Thiel Owners

Hi beetlemania and Tom,

I am wondering if you could comment on the sound improvement of the CS2.4 given various xover upgrades?  I think you have said there was improvement but could you elaborate a bit more?  I understand it's hard to describe sound quality in verbal language but if you could give some impression on the improvement over the stock xovers?

Thanks.

@andy2
Keep in mind that my SEs had FST boards. Compared to (most?) standard 2.4s, these have better coax feed caps but potentially worse caps and coils elsewhere.

Here is what I wrote regarding the Mills resistors
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-owners-2/post?highlight=Mills&postid=1555245#155524...

Also
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-owners-2/post?highlight=Mills&postid=1562426#156242...

In hindsight, I would add that the Mills completely removed the “glassy” quality I was hearing and also made extended listening more relaxing. My more recent work has replaced the boards entirely, with the Mills kept. I’m not yet at a final configuration, auditioning another cap combo and still plan to replace input/output wiring plus terminal posts.

That said, direct comparisons in mono revealed the new boards to have notably more resolution and transparency. The FST (with Mills resistors) was relatively veiled (yeah, I know) and muddied. The new boards have textures and microdynamics previously unnoticed. I hear an ease of presentation and more presence/immediacy. These improvements sound evident for all instruments and voices. Bypass caps make a more subtle improvement. Just a scotch more resolution with improved transients, “jump factor”. Listening in stereo with the new parts in both channels is when I smiled. For the last many months I’ve been hyping an opinion of what might be possible with better passive parts. I, um, wasn’t wrong . . .

beetlemaniaThank You for your continued dedication, experimentation, research and testing to find the final configuration. I am excited, can hardly await to hear your improved XO.  Happy Listening!

Beetle - thanks also from me for your steady, careful implementation, especially when backing out of blind allies.

You all may be interested to know that the 03, 03a/b, CS3, CS3.5 and CS2 had styrene micro bypass caps (0.01 and 0.015uF), similar to (but not as good as) the RTX bypasses. They were dropped @ CS2.2 and CS3.6 and onward. Those earlier models also used the French polypropylene Solens @ 400 volt and German polystyrene x tin foil 1uF, both best in world at the time. Those companies ceased making film, and replacement caps gradually became more ordinary. I suspect that some of the love for the CS3.5 might be attributable to those pristine caps and double bypasses.

In this project we are using best of form caps that exceed anything Thiel had ever used, including those described above.  Thanks again to Beetle for making various controlled comparisons. I will be making more.

tomthielLooking forward in reading more about your observations as well as Beetle's configurations. Over the years, reading across multiple Audio forums, I have read about the right phase angles. In the models CS 2.4, 2.7 and 3.7, the first right phase angle occurs at 200 Hz. A second right phase angle occurs at 100 Hz. Have you guys (Andy, Beetle, Holco or Tom) found this problematic for your personal system power amps to drive? As I understand it, this is correlated in drops between 4 Ohms down to 2 Ohms across much of the speakers' frequencies. 3 Ohm nominal.
This is one indication as to the value of using a 2 Ohm stable power amp to (hopefully) prevent clipping and distortion within the mid-bass/mid-range regions.  Thus, reducing damage to crossover and driver.

Happy Listening!