Andy - the baffle is critically important for how the waveforms propagate into the room. Going back in history, common wisdom dictated the drivers be offset by differing amounts from all baffle edges so as to spread the diffractive effects out, over time. Thiel was an early originator of minimizing diffraction, first by absorption in the 03a and then by rounded baffle edges in the CS3 and beyond. We centered the drivers, like the mouth is centered in the head and a microphone diaphragm is centered in its structure.
There are many conflicting demands of driver placement geometry including unknown listener distance, reviewers ignoring the grille when it is a functional ingredient of diffraction control and so forth. Our seminal statement of the CS3, had the tweeter very high and equidistant L-R-T. The top baffle curve was completed by the top cross strut of the grille frame as were the sides to a lesser extent. Lots of time went into optimizing that system. But in use, the grille was often removed, including for reviewer testing, and the resultant diffraction was noted as a flaw in the design, never as a failure of the user - which left us all flabbergasted and Jim really angry.
As aside to that point. I remember the years-long comments by Larry Archibald, Stereophile publisher, regarding the "early" and "late" CS2s, and the latter's taming of upper range glare and roughness. He never admitted in print that he stubbornly listened to the CS2s for the first year without their sculpted grilles, which controlled edge diffraction as well as incorporated a shallow tweeter waveguide for limiting dispersion of the tweeter's low end to blend properly with the midrange. That blending is far more critical with the large-overlap first order slopes. Bottom line: there were no early or late CS2s, only eventual user cooperation with the design intent . . . and lots of confusion and mis-information in the marketplace.
Back to the point: tweeter placement evenly spaced to all edges including the top acts more like an ideal point source. Note that the CS3.7's industrial design is extremely polarizing and generally considered offensive. Only those adherents to form following function "get it" and either make their peace with it or actually love it. The driver height scheme is optimized for the broadest vertical listening window for seated listeners, dependent on crosspoint frequencies and driver dispersion characteristics.
So, Andy, even though the 2.4, like the earlier designs, does control diffraction very well, its lower tweeter creates a time discrepancy between side and top diffraction. That effect would be extremely subtle, such that I would be surprised if I could ever hear it. But, your ears are younger than mine.
There are many conflicting demands of driver placement geometry including unknown listener distance, reviewers ignoring the grille when it is a functional ingredient of diffraction control and so forth. Our seminal statement of the CS3, had the tweeter very high and equidistant L-R-T. The top baffle curve was completed by the top cross strut of the grille frame as were the sides to a lesser extent. Lots of time went into optimizing that system. But in use, the grille was often removed, including for reviewer testing, and the resultant diffraction was noted as a flaw in the design, never as a failure of the user - which left us all flabbergasted and Jim really angry.
As aside to that point. I remember the years-long comments by Larry Archibald, Stereophile publisher, regarding the "early" and "late" CS2s, and the latter's taming of upper range glare and roughness. He never admitted in print that he stubbornly listened to the CS2s for the first year without their sculpted grilles, which controlled edge diffraction as well as incorporated a shallow tweeter waveguide for limiting dispersion of the tweeter's low end to blend properly with the midrange. That blending is far more critical with the large-overlap first order slopes. Bottom line: there were no early or late CS2s, only eventual user cooperation with the design intent . . . and lots of confusion and mis-information in the marketplace.
Back to the point: tweeter placement evenly spaced to all edges including the top acts more like an ideal point source. Note that the CS3.7's industrial design is extremely polarizing and generally considered offensive. Only those adherents to form following function "get it" and either make their peace with it or actually love it. The driver height scheme is optimized for the broadest vertical listening window for seated listeners, dependent on crosspoint frequencies and driver dispersion characteristics.
So, Andy, even though the 2.4, like the earlier designs, does control diffraction very well, its lower tweeter creates a time discrepancy between side and top diffraction. That effect would be extremely subtle, such that I would be surprised if I could ever hear it. But, your ears are younger than mine.