Cinematic-Thanks again for your time and info.
I am not looking for a reason to buy the 2.3's
Actually,Im still very happy everytime I hear my 3.5's,especially now that I have a killer front end.
I love these speakers and I can understand why they have a 'cult following'
Being the audiophool I am though,Im always looking to upgrade.Thats the bottom line.
I don't seek the approval of others in what I buy.I left that behind in H.S. :~) I like to hear others opinions and I respect yours and I thank you for the time you have spent on this thread.
The reason I am inquiring about the 2.3 is I have read elsewhere they sound quite similar to the 2.4
When I spent the day at Thiel,while my 3.5's were getting re-built I listened to the 2.4's in the incredible Thiel,main listening room.
If anyone has been in that room to hear music,you know what I mean by incredible!
The 2.4's had the new Thiel sub delivering the bottom end.
When my speakers were done,they were set up in the same position as the 2.4's minus the sub.
The 2.4's clearly played louder.That was my first impression.
They imaged better but not by the magnitude one might expect.
The bass was tighter,deeper and more tactile.But then again the sub was used with the 2.4's
The soundstage was (best guess) 15-20% larger which I felt were the 2.4's best quality.
I would have loved to hear my 3.5's with the sub as I imagine they would have sounded better than they already did during this demo.
Overall,of course the 2.4's are a better speaker,esp.with the sub.In fact,I would say a good sub would be a must have with 'most' Thiel's
I felt the demo showed me the best one can get out of both speakers.
2.4's 5 stars
3.5's 3.5 stars
I feel a well designed 'vintage' speaker can compete or beat out a modern speaker.I also dont feel current speaker technology or modern drivers are 'all that'
Im not referring to the 3.5-2.4 demo either as my basis for this claim.
You wrote "lots of people like technically bad speakers" Are you referring to the 'Best Buy' shopper or audiophile?
Technically bad means to me,bad sounding.
Or are you implying 'technically bad' speakers can sound good?
Am I wrong in assuming you feel you have the experience to tell a good speaker from a bad speaker and many audiophiles (or even some Best Buy buyers) can't hear the differences?
Sir,I do respect your opinion and Im not attempting to stir anything up (me?)
Im just trying to figure out where you are coming from.
Im assuming you dont like Thiel in general and you even dislike their flagship 7.2
I have read a few times "Thiel,love them or hate them" Of course this could apply to most any audio product as well,couldnt it?
Krell is hated and loved.. aghh! Im bored today and rambling on...
I think I'll end this and play with my stereo.
I have a new SACD 'Madman Across The Water' that sounds AWESOME! Anyone disagree? :~)
I have a new PC to check out also.
Shoot,I have to take out the trash today I just remembered.Christmas trash is a drag!
Anyone listening to tunes today,enjoy!!
I am not looking for a reason to buy the 2.3's
Actually,Im still very happy everytime I hear my 3.5's,especially now that I have a killer front end.
I love these speakers and I can understand why they have a 'cult following'
Being the audiophool I am though,Im always looking to upgrade.Thats the bottom line.
I don't seek the approval of others in what I buy.I left that behind in H.S. :~) I like to hear others opinions and I respect yours and I thank you for the time you have spent on this thread.
The reason I am inquiring about the 2.3 is I have read elsewhere they sound quite similar to the 2.4
When I spent the day at Thiel,while my 3.5's were getting re-built I listened to the 2.4's in the incredible Thiel,main listening room.
If anyone has been in that room to hear music,you know what I mean by incredible!
The 2.4's had the new Thiel sub delivering the bottom end.
When my speakers were done,they were set up in the same position as the 2.4's minus the sub.
The 2.4's clearly played louder.That was my first impression.
They imaged better but not by the magnitude one might expect.
The bass was tighter,deeper and more tactile.But then again the sub was used with the 2.4's
The soundstage was (best guess) 15-20% larger which I felt were the 2.4's best quality.
I would have loved to hear my 3.5's with the sub as I imagine they would have sounded better than they already did during this demo.
Overall,of course the 2.4's are a better speaker,esp.with the sub.In fact,I would say a good sub would be a must have with 'most' Thiel's
I felt the demo showed me the best one can get out of both speakers.
2.4's 5 stars
3.5's 3.5 stars
I feel a well designed 'vintage' speaker can compete or beat out a modern speaker.I also dont feel current speaker technology or modern drivers are 'all that'
Im not referring to the 3.5-2.4 demo either as my basis for this claim.
You wrote "lots of people like technically bad speakers" Are you referring to the 'Best Buy' shopper or audiophile?
Technically bad means to me,bad sounding.
Or are you implying 'technically bad' speakers can sound good?
Am I wrong in assuming you feel you have the experience to tell a good speaker from a bad speaker and many audiophiles (or even some Best Buy buyers) can't hear the differences?
Sir,I do respect your opinion and Im not attempting to stir anything up (me?)
Im just trying to figure out where you are coming from.
Im assuming you dont like Thiel in general and you even dislike their flagship 7.2
I have read a few times "Thiel,love them or hate them" Of course this could apply to most any audio product as well,couldnt it?
Krell is hated and loved.. aghh! Im bored today and rambling on...
I think I'll end this and play with my stereo.
I have a new SACD 'Madman Across The Water' that sounds AWESOME! Anyone disagree? :~)
I have a new PC to check out also.
Shoot,I have to take out the trash today I just remembered.Christmas trash is a drag!
Anyone listening to tunes today,enjoy!!