mr_bill
While this is only my personal opinion-listening in my room with my gear-it's obvious that the 3.6s and 2.4s have many of the same positive attributes-of which we're all aware.
I think the 2.4s are somewhat higher resolution speakers than the 3.6s; they have the ability to uncover somewhat greater detail in recordings and perhaps (i'm not sure of this) slightly better imaging and space cues. The larger 3.6s are more at ease with dynamic material and have a more extended bottom end. The mid-bass is somewhat "slower" than the 2.4's (obvious on "fast" electronics such as my Naim system) and improving this area would be one of my main "wants." Also, the 3.6s seem to have an upper-mid glare, and this has been made more evident after I had my amp updated. But overall, in my room, the greater dynamic ease, separate midrange driver, and more extended bottom-end of the 3.6s were the main reasons i decided to keep those speakers. I'm hoping that-with Tom T.'s hot-rodding, there may be potential for greater improvement compared to the 2.4s. It was a tough decision though because the 2.4s do just about everything right.
