Thiel Owners

I own a pair of 2 2's as well as four 3.5's.  I am wondering, from those who have had 2.2's, 2.3's, and 2.4's what the sonic differences were as you go up the line.  But even more importantly, what the problem is with the 2.3's that keeps their used value closer to the 2.2's than to 2.4's.  Is it reliability, and if so, what?   Thank you in advance for your help.

harry - I can address part of your query. The 2.2s were very well developed / mature and had a long run. Lots of fans. The 2.3s were the first application of the mechanical / crossover-less coax concept. I hear that there were improvements on the table pretty early, and not many 2.3s were sold, perhaps the shortest run ever. The 2.4 was a big uptick in performance and sales and has been an audiophile darling, possibly more so than any other Thiel product. That's some market mechanics.

Some folks here can address the sonic differences. I have and love my 2.2s and am working on a hotrod kit for them.

PS: I am calling the 2.2s by their proper name. The decimal was dropped under threat of lawsuit by Bose. But the product has been out of manufacture for way long, Mr. Bose is no longer with us, his legal staff was embarrassed . . . so let's pretend they don't care anymore.

Guys - Ted Green / strata-gee.com has published his article on Thiel,LLC recent bankruptcy filing. https://www.strata-gee.com/

I have an MCS-1 and 2 2s.  I believe the MCS-1 has the same mid/tweeter as the 2.3.  I used to use the MCS-1 when I had room for a 5.1 home theater in my basement.  My impression after having lived with both for a while is that I preferred the sound of the 2 2.  I never did a careful comparison or anything so don't take this too seriously.  I would guess this is due to the driver material.  I believe the MCS1 uses some kind of ceramic coat on aluminum.  I had a couple of pairs of infinity speakers in the past that used the same basic thing I think and I never thought they had low level resolution like paper does.  I'm guessing that this problem was solved on the 2.4s or they wouldn't have so many fans.  

jon - all the Thiel aluminum drivers are annodized which deposits a coating which is often marketed as "ceramic". Your 2.3 driver is an early example of Thiel aluminum diaphragms. When gotten right, those metal drivers have far better resolution than paper, but paper can be pretty good and is very forgiving. I think the 2.2 midrange was Thiel's last paper cone, which was actually augmented with polypropylene fibers for greater stiffness and consistency than plain paper.