While you're on the subject of grilles, I'll hop in this forum for the first time. I've been lurking on it for a month or two but haven't read all 143 pages! I've been on Audiogon forever, but haven't done many transactions or forums here in the past decade. I have owned 2.3s since 2002 and 2.4s since 2006, probably one of the first owners to install the SE capacitor upgrade, though going to a higher-spec Clarity Cap.
What has always 'baffled' me is the 2.4 seemingly putting form over function by recessing the baffle with sharp edges all around for the magnetic grille cutout, and the grille itself having metal discontinuities around the perimeter of the coax. The 2.3 coax is mounted in a modest waveguide and the entire baffle back to the sides of the cabinet is a smooth rounded surface with zero discontinuities. The grille is a sock stretched tight over this that has no effect on diffraction.
With the 2.3 and 2.4 side-by-side, with the right source material, the 2.3 always throws a more-effortless and dimensional soundstage. After years of listening in the same acoustic and much the same equipment, and with listening material that has enough soundstage information, this has always been consistently repeatable. I can only believe the visibly far-less diffraction off the 2.3 baffle is why.
(With either speaker pair, I always listen with the grilles on and perhaps 5 degrees of toe-in in an optimal acoustic for these speakers)
I use my 2.4s 95% of the time because they're better than the 2.3 in every other respect, and their soundstaging is still 'sufficient.' Poor Gary Dayton had to field this question from me at least once after I got my new 2.4s side-by-side with my existing 2.3s. But the evidence here is still clear and the question remains, how did the 2.4's multiple baffle edges and discontinuities not offend Jim Thiel's fundamental design goals? And make it past all the factory listening tests to confirm the 2.4 was to be an improvement on every aspect of the 2.3?
What has always 'baffled' me is the 2.4 seemingly putting form over function by recessing the baffle with sharp edges all around for the magnetic grille cutout, and the grille itself having metal discontinuities around the perimeter of the coax. The 2.3 coax is mounted in a modest waveguide and the entire baffle back to the sides of the cabinet is a smooth rounded surface with zero discontinuities. The grille is a sock stretched tight over this that has no effect on diffraction.
With the 2.3 and 2.4 side-by-side, with the right source material, the 2.3 always throws a more-effortless and dimensional soundstage. After years of listening in the same acoustic and much the same equipment, and with listening material that has enough soundstage information, this has always been consistently repeatable. I can only believe the visibly far-less diffraction off the 2.3 baffle is why.
(With either speaker pair, I always listen with the grilles on and perhaps 5 degrees of toe-in in an optimal acoustic for these speakers)
I use my 2.4s 95% of the time because they're better than the 2.3 in every other respect, and their soundstaging is still 'sufficient.' Poor Gary Dayton had to field this question from me at least once after I got my new 2.4s side-by-side with my existing 2.3s. But the evidence here is still clear and the question remains, how did the 2.4's multiple baffle edges and discontinuities not offend Jim Thiel's fundamental design goals? And make it past all the factory listening tests to confirm the 2.4 was to be an improvement on every aspect of the 2.3?