tomthiel
Responses from tomthiel
| Thiel Owners Prof - thank you for your thorough comparisons and commentary.I have read Stereophile's reviews of the Joseph Perspectives and admire the outcome. I am a big fan of magnesium as a driver material - the SEAS Graphene material seems great to me. Th... | |
| Thiel Owners Unsound - wave guides might have merit in the right designer's toolkit. But I am not that guy. The famous "lobing" is caused by vertical offset between the tweeter and midrange as a function of wavelength and crossover slope mating. The 3.5 driver... | |
| Thiel Owners Unsound - in developing the CS5, I evaluated a tapered cabinet, large enough for the woofers at the bottom and as narrow as possible at the top. We never mocked up or tested it. The 3-dimensional cabinet geometry would have added considerable cost... | |
| Thiel Owners True enough, wider baffles isolate the waveform launch at the speaker, as opposed to the room. His included assumption is that the curved baffle is effectively diffusing meaningful surface anomalies and that an infinite baffle is ideal. I might ag... | |
| Thiel Owners Unsound - I think you took issue with my paradigm restatement (but I could be wrong.) I see a paradigm as a lens through which to view the territory under exploration. The values and results might not be challenged or changed. What changes is the ... | |
| Thiel Owners Unsound - I am being excruciatingly careful to avoid editorializing the sound. We called what many brands do "euphonic engineering" - to knowingly alter the sound-field for desired illusions.A look behind the curtain: I used my modified CS1.6s as ... | |
| Thiel Owners George - Nice system, nice room, and good solution. | |
| Thiel Owners Andy - No 2.7 and 2.4 are not the same woofers.Longer historic perspective answer:A new model from Thiel included new drivers, either specifically developed for the new model or trickled down from a more expensive recent product. Ex. the CS1.6 woo... | |
| Thiel Owners Batmanfan - I was long gone at 3.7 time, so I can only give you a sketch. Rob says nothing had changed since my days. The tonal balance and hard-core engineering was done in the chamber, which was semi-anechoic with previously delineated dimension... | |
| Thiel Owners Prof - my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily... | |
| Thiel Owners Prof - The 2.7 is on my long list. I am gaining experience by taking on older designs with more room for improvement and more urgent end of capacitor life issues. I am learning a lot as I go that will all apply to more recent models such as the 2.... | |
| Thiel Owners The CS1.7 is a different story. Its development was finalized by New Thiel via Mark Mason, formerly of PSB. Shortly after the sale, Steve DeFuria was hired as national sales manager and he contacted me to arrange a consultancy for product/ philoso... | |
| Thiel Owners The 1.6 was introduced in 2002 and sold approximately 3000 pair in its 10 year run, about the same as the CS1.5 from 1993 to 2002. All 1.6 cabinets, drivers, final assembly and testing was done in Lexington. My #1611-12 pair have Lex crossovers w... | |
| Thiel Owners Beetle - thanks for the leads. JA - I'm working on real quantities in the field. Thiel didn't compete well at its lower end. Dealers I knew thought those products made no market sense - they were too radically different from their price peers. In ... | |
| Thiel Owners Pardon me, I mis-typed. The 2.2 and 3.5 will follow the 1.5. Lots of work is being done on the 2.2 which can be applied to the 3.5 which seems to have a strong following, especially in its sealed bass. I'm looking for a pair of 3.5s as well as 1.5... |