Thiel Owners

@Beetlemania. Once again, it’s not about ultimate volume levels, but rather the ability to provide the power into the actual impedance loads of the loudspeakers.
I never meant to single out anyone in particular. Just the opposite, I’m suggesting that some of the amp recommendations made here by others weren’t necessarily the best general recommendations for many Thiel’s. It just so happened that I ended up following up to those individuals that responded to my post.
The power levels I suggested were actually based upon Thiel’s recommendations. Jim Thiel told me himself that Thiel’s power recommendations were based upon standard 8 Ohm power recommendations, with the assumption that the amps could double down as needed. He offered that for example that if using say a Thiel with a 4 Ohm rating, and one wanted use a tube amp (incapable of doubling down) then one should double the power recommendations appropriately.
As you can see from the links in my previous posts, many of the amps frequently reccomended here, struggle to do so into lower impedances. 
As impedances drop so do sensitivitities.  400 Watts into 2 Ohms won’t provide much more volume output than 100 Watts into 8 Ohms. 
I don’t think many would find 100 Watts an outrageous number of Watts with an 8 Ohm speaker.

As my contribute here I can witness that my loved McCormack DNA-2 in my opinion is perfectly able to drive my Thiel CSs 3.6, usually I don't push the volume very high but anyway my system seems never in the lack of power or dynamic, old beast but it still fit all my needs.

Under the conditions I use my system (seldom above 85dB and probably never above 90), my amp has more than enough power to deliver stress/compression-free music. It sounds superb. Listeners demaning peaks of 105+ should probably look not only for a different amp but a different loudspeaker than the 2.4. YMMV.

The matter of music and its production and reproduction is very complex, and not readily solvable within real-world constraints. FWIW a story comes to mind. The story doesn't solve or settle anything, but it may shine some light on the depths of the conundrum.

Thiel often displayed with and/or next to Threshold at shows, before Nelson Pass migrated to his self-named smaller operation. Around the mid 80s Jim and Nelson were trading bets at a Las Vegas CES where they bet each other that they could design the other's product better. Jim's first impulse was toward amplifier circuit design, and Nelson's was toward loudspeakers. Jim took it as a joke and went back to work, in the typical Thiel workaday mode. Nelson didn't. Next year he showed up with his Pass Transparent Transducer. The PTT never got publicity, in fact entry to its exhibition room was invitation-only and never more than 5 minutes, and sealed lips promised. You see, Nelson's ultimate solution to distortion (diaphragm and cabinet resonances, thermal compression and all that) was to have none. The air-moving driver was ionized air which moves when excited by an electrical field between wire screens. One driver (air) for the entire range (near DC to whatever upper limit of air's compressability (let's say 100K). Pretty close to no artifacts. The sound was thoroughly enrapturing. Sweet, clean, diaphanous - images hanging in 3 dimensional space, at once solid and ethereal. It was unbelievable.

This was the same time-period when Dr. Hill was showing his Plasmatronic speaker which "burned" helium gas, modulating the plasma in a high-energy electromagnetic field. You can't make this stuff up. Anyhow, Nelson's TT was in its own league in my experience.
There were some "difficulties". Efficiency was low. I don't remember how low, but his custom amp delivered something like a megawatt per channel with special consideration to the seriously low impedances. Maximum sound pressure level was less than 50dB. Another "difficulty" was that it required positively ionized air and produced ozone. So, an ultra quiet exhaust fan came with the territory. And, program material was length-limited, since more than 20 minutes' exposure could lay a listener out with Welders' Fever and worse.

Even though Nelson "stepped outside" the room during demonstrations, he eventually came staggering into our room and , long story short, I accompanied him in the ambulance to the hospital to explain the nature of his illness to the ER doc, who "recommended" to CES that the display become passive.

The point of all this is that the interplay between trade-offs and the depth of required understanding, and the limitations of physical reality . . . make ultra-quality music reproduction extremely complex and difficult. By solving part of the equation, other parts are compromised. Even the One and Only Nelson Pass must make compromises. In our real workd, the listener's assessment is the final arbiter because you really can't get it all.