Thiel Owners

@andy2 I assume you mean non Thiels with a concentric driver? I’ve heard the TAD Ref 1; it has a concentric driver with diaphragms of an exotic material that I don’t recall. One of the very best speakers I’ve heard. Just stunning, but you’d hope so at that price!

My very short list of all time favorite speakers includes both time-phase correct and not. I don’t know if that part matters to my ears a ton but I will say that my favorite speakers at real world price points are Thiels and Vandersteens. One important feature, IMO, is that both of these designers use light and rigid materials in the midrange and with diaphragms <5”. This is super important to avoid distortion in the critical midband. It amazes me that some really high dollar speakers use 7” drivers for the midrange. No thanks!

@rojacob I intend to take pics when I build the new boards and I have several from when I replaced the resistors. Not sure where I might post these but perhaps Tom will share them with the kits - unless I eff it up! LOL

I have a pair of Bel Canto REF600M's coming this week. Current amps are a Krell TAS and a Bryston 3BST.  More as I get the new units setup and broken in.

Anyone already tried Thiels with Class D amps?

3.6 Upstairs
1.6 Downstairs

@tomthiel

Somewhere way back in the thread we discussed the design of the 2.7 vs the 3.7. I’d remarked that the 3.7 seemed to have an edge in a slightly more open and subtle level of detail. I believe you said this might be attributed to the fact the 3.7 had the aluminum front baffle whereas the 2.7 used a different material.

Do you happen to know which material the 2.7 uses for the front baffle?

(Now that I think of it, I’m sure Rob Gillum would know...)

prof - I believe the 2.4 has an MDF baffle, as the model 2 has had from the beginning. Whereas earlier 2s had 2" thick, I think the 2.4 is 3" thick like the 3.6. beetlemania knows, he has been in there.

The baffle is one thing. Another is that the 3.7 XO is all high-quality film caps in all feeds and the only electrolytics are in a resonance / shaping circuit of the midrange and tweeter, which is the most benign place for them and they're bypassed with the custom 1uF styrene / tin foil cap. The 2.7 adds a 400uF electrolytic feed cap in the midrange feed. But it is bypassed with a 15uF PP and the 1uF styrene / tin. That electrolytic feed probably does a little damage.

Then there is geometry. Looks aside, the 3.7 aluminum nacelle rocks from a functional perspective both interior and exterior diffraction. And as you say, the aluminum baffle. More budget for the 3 than the 2. Our 2.7 hot-rod will replace all electrolytics with custom ClarityCap CSAs. We'll compare sonics for cost efficacy.