Thiel Owners

jon - yes indeed. The design criteria of the model 2 permits less deep bass and overall lower output than the 3. For that you get more finesse and delicacy via a smaller midrange, woofer and cabinet. Plus the 2 always trailed a next-generation 3 (or higher) development and admitted trickle-down technologies, keeping its price lower. Sweet spot. 

2.7 as it was the last speaker Mr. Thiel designed and built.

Yesterday I posted false information about who completed the CS2.7, which was finalized and released after Jim Thiel passed. I have since deleted that post. From Tom Thiel’s PM to me:

The project was engineered by Warkwyn / Canada - Tim Gladwin leadengineer. . . . The development job was actually directed by the Thiel Team and every engineering step was approved and/or re-directed by Thiel. The job would have been a minor one in Thiel-land because the actual-same coax was used and FST-China developed the 8" woofer as a near clone of the 10" 3.7 woofer. Virtual piece of cake transplant job.

Tom included some information regarding how Jim Thiel would have created a passive coax for the 2.7 had he survived to do so (the 2.7 shares the 3.7’s double-motor coax).

On this site many believe the 2.4 is the best sounding

I don’t recall reading those opinions here but I see that Tom Thiel considers the 2 to be Thiel’s sweet spot. That said, the "hot-rodded" 2.4 should push performance to the next SQ tier. In the context of Stereophile's rating scheme, the upgrade might be considered as "Class A - restricted" (ie, limited low frequency extension). Stay tuned . . .

On this and other fora, it has been repeatedly stated that Thiel speakers need big amps, specifically big currents, in order to "sing" and sound their best. I plan to find a way to test this common reported experience as I got these new 3.7 and have now in addition to the bryston 3b St, a set of 7b St. These amps are very similar except for output  and provide a way to compare a regular 125 watt amp with limited current, to a high output 800 watt with limited current (serial bridged), to a 500 watt with abundent current (parallel bridged). I'll do a comparison of sweep with rem software. Please suggest any other measurements that may capture a difference. What is a good piece of music that would reveal any differences? I'll record the music through the different amps at a 90dB loudness with a high resolution recording and do a blind test where you can vote to identify the recording. Any volunteers to help out with this? Thanks

Beetle - by 'sweet spot' I also include the price. The 3 generally out-sold the 2. But in those cases of smallish room / lowish levels and deepest bass not needed, the 2 shines for a lot lower price.

Rules - go for it. Remember that amp 'distress' is nearly invisible in tests. And, of course, listening is more difficult to objectify. I suggest you will learn more at a higher listening level. Look for things like 'glare', 'anemic', 'hard' and similar adjectives. Mono testing works well, switching between A & B in near real time.

Keep us posted.