Thiel Owners


Guys-

I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!

Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
jafant
If we had the luxury of the Great Symposium where we could hash these issues out with George Cardas, Bill Low Audiouest, Steve Straightwire and various astrophysicists of our choice, we could learn a lot. But in real life, we must make whatever progress we can make, learning from experience and limited knowledge and paying attention to lots of leads.

Here's a memory of such a lead. The CS5 had a huge crossover that included 2 huge bucket brigade delays in addition to 4 crossovers for the 5 drivers, which had huge magnets. Talk about a pot of soup. We used our usual solid 18 gauge tight twist in teflon. Jim always included the speaker wire runs in his calculations and tests. In other words, those wire runs add resistance, inductance and capacitance to the crossover circuits, and he included that in his design / execution work. OK. In final (4 months long!) listening tests, those crossovers came in and out lots of times. The workhorse pair used straight single wires from the XO terminals to a terminal block mounted on the side of the cabinet. Eventually the twisted driver runs were hooked directly to the XO, and there was "a sound" that couldn't be accounted for in electrical terms nor in concept engineering terms. We chose the final 9" to 12", depending on which driver,  to be left untwisted. Something about how the wire-fields were interacting with the "pot of soup" made that configuration sound better. It is possible that Jim gained additional knowledge as time went on, but at that time none of us nor anything we could learn could explain much of anything about the heard phenomenon.

We may be in a similar situation with these cable runs. I ran tests on A, B and C as described above. All the tests in my kit - to see if there were changes introduced by the different configurations. I can't detect any. So far I have listened to Morrow SP-4 and Straightwire Octave II. Both exhibit similar differences. Both are sophisticated cables. I have not yet tried my ProCo (Beldenesque) HiPure 4-conductor "normal" stranded cables. What I learned from the SW, is that the 3 configurations measure as "identical". There are no measured differences that I can identify to account for the heard differences. So, whoever goes comparing, you can dismiss the potential cause of measurable frequency response changes, or impulse or phase changes. It's something else.

As an end user, Rob can choose whichever he likes better. Fair enough. As a designer, I must pursue understanding that might be applied in the internal wiring as well as fodder for this user mill's advancement.

I'll be calling Steven Hill and George Cardas to pick some brains. I'll be very interested in what Beetle reports. Any other input is also much appreciated.
@vair68robertt
I'm still waiting to hear from Rob G on why my or all 2.7s have this wiring instead of the straight wire that was standard in all other Thiels

Earlier, in a discussion about 2.7s in another web page, Jim Thiel was reported to have said that when the 2.7s were designed, he used information he'd gained from the 3.7s. 
Rob, Thiel Audio would have used such information, but Jim died in 2009. His active projects after the 3.7 were the 3.7b (Chinese XO), the SCS4 and CS2.4SE, and the CS7.3 which was not developed. He didn't work on the CS2.7. 
tomthiel
Thank You for the continued history lessons. Looking forward in reading about your report after consulting Steven Hill and George Cardas.Have you given thought about Ray Kimber?

Happy Listening!
We chose the final 9" to 12", depending on which driver, to be left untwisted. Something about how the wire-fields were interacting with the "pot of soup" made that configuration sound better. 
Oh, great! Now I’m going to have nervosa about how it might sound if I untwist everything! LOL