VANDERSTEENS vs. THIELS

Sounds like you are getting more advice than any one man should to confuse you even more. Save a little more money and buy a used pair of Thiel 3.6 (2300 or less). These will definitely beat all the ones you were considering. So will the Legacy classics, the Martin Logan SL3/REquests ..... sorry.

If you wish to keep your midrange electronics, I think you should buy the vandersteens. Check out the 2ce signatures. Until recently, I used a high quality denon dra-1025 receiver with my vandersteen 2c's. Surprisingly good. One nice thing I have noticed about the vandersteens is their cosmetic durability. There is no cabinet to scratch nor drivers to puncture. After 10 years, and probably 12 moves, they still look close to new. If you have to mail order, I recommend a dealer we have in Lake Oswego OR called The Audio Gallery. Gary and Cindi Kerr run it. Very nice people who really know their audio. I personally find the sound of theil's very annoying. They are way too bright for my tastes. They are more accurate, but I just don't care for them. I thought the mg 1.6's were excellent speakers, however I have heard they require tremendous power to sound good. If you want great accuracy, but with less bass, they would be the way to go. I would not try to drive them with a receiver. BTW, the 2ce signatures are quite a bargain upgrade. They are only 1620.

Thiel speakers are very good. I have never hear Vandersteens, but I did own a pair of Magnepans for many years. After I heard the Thiel 2 2 I gave away my Maggies. The Maggies had a huge (dare I say unnaturally huge) soundstage - Leonard Cohen sounded like a huge mouth on the front wall. Maggies have "no" low bass. You can maybe live with that, but the most problematic aspect is the back-radiation (they are bipolar). This can muddy up the sound if you do not position them carefully - which could mean well into the room - which may not be possible. Martin-Logans are also dipolar. I refer you to Wes Phillips review in Stereophile a couple of months back where he found that a pair of MLs sounded best with a wall of acoustic absorbers behind them. These results may be extendable to Maggies. If I had to buy without auditioning I'd go with the Thiels - the 2.3s look interesting.

Hi Bennett, I've been following the responses to your query with interest. I didn't need to be convinced that the Vand. 2Ces are great, but Steve440 made a very articulate and convincing statement-- well said.

Thiel speakers are very good. I have never hear Vandersteens, but I did own a pair of Magnepans for many years. After I heard the Thiel 2 2 I gave away my Maggies. The Maggies had a huge (dare I say unnaturally huge) soundstage - Leonard Cohen sounded like a huge mouth on the front wall. Maggies have "no" low bass. You can maybe live with that, but the most problematic aspect is the back-radiation (they are bipolar). This can muddy up the sound if you do not position them carefully - which could mean well into the room - which may not be possible. Martin-Logans are also dipolar. I refer you to Wes Phillips review in Stereophile a couple of months back where he found that a pair of MLs sounded best with a wall of acoustic absorbers behind them. These results may be extendable to Maggies. If I had to buy without auditioning I'd go with the Thiels - the 2.3s look interesting.