Thiel Owners

Jim designed the subs with LXE controls to be used by "normal" subwoofer installers with their programs, etc. It is indeed very technical and must match the low-frequency roll off of the main speaker. That process is A: a headache rarely gotten right and B: protected turf of the knowledgeable installers.
Jim's patent was on the room boundary portion. Each Thiel passive sub XO was customized for a particular Thiel model to make the best available complementary crosspoint behavior between the main woofer and the subwoofer XO. The "Integrator" is even more sophisticated - I want one. The room boundary controls on the subwoofer tell it the distance from side and back wall to optimize and shope its output and low end roll-off, allowing room placement without concern for reflections, boundary effects and so forth.

I had tried and given up on subwoofers in general due to issues that you raise. Life is too short. However, the Thiel SmartSubs with passive XOs drop right in with no hassle. When I get my room tuning software up and running, I'll be able to fine-tune sub placement. Now they are same ear-path distance as mains, but XOs are never that kind, I'll probably have to tweak a little.

Thanks Tom.

My issue is that I simply couldn't use any of the Thiel subwoofers (despite that I sometimes see them for sale on audiogon!). 
My 2 channel listening shares space with my home theater set up, so the room is packed with speakers already, and the only place I have for subs is under my projection screen along the front wall - behind my Thiel 2.7 speakers.  The Thiel subs are all too large and would intrude in to the picture area, so I had to find the smallest subs I could buy, of good quality.  Fortunately the JL Audio E110 subs fit just right, and come with truly excellent reviews.

But...it is such a headache to do the whole sub thing right that I just haven't got around to it.  Some people spend frightening amounts of their time integrating subs. It's not uncommon for me to read "after several years I've finally got my subs perfectly integrated!"  Yeesh!

The 'sub problem' is what drove Jim to take the bass as deep as possible in each model - because subs are inherently difficult. Bass is a problem in most rooms, regardless of what makes it. Many manufacturers side-step the problem by attenuating the bass and complementarily the top end for easier room integration. One of the factors for migrating from sealed to ported (and passive radiator) bass is that the ported bottom dies faster and therefore stimulates room modes less.

Jim to take the bass as deep as possible in each model - because subs are inherently difficult.

The CS2.4 has useful output down to ~30 Hz. The 3-series down to upper 20s. The CS7.2 down to the mid 20s. Compare those to the lowest fundamentals of all but an organ:http://acousticslab.org/psychoacoustics/PMFiles/Module05.htm
Until I win the lottery, I'm going to put my money where >99% of the musical content is.

I once heard the Wilson W/P 7. On a live recording, it produced an eery facsimile of the hall. I've never heard anything quite like it and I initially ascribed it to the Wilson's low bass. But, while that model does have some useful sub 30 energy, turns out I was hearing the Wilson mid-bass hump; a pleasing *coloration*!

hi fitter468,

I have both 3.6's and CS5's. 

Both are very good.

To my ear, the CS5's are much better in the treble and high mids.

FWIW

Thanks for listening,

Dsper