Thiel Owners

Fabric, even polyester made to be sonically transparent, does have multiple effects, as you say. Many Thiel models use the grille frame to fill the cabinet corner with a rounded continuation of the baffle round-over and as such that frame is an important component of the wave launch. And, as I mentioned, the treble reduction of the fabric is part of the intended balance. But many audiophiles dislike grille fabric. Many have gotten good results by removing the fabric from the frame and using the frame as intended for diffraction control. Pointing the speakers straight ahead puts the listener a little off-axis to reduce high frequency beaming. Thiels are designed for straight-ahead pointing, but it seems a majority toes them in, which puts too much energy in the brightness region. The straight-ahead orientation often requires wall treatment at the first reflection point, which solves many imaging issues, while keeping a flat on-axis and power response.

While you're on the subject of grilles, I'll hop in this forum for the first time. I've been lurking on it for a month or two but haven't read all 143 pages! I've been on Audiogon forever, but haven't done many transactions or forums here in the past decade. I have owned 2.3s since 2002 and 2.4s since 2006, probably one of the first owners to install the SE capacitor upgrade, though going to a higher-spec Clarity Cap.

What has always 'baffled' me is the 2.4 seemingly putting form over function by recessing the baffle with sharp edges all around for the magnetic grille cutout, and the grille itself having metal discontinuities around the perimeter of the coax. The 2.3 coax is mounted in a modest waveguide and the entire baffle back to the sides of the cabinet is a smooth rounded surface with zero discontinuities. The grille is a sock stretched tight over this that has no effect on diffraction.

With the 2.3 and 2.4 side-by-side, with the right source material, the 2.3 always throws a more-effortless and dimensional soundstage. After years of listening in the same acoustic and much the same equipment, and with listening material that has enough soundstage information, this has always been consistently repeatable. I can only believe the visibly far-less diffraction off the 2.3 baffle is why.

(With either speaker pair, I always listen with the grilles on and perhaps 5 degrees of toe-in in an optimal acoustic for these speakers)

I use my 2.4s 95% of the time because they're better than the 2.3 in every other respect, and their soundstaging is still 'sufficient.' Poor Gary Dayton had to field this question from me at least once after I got my new 2.4s side-by-side with my existing 2.3s. But the evidence here is still clear and the question remains, how did the 2.4's multiple baffle edges and discontinuities not offend Jim Thiel's fundamental design goals? And make it past all the factory listening tests to confirm the 2.4 was to be an improvement on every aspect of the 2.3?

I hope to hear discussion about sdecker's observations. I have heard neither speaker, but share his thoughts. Bring it on, please.

If anyone is interested there are a pair of 2.2's in black at Hawthorne Stereo in Seattle.  One of the woofers shows evidence of re-gluing the surround.  The passive radiators show signs of delamination as well.

Regarding the differences between the 2.3 and 2.4.

I would really like to put the 2.3 next to the 2.4 next to the 2.7 and listen to the difference.  I have 1.6, 2.7, and 3.6 and enjoy them all immensely however have not had the opportunity to hear the same line side by side.