Thiel 2.3 vs 2.4

My fault Art, we used a number of amplifiers with the 568 and Thiels in an effort to stimulate sales.

BAT
Classe
Bryston
Rowland
probably everything but a Meridian amplifier :)

I realized that we weren't talking about the same thing after I hit submit

have a good holiday

In '98, I auditioned well over 10 speakers in the 3-4k range, and did some traveling to accomplish this. This included Avalon and Dunlavy, which were a bit more expensive than the Thiel 2.3. At the end of the experience, the Thiel was the obvious choice for me. No other speaker could handle complex and congested music as well.

Yes, the bass doesn't go down very far, but what bass it did have was very clean and articulate. Sure, the double basses, kettle drums, and gongs were not as full, but everything else was there. Also, there is also an inherent brightness that needs proper cable and component matching.

Is the Thiel 2.3 for everyone? Hell no. But there are very few speakers that can play to the Thiel's strengths at their price range. All speakers have inherent downfalls. I suspect David99 understands these things because he has decided to stay with the same brand.

As far as getting a used 2.3, I think the prices on audiogon are too much. This is a speaker that sold in '98 for $3000 and has essentially been upgraded twice. If you heard the 2.4 and really like it, then get this one. Better yet, look for a demo pair 2.4 from a dealer. Also, try to have a listen to the 6, because this will give you better bass and there have been numerous 6s on the market.

Rob

Cinematic-
Im confused by your comparison of the 2.3 to the 3.5's
You clearly state your dislike of the 2.3's but you wrote "I only remember liking the 3.5's" then you went on and wrote "the 2.3 does not offer you much more than you are already getting from the 3.5's" and " you would be changing speakers but not upgrading"
Correct me if Im wrong but the message I get from this is,the 2 speakers sound similar?
If this is so,how can you like one and hate the other?

Rob raises a good point about the CS6. I have not heard this speaker in many years but my memory of it is that it captured that elusive relaxed musical quality, that Thiels often lack, while also preserving the great coherence, soundstage and nuance that Thiels offer. I also recall that it's heavy and needs a lot of space and power. The prices used for CS6's could make it a no-brainer if you have the space and power (and have been spending time at the gym : - o )
Art

"the 2.3 does not offer you much more than you are already getting from the 3.5's" and " you would be changing speakers but not upgrading"

David its simple, I was 20 years old when I last heard your speaker. I "liked" it but with the level of experience I had at the time I "liked" many speakers I'm sure I would not recommend now maybe even hate.

I said my "instincts" say that the 2.3 would be a trade off not an ubgrade. Meaning it may do somethings better but in areas not as well in others... it is not an upgrade. If you're looking for a reason to buy the 2.3 go ahead just tell yourself that I am clueless and don't know what I'm talking about. Its not like I'm coming over to your house anytime soon. Plus I said the CS2.3 is a bad speaker, I didn't say you couldn't like it. Lots of people like technically bad speakers and there is nothing wrong with that. You are free to buy whatever you want without being judged. I don't listen to music in Trifield all the time to win popularity contests either. So go with what feels right for you.

I'm restricted by you desire to buy a Thiel, so I have to work within that parameter and I have respected that. My effort was to sort out the CS2.4 versus the CS2.3 for you and I think I have and I think the consensus of people have backed me up but its still your choice and you have to live with it. Not ours, not us.