Thiel Owners

@cascadesphil I have the first version of the tweeters in the 2.3s.  My room has wood paneling, so not the greatest listening area, but I have numerous sound treatment panels in the room, and a thick rug in front of the system.  I moved my Klipsch Quartets into my main system a few days ago just for fun and they are easier to listen to (less bright) than either my 2.3s or the 3.6s.

I hear (or read) repeatedly that Thiels are very revealing of the source and I have to agree.  With my Aqua La Voce DAC, there's very little of that hard edge, only on a few recordings, while with my vinyl setup things sound too bright with close to half the records I play.  Vinyl sounds great with my Quartets, my Harbeths, KEF Ref 1, and Stirlings.  I think both speakers are great, they just don't seem to be a good match with my room and system.

@duegi I have used an Aqua La Voce DAC in my system with the 3.6s and it sounded great.  They are too bright with my vinyl setup.  I haven't used my TEAC NT-505 with the 3.6s, but it is also very warm.  It uses the AK4497 DAC chips.  It's been discontinued and the new model uses a D/S chip, due to the fire at the AKM factory and probably sounds different.  If you can find a used one, it's very nice.  It's also a streamer, so you could ditch the Bluesound.  I would look at R2R DACs like MHDT Labs and others before Schiit.  I had a Bifrost in a second system and it was very good for the money, but did have some glare.  Things sounded much better and warmer after I moved the NT-505 into that system.

sdl4 - you are correct about bridged amps 'seeing' half the load impedance of a stereo amp. That said, the 2.2 is a fairly benign load, especially as Thiels go.

I recommend you compare your PS to the AHB if you can. I was gobsmacked by the difference between my S300 and the AHB. I'll soon have more to report, I'm expecting delivery today of a BM DAC3B and HPA4 front end. Better than Christmas.

I also have some thoughts about the 'extra' load imposed by the EQ - more on that later.

@sdl4, If I may, yes, bridged stereo amps typically don't handle lower impedances well. They are better suited for insensitive, high impedance speakers, where the extra power can be better appreciated, with the added benefit of better stereo separation, though typically with higher distortion levels.

 Yes, the CS 3.5's eq makes greater demands on the amp. But.... this is mitigated by cleverly using the impedance peak that typically naturally occurs due to box resonance.

Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com 

Compare fig. 1 with fig 3. (you can ignore fig. 2 as those measurements would be specific to the testers individual room). Jim Thiel with his uncanny cleverness has the eq nearly identically overlap the impedance hump with the eq boost. This not only relieves the amp of power draw, but it also mitigates the draw from sucking power from the closely overlapping 1st order midrange. Converting a deviance from linearity into an advantage. All towards full range extended bass from a relatively small footprint, with superior time and phase coherence. Brilliant! 

Full range Class D has not traditionally worked best with low impedance loads, Specialized Class D subwoofer amps are different. Though these Class D sub amps are reputed to be the most failure prone components in the field. Parts and repairs are not especially likely to be counted upon either. On the other hand there is a new generation of Class D amp modules just coming to market that hold special promise. I'm eagerly waiting for consumer reports on these new amplifiers.

Ha, must have been typing as @TomThiel was posting.