Thiel Owners

I'm just wondering in the differences we hear between the 3.7 and the 2.7 is based on the type of music we tend to play. Also there's a difference in  sensitivity between the two: 3.7 at 90 db;  2.7 at 87db. 
I auditioned the 3.7 and the 2.7 with my own CDs that I had played on my 3.5 pair.  I'm a classical music nut, so I took a selection of symphonies. operas, chorales, requiems, organ pieces and chamber music.  IMO, the dynamic range of a properly-recorded symphony (Beethoven, Mahler) might go from barely audible to"full blast;" however, to capture the barely audible on a properly-recorded RedBook CD means the recording isn't jammed and compressed into the maximum loudness levels sometime used by some of the modern jazz and rock bands. Ergo, with a decent RedBook CD, you shouldn't need  to twiddle the preamp volume control once set for the soft sounds.  That might make a difference in the relative loudness one appreciates between the 3.7 and 2.7        Just a unscientific thought by someone committed to RedBook CDs    YMMV

I would like to add that both speakers,  for whatever reasons,  need lots of break in time (400 Hours).   When i compared my well played 2.7's with the new  (and hardly used 3.7's I got from Rob) in the first month or so, the 2's killed it.   it took over 3 months for the 3's to catch up and now i think they have surpassed the 2's for my tastes.  but as i said earlier,  both are fantastic and nobody loses with either one.

Brayeagle, since you came from the 3.5 how would you describe the differences with the 3.7 and 2.7. I'm telling myself that with my low max volume of 70 DB, it would be hard to improve on the 3.5 but I have never put it to the test.

brayeagle,
I play practically every type of music on my system, jazz, rock, fusion, electronica, soundtracks, classical, country, folk, world music, choral, you name it.

Sometimes I ride the volume for the comfort of my ears (I do have to watch classical music which can go from 0-100 in an instant).

There are some tracks of music that, try and fiddle as I might with the 2.7s, never attain the hair-raising experience those tracks had on the 3.7s. But those are ever fewer as time goes on.

ronkent,

Your 3.7s had to be used, weren’t they? Hence if break in occurred, I presume it would already have happened long ago. It’s my suspicion that it was acclimation on your part, vs the speaker.


I’ve acclimated to the different 2.7 sound now and in a way they now sound "different" to me (I don’t notice, or pay attention, to things I used to in how they differed from the 3.7s).


And I can find my 2.7s (or 3.7s) sound quite different over periods of time, and even from day to day, depending on my mood, hearing at the time, how I’m listening, what I’m playing, what me expectations for that listening session are, etc. For instance, during only the period of last week I went through a "Wow are these speakers are incredible, I’m totally happy with them" to "why am I finding nothing impressive on these tonight?" to "I really think I need a more lively speaker" back to "wow these are INCREDIBLE."

(And some of this has to do with the fact I’m juggling other new speaker purchases in the back of my mind. But it is amazing how my response to my system can vary, and if I was always presuming an external cause I may be attributing it to "break in" or "AC issues" or any other in the standard audiophile list).

I remember only slight differences between the 2.7 and the 3.5, Sensitivity of the 3.5 was 88 db, the 2.7 is 87db; however, the 3.5 was a infinite baffle speaker with (to me) a slightly lower bass. The 2.7 is a bass reflex design.  Not being able to do any direct listening comparisons, I'd surmise I selected the 2.7 as it sounded similar to the 3.5 with my CDs.  I didn't have to change my amplifier or preamp. Of course, the driver placements in  the 3.5 were different from the ones in the 2.7, having separately-mounted treble, mid range and bass, and of different material than the 2.7