Beetle - problem is I don’t drink coffee. Proper number is -0003 is the reference A. Good catch. How’s the coffee?
There are plenty of good reasons for an external XO. But it is tweaky, difficult and would put off many people. In the case of the 2.2, there isn’t a good option to squeeze best parts into the interior spaces. And the merits are likely to be substantial.
But to your Oy! issue, this problem might be peculiar to this model. The general opinion seems to be that the 2.2 is more mellow, easy, forgiving, and with a bigger bass than other Thiel speakers. Some people say it’s the only Thiel they can tolerate. I had speculated that we thought our first passive radiator somehow coupled with rooms "better" than anticipated, giving that full-bottom presentation. But it doesn’t measure "full"; it stacks up quite nicely with the 3.5 and 3.6 that I have here - matching the specified target roll off point without any bloat or other measured anomalies.
John Atkinson used the 2.2 for years as his own system reference. He commented in his Stereophile review how the passive radiator produced a "hard bottoming" relative to the CS2 port’s "soft chuffing" at volume. He said he eventually gave them up because they just wouldn’t produce loud enough bass for him. I can’t visualize how the passive would hit hard - it is made of 2 large, soft surrounds on the back and front of a semi-soft foam plug. ??? So maybe this "splatting", "generalized low end" and "easy mellowness" of the 2.2 are all attributable to these layout and overload characteristics which I am addressing with the EXO.
So, just sit tight regarding your potential need to tweak this problem on your 2.4s; by the time I get to working on the 2.4, we’ll know a lot more. I’m looking forward to picking up the pair I scored on Long Island - when it gets safer.
There are plenty of good reasons for an external XO. But it is tweaky, difficult and would put off many people. In the case of the 2.2, there isn’t a good option to squeeze best parts into the interior spaces. And the merits are likely to be substantial.
But to your Oy! issue, this problem might be peculiar to this model. The general opinion seems to be that the 2.2 is more mellow, easy, forgiving, and with a bigger bass than other Thiel speakers. Some people say it’s the only Thiel they can tolerate. I had speculated that we thought our first passive radiator somehow coupled with rooms "better" than anticipated, giving that full-bottom presentation. But it doesn’t measure "full"; it stacks up quite nicely with the 3.5 and 3.6 that I have here - matching the specified target roll off point without any bloat or other measured anomalies.
John Atkinson used the 2.2 for years as his own system reference. He commented in his Stereophile review how the passive radiator produced a "hard bottoming" relative to the CS2 port’s "soft chuffing" at volume. He said he eventually gave them up because they just wouldn’t produce loud enough bass for him. I can’t visualize how the passive would hit hard - it is made of 2 large, soft surrounds on the back and front of a semi-soft foam plug. ??? So maybe this "splatting", "generalized low end" and "easy mellowness" of the 2.2 are all attributable to these layout and overload characteristics which I am addressing with the EXO.
So, just sit tight regarding your potential need to tweak this problem on your 2.4s; by the time I get to working on the 2.4, we’ll know a lot more. I’m looking forward to picking up the pair I scored on Long Island - when it gets safer.