Well I guess that's a no! At least people aren't pouring in to report any news. Yet I bet, like all thiel speakers as of recent, you should be pleased with what you hear overall. I suspect they'll be even better than the excellent 2.3's where. I do, as well, look foreward to hearing the new speakers myself |
They weren't supposed to arrive in dealers' showrooms until right about now... |
Dealers are just getting their display 2.4s in the showrooms. The pair I listened to this weekend was received last week and had ~60hours on them. I thought they sounded very good considering this, but overall they sounded somewhat constrained across the board and obviously require more break in. I listened to the 2.4s in two different setups. Neither setup used cables worth noting. The first setup had a Cary 303/200 CD player, CJ PV14L pre, and CJ 2250 amp. The second setup had a Classe Omega SACD-1 CD/SAC player, Classe CP65 pre, and Classe CAM-350 amps. Having owned the Thiel CS7.2s in the past the sound was immediately familiar. Clear, transparent, precise, and very coherent. The CS2.4 is less analytical and sharp sounding, and seems to have a more even tonality top to bottom. Bass quality is excellent. With the CJ setup the bass was a little less present, deep, and pitch delineated. To me this indicates that the CS2.4 favors a more powerful amp, such as the CAM-350s. It has been a few years since I listened to the CS2.3s, but my impression is that the CS2.4s sound fuller and have more midrange presence. I always thought the CS2.3s were on the lean side. |
|
Has anyone else gotten to listen to the 2.4???? I'd love to hear some additional reports.
Anyone care to offer an opinion of the 2.4's vs. the 3.6's vs. the 6's? I'm considering all three models. |
I just took delivery of a pair of 2.4s and have close to 40hrs on them. My initial impressions at the dealer above and in another dealer audition are still valid. Now that I have them in my system I'm even more impressed. The midrange is much better than I expected, and the way they fill my 16w x 20l x 9.5h room is very satisfying. I've had the 6s in my room for a long weekend (driven by Bryston 7B ST monos at the time). The 6s will throw a larger soundstage (more height, larger scale) and deliver deeper, more impactful bass. Musically I think the 2.4 is a better speaker. Its also considerably easier to drive. The 6 is not as coherent sounding, and has some hardness/brightness in the upper mids. The 2.4 is smoothly integrated from top to bottom, and still provides the resolution and venue information that Thiels are known for. I haven't spent enough time in front of the 3.6 to offer an opinion. I did own the 7.2s for a few years before downsizing and still think the 2.4 sounds more like a scaled down 7.2.
My system for reference: Resolution Audio Opus 21 run direct into a Plinius SA-102, interconnects and speaker cable are Pure Note Epsilon Reference, power cords TG Audio SLVR, BMI Shark, dedicated lines and Jena Outlets. |
Since I didn't get to hear them at the factory as I had hoped, I guess I'll (maybe) have to go and make a rare (for me) dealer showroom appearance if I can't stand the curiousity. Tom, since you are running the 2.4's with a similar quantity of watts (but presumably a higher quality of watts) to the above-referenced C-J amp, as opposed to the Classe's you heard, do you still feel these speakers want more power for the bass, or have you concluded that the superior bass in the Classe set-up may have also been due to the preamp and/or CDP? (You mentioned them seeming fairly easy to drive.) Also, I know you've only got a working week's worth of time on them so far, but how does the top-end extension and dispersion of the coaxial single-motor mid/tweeter seem to translate as far as "air" and openess go? And does this arrangement seem to expand the viable listening window at all? |
All of these posts have me serioulsy considering upgrading from the 2.3 to the 2.4
I had figured on keeping the 2.3 a while and maybe getting an updated 3.7 or even the 6s when we moved to a new home.
Any thoughts. |
Zaikesman, I think my statement about the 2.4s being easy to drive should be qualified as 'relative to the larger Thiel models'. The CJ 2250 amp I heard the 2.4s with sounded open, detailed, and sweet, but lacked overall weight, especially in the bass, compared to the Classe setup. My SA-102 has a lot more current capability than the CJ does and is able to control the bass very well at reasonably loud levels. I do sense some drop off in control and ease when the volume is pushed (100 - 105 db peaks). To be honest I'd like a little more power, however I have noticed that the 2.4s are getting more efficient as they break in, so things may change.
The dispersion of the coax mid/tweeter is quite wide. Wide enough that 3 seated listeners could be happy. I have my 2.4s 8' apart with about 3/4" of toe in. So far I think this produces the best combination of dispersion, air, and pin-point imaging. I sit 11.5' away. The 2.4s also stage outside their boundries more often than the 7.2s did in my room. This is software dependent, but I hear it more consistently with the 2.4s than I have with other Thiels. Overall the sense of space they create is quite large (could use more soundstage heighth, minor), hence my comment about the 2.4s filling my room. |
Tom, how are you feeling about the bass you are getting from them? |
I have another 24hrs on my 2.4s and the quality of the bass has improved noticeably. Overall the bass is nicely balanced with the rest of the spectrum and now has a greater sense of ease and depth, especially at higher volumes. I don't get the sense that the upper octaves are overpowering the bass at all. There is a touch of richness in tonal color where the upper bass hands off to the lower mids that makes the 2.4 more engaging, and less analytical sounding.
While I don't get the same impact on kick drum or timpani that I did with my 7.2s I'm surprised at what those 6" diameter woofer cones are capable of. They're clearly capable of shaking the room if the music has low frequency content. |
First of all Tom, thanks for your feedback!
Can you give some comparisons to the 2.3 or (better for me) the 2 2?
|
Akkadict, its been three years since I had the 2.3s in my room, and the pair I listened to had the original coax. From what I recall the 2.4 is fuller sounding, and actually sounds like a larger speaker. I think partly due to the fuller and more extended bass, and the fact that the soundstage is both broader and deeper. The soundstage on the 2.3s stayed pretty much between the speakers when driven by Bryston 7B monos. The midrange on the 2.4 is meatier, more tangible, and blends evenly with the highs and lows. The 2.4 doesn't have any of the leaness that I recall the 2.3 had in the mids on up. The upgraded 2.3 coax may have addressed this to some degree. The 2.4's bass is solid to below 30hz in my room, and has a tactile quality that clearly delineates notes and the pitch of different instruments. One other important difference is that the 2.4 appears to be easier to drive. My Plinius SA-102 can drive them hard with good control across the spectrum. That's not to say the 2.4s won't respond to more power, but I think its safe to say the 2.4 doesn't require the same muscle the 2.3 does for good results. The manual indicates they're rated to 400 watts @ 4 ohms output.
I've listened to the 2 2s, but to long ago to comment. |
The CS 2.4 is still a killer speaker. Happy Listening!
|
Anyone else rocking the CS 2.4 ?
|
