Thiel Owners

The only reason I liked the Vandersteen's over the Thiel's years ago was because the Thiels were a spec bright. Nothing I couldn't live with and have fun with, but just a bit more than the Steen's. I ended up with Proacs for their imaging etc..., but the local Thiel dealer in Newington, CT (The Audio Store) is a great little shop. The owner, Bernie, owns and LOVES them.  With the right source and electronics, they just sing as a good phase and time correct speaker will do.  Many don't hear the time and phase deal, but if you are sensitive to it, then you have to have a speaker that does it right.  VERY few choices back in the day as well as now. 

Greg picked up my 2.3 ;-) Glad they are working out so well. Time and Phase throws a big deep image, some of us find addictive - Herron power !

best to all.

Jim

So well put Jim.  If I was feeling better, I'd give you a call to catch up, lol... :).  

jafant,
So you have the system up and running now?
Or do you mean you still actually need to choose cables before your system is set up?

@big_greg
Interested to read your adding CS2.3 to your KEF Reference 1. I recently added KEF LS50 Metas to my CS2.3 and CS2.4. Both of us are new to our new brand it seems, and we both have ’enough’ watts for all speakers. While the Reference 1s are 5x the price of my LS50s, it seems there’s enough to warrant comparing to the 2.3s.

One could argue the 2.3s are a floor-standing Ref1 with aluminum coax mid/tweet in a waveguide (tho the uni-q far more technically advanced) and vented aluminum woofer, and their (projected) current pricing probably similar to each other, though of course the Thiel time/phase coherence is the biggest design difference.

I’d be curious how your listening impressions develop, and surprised if you find the 2.3s overall so much the better speaker to the point of selling the Reference 1s! Certainly elements where the Thiels will have an ’edge’, especially once you grock the benefits of full coherence.

I’d add that the 2.3s aren’t particularly bright in the sense of a rising treble/tweeter output, but have an upper midrange that is (to exaggerate for clarity) too forward, unrefined, unruly, and tough to tame, the ’edge’ you describe, so aiming them straight ahead is best, away from walls. This doesn’t really show up on various frequency response plots, but is the biggest difference to the 2.4s, where that trait is completely tamed. The 2.3s image better than the 2.4s and I wonder if you find them better than your KEFs in this respect. (I find my LS50 Metas ability to throw a soundstage into the entire room much better than my 2.4s)

I’d say the key 2.3 setup parameter is their distance apart from each other versus their (minimum 8’) distance to the listener. I find my KEFs sound best in the the exact position I’ve set up my 2.4s for the long-term. Also tweaking the distance to the back wall for some bass reinforcement as needed. Have fun!