Scoring on Used Thiels here

@audionoobie I have the SE version with audiophile-grade capacitors in the coax feed, so can't speak directly to standard CS2.4 in terms of a direct comparison. I did hear the standard version many years ago and wanted a pair but unexpected dental bills ate that budget. At that time, I was also interested in the Vandy 3A but wasn't excited to have those monoliths in my living room. I knew someone who was familiar with both and listened to the 2.4s in his room. He told me he used to prefer Thiels to Vandersteens but changed his mind, deciding that the Thiels overly emphasized sibilance. Not long after that, he moved to Vandy Quatros. I ended up with the Sig IIs as they had the 3A's midrange and tweeter plus are 8" shorter as well as more affordable.

I was super happy with the Sig IIs after some second guessing during break-in. They weren't quite as resolved as the CS1.6 but my main complaint was a veiled quality in the midrange. I was able to all but completely cure that by biwiring with a nice pair of Cardas (no way to know how much of that was because I removed the low quality jumper or because of the biwiring). The rest of my system has improved considerably since then. Most notably, I now have an Ayre AX-5 Twenty which is crazy good. Being an audiophile, my nervosa got me to wondering how much of that veiled quality was still obscuring the Ayre’s excellence. I have an early Sig II with the plastic midrange diaphragm. The natural step would be the Treos. I’ve heard the standard Treos and really liked them, but never the CT version. Well, I pretty well killed my upgrade budget with the Ayre so I started thinking about more affordable upgrade options that I thought would be promising.

After that overly long preamble . . . the Sig IIs do have more bass than the CS2.4SE. By ear, they have full output down into the mid-30s with useful output into the mid-20s. Quite amazing at that price point. The 2.4s might have *full* output just a scotch lower but the bass falls off a cliff below 30 Hz. That means they can’t reproduce the left most key or two on a piano. That said, I’ve only sampled one song (Tracy Chapman’s “3000 miles”, with organ tones) wherein that deficiency was notable. In terms of bass definition and resolution, however, the Thiels are substantially better. That is an easy trade-off given my sonic priorities. The other area where I *might* give the Sig IIs a slight edge is soundstaging. The Thiels image beyond the bounds of the speakers just like the Sig IIs but spatial depth might be just a bit shallower. I otherwise prefer the CS2.4s in every way.

In addition to the better bass definition, there is greater resolution into the midrange and treble. Microdynamics can be almost startling. I’m hearing subtle percussions that were previously unnoticed on familiar songs. Inflections of backing singers more apparent. Decay of chimes, symbols, and triangles is superb. The Thiels *are* more transparent than the Sig IIs (the reason for wanting an upgrade) altho’ this difference is not as big as I had imagined (the Sig IIs are a really good speaker, competing with other designs at multiple their price). I think the Thiels are a scotch more coherent than the Sig IIs and overall better balanced from bass to treble.

My sonic priorities are neutrality, resolution, and transparency. The Thiels better the Sig IIs in each of these. In fact, I think these Thiels (again, with the audiophile capacitors in the coax feed) get most of the performance of the very best speakers I’ve heard regardless of price. Other than the lack of bass below 30 Hz, the only shortcomings I hear are image density not on par with the best I’ve heard (might simply be sub-optimal speaker placement) and, maybe, a slight “glassy” quality in the midrange. Perhaps this is what Shane Buettner meant in his review when he wrote “slightly on the cool side of neutral”? I would need a direct comparison with a reference speaker to confirm this. Regardless, I think I’m getting 90% of the SQ of, say, Vivid Giya G3s. And I suspect I can get even better performance by upgrading the crossovers. Highly recommended!

^Bravo! Spot on!
If I might add: IMHO with perhaps exceptions made for the self powered bass Vandy’s, the Thiel’s are more forgiving of room/placement, and the Vandy’s are more forgiving of amplification.

beetlemania,

Nice post!

I can tell you that if you were listening to the 3.7s you wouldn't have any reservations about the soundstaging, depth.  The 2.7s I have do fore-shorten depth a bit, but the 3.7s sound just spreads massively, seems to go on forever in terms of depth and width.  That's one reason they are still sitting in my house and I haven't sold them.

I find the same regarding the microdynamics in teh 2.7 as you do in the 2.4.  They really excel in that area and given an aliveness and a sense of the actual changes in effort for a musician, even more than my 3.7s.  I continually note how this plays out in vocals as well, like you mentioned.
The the inflections in a singer's performance are more pronounced and it's that much more like listening to a real person sing.  When I spend an evening going checking out, say, Tidal tracks of various singers I'm continually struck the the sensation that truly unique and different voices are making appearances in my room.

And the fact the 2.7s produce the most concise, dense imaging I've experienced also makes it all the more palpable.  And that's a curious area where our experiences part on our speakers.  I wonder if this was an area somehow improved with the 2.7s (thought dense imaging has traditionally been a trait of Thiel speakers), or whether it is due to how you've set your speakers up.   I find I have quite a lot of flexibility with the 2.7 and 3.7, and can go quite wide apart while maintaining image focus and density (though a bit less leeway with the 2.7s over the 3.7s).

One local dealer does still have a pair of used black matte  cs1.6s for under $1k I believe.  This would work aesthetically but I'm thinking more of a lateral move from the Triangle monitors in that the bass extension is limited.   Of course I do have the sub....

Another local shop has a used pair of cs2s (listed on ebay) just a tad beat up (pushed in dust caps, etc, for $600.   Might work aesthetically with a little clean up.   Would have to take a look.

Vandy’s are more forgiving of amplification.

I think that's probably true for the lower end Vandys because the Thiels are more resolved and transparent. Ie, upstream problems are more readily revealed. That probably changes for the carbon diaphragm Vandys. But if you're dropping $30-60K on those Vandys you are probably also getting ARC, Ayre or equivalent amplification.