’ upgrade of the time. I imagine by now it’s a labor of love, as Steve is past able to retire if he chose. He’s spent decades listening to the best pas... | |
| Thiel Owners yabe1951: others here have heard from me -- some years ago now -- of Steve McCormack thoroughly upgrading my DNA 0.5 to optimally drive my CS2.3s. A complete success, that was only bettered when I started using CS2.4s as I still do today. The... | |
| Thiel Owners @yyzsantabarbara I've read Meta reviews too, from a consistently slight improvement over the original to a significant technology leap for all box speakers. As I've no experience with the original, I doubt I'll be let down. Like I said, the int... | |
| Thiel Owners Playing catch-up for the past month of this forum.tomthiel: The Philips CD-80 you reference. That was introduced in 1989 (not 1985) for $900. I auditioned it at the time, along with the one-model-lower CD-60 that I bought and used for a decade ... | |
| Thiel Owners I guess this is the time to ask, or confirm, that the incredibly comprehensive hyperlinked database of all speakers that was a part of the 'real' Thiel's website was immediately destroyed by the new owners? As I recall, it had every speaker's p... | |
| Thiel Owners I now realize what I've been misinterpreting for fifteen years. The infamous Stereophile measurements are taken at 50". Their 2.4 test figure #5 "vertical response family" shows the 1kHz crossover suckout just above the tweeter axis. So a... | |
| Thiel Owners The butcher blocks aren't a solution for me due to WAF and stability, and with Tom's information, why upset my frequency balance, when the bass in my room is outstanding as is? But is tilting the speakers <1" back on spikes, which tilts the ba... | |
| Thiel Owners dhoff01: raising the speakers 2" on the spikes, if they could go up that high, would be precarious and less-stable. Not that sound travels this way, but putting a laser pointer atop the speaker and raising the front spikes 1" up moves the laser p... | |
| Thiel Owners I can offer what I find to be nearly ideal for my 2.4 listening position/setup. Speakers 8' apart center-to-center, toed-in 10 degrees each or less, grilles on. 9.5' coax to my ear. 38" listening height. I use the coax as my reference point as... | |
| Thiel Owners I have to say I laughed out loud when I read Bose used Thiel as their audio benchmark. Would anyone venture a guess as to how well 2000s-era Bose speakers emulated the 'Thiel sound'??I'd be curious to know what they use today for their large(r) s... |