Thiel 3.6 to Eggleston Andras II

Nice Gtb, Maggies are another speaker that has always fascinated me. I haven't spent alot of time with them but plan to some day. I'm still hot on Andra's...

The Andra II's are great speakers. So are the Maggies in a different way. But the Andras are probably better for rock. Plus the bass is really good.

Pops, it pains me somewhat to add another comment to this thread, but IF
you
get a really good piano recording- let's say Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata
(everyone likes the B-MLS, don't they?) and compare the sound of the andra's
and the thiels, i don't see how you can not fall in love with the egglestons.
as far as the bass extension is concerned the andra's reach down below 20Hz,
so i cannot see how anyone within reason can complain about the bottom
end.
And according to the audio beat, the tweeter is STILL "a head's length
better" than the $25K Wilson Sasha's? the Wilson's midrange was only
"slightly better?" JEEZ... hey, go back and read the reviews of the
andra I's and II's in stereophile if you like. BTW, the II's were evaluated in
conjunction with the "best amplifiers in the world!" (chuckle)- the
Halcro 58 Monoblocks. but i guess the andra's must have been a pretty good
speaker to listen through.
Look, even the Watt-Puppy 7's will stage better and image better than the
andra's, but which puts the subtle timbre of a plucked bass or a martin guitar
(okay, or a Steinway) into your room?
Anyway, whether or not you have alot of money, this is the opportunity to
trust your ears...

Pops, it pains me somewhat to add another comment to this thread, but IF you
get a really good piano recording- let's say Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata (everyone likes the B-MLS, don't they?) and compare the sound of the andra's and the thiels, i don't see how you can not fall in love with the egglestons.
as far as the bass extension is concerned the andra's reach down below 20Hz,
so i cannot see how anyone within reason can complain about the bottom end.
And according to the audio beat, the tweeter is STILL "a head's length better" than the $25K Wilson Sasha's? the Wilson's midrange was only "slightly better?" JEEZ... hey, go back and read the reviews of the andra I's and II's in stereophile if you like. BTW, the II's were evaluated in conjunction with the "best amplifiers in the world!" (chuckle)- the Halcro 58 Monoblocks. but i guess the andra's must have been a pretty good speaker to listen through.
Look, even the Watt-Puppy 7's will stage better and image better than the andra's, but which puts the subtle timbre of a plucked bass or a martin guitar (okay, or a Steinway) into your room?
Anyway, whether or not you have alot of money, or you don't, this is the opportunity to trust your ears...

Thanks French Fries, great insight! And everyone else who contributed to help make my decision which I did! I got a pair of Andra II's yesterday, have spent only spent a few hours with them but am thrilled!

What an improvement over the Thiels! I think I almost have them dialed in on placement, they definitely like to be closer to the back wall than the Thiels. Mcintosh 501's drive them with ease which is good news for now.

First impressions versus the Thiels: more and deeper bass, much more refined midrange and smoother highs. No strain when cranked or with high demands, where the thiels would seem to be at the very top, like a smaller engine running full speed versus a BMW purring along at 90 mph. Giving the soundscape just a little "edge" to it with the thiels. Overall, just a very relaxing, refined, and totally resolving presentation. They are more transparent, completely disappear, like Paul Bolin mentioned in his s'phile review, you cannot stare down the speakers.

Thanks again to everyone who contributed!