Scoring on Used Thiels here

^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.

@prof I would love to hear your 2.7s, My only audition with 3.7 was in the Rowland room at RMAF a few years back. Really good stuff. I would like to hear them with Ayre or ARC.

One thing I didn't write is that I think the Sig IIs soundstage pretty much as well as anything I've heard including the TAD Ref One, Vandersteen Seven, etc. So, it's hardly a problem if I don't think the CS2.4 SE is quite as good!

I'm not giving up on trying to get better image density. I have short interconnects which makes it difficult to change speaker locations but I will continue to try new placements. So far, I've tried listening distances 8-10' with the speakers 7-8.5' apart. So far, "best" results are with listening position 8-9' and speakers ~7.5' apart. Usually image density is improved with closer placement but at the expense of soundstage size.