Thiel Owners

pwhinson - I concur with the answers you have gotten, and can add some additional long-view perspective. The 3 moves more air as noted above. Also, the x.7s are more recent and as such include further learning / problem solving in their evolutionary DNA. Each new product stands on the shoulders of all previous work. But a subtle difference between the 2 and 3 is that the smaller woofer and midrange of the 2 gives it an advantage in delicacy; since smaller drivers weigh less and move less air, they are slightly more nimble. That assumes all else being equal, which is never the case; I point it out because over the decades that observation has often arisen. 

I have not yet heard a Thiel x.7, but I expect to be moved if it occurs. Life does not provide the opportunity for most folks to own such expensive tools. I expect to remain happy with my 2.2s and look forward to what their upgrade brings . . . and then there is the 3.6 cooling its heels at the back of the hot-rod garage.

Someone called me yesterday out of his memories of sharing time at CES in the day. He is now an AudioNote, etc. dealer. He has his original 03a which he still loves. He also has 3.5s. He is collaborating with me to create a schematic. Who knows where that will lead.
Did you know that those 03 cabinets were FinPly? Would you believe that in 1980 I experimented with bending those side panels for increased rigidity? There was no way to incorporate such sophistication into manufacturing in the garage shop. But 25 years later the 3.7 made it happen.
Did you know that Jim discovered the dual cone solution in 1979 developing the 04 woofer? . . . a magnificent solution which was dependent on available cones, curved in front x straight in back with identical depth. One went extinct and the project died. But by 1990, we could order a custom molded front cone for the 2.2 - and it happened, and continued to be refined over time, in various models. Such continual cumulative improvement is everywhere - I am pleased to have personally experienced it. 

I among many consider the x.7 coax to be a leap forward in that evolutionary cycle. I wonder if or when it might continue its journey.

But a subtle difference between the 2 and 3 is that the smaller woofer and midrange of the 2 gives it an advantage in delicacy; since smaller drivers weigh less and move less air, they are slightly more nimble.

 

That’s an interesting point, Tom. I venture to guess, all other factors equal, that advantage *could* result in relatively better dynamics/transients and resolution. But this would be countered by the X.7 coax with breakup modes further out of band, a notable benefit when using low slope filters. Would be interesting to compare my modded 2.4s to the 3.7 (I’ve only heard the 3.7 once, at RMAF in the Rowland room). And the low frequency extension of the 3.7, judging from Stereophile’s measurements, reaches “only” 2-3 Hz lower than that of the 2.4. Yet another example of the tradeoffs in speaker designs.  

hey Beetle,  where do you live?

hi Tom,  if you are even in NC i would be honored to have you come and listen to my system with 3.7's.  it is my fifth generation speaker 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, and finally the mighty 3.7

jafant

Purchased the 17cubed last October (S/N 215) and ran it about 8 - 10 hours a day through mid-December.  I'd guess it settled in after about 280 hours use. 
Changed to a BP-26 I had bought for my son, and ran it from mid-December through late January while assembling his 2-channel system. Then back to the 17 cubed ever since. 
Clear difference between the BP-26 and the BP17 cubed,  especially in mezzo and soprano voices and choir articulation. Also, significantly less listening fatigue - - almost none.  Sticking with the 17 cubed!  (If finances permit, I might change out my 4BSST2 for a 4B cubed later this year.)