Help: Thiel CS6 vs CS 2.3

NO waste on the McCormmack...but there are better amps. The McCormmack is a descent amp, which won't make for poor sound. I would consider others if you had the $. Even a used Pass X150 or 250 is much better. Heck, even used Threshold T200 is better.
I've sold/used both of these models in the past. Overall, the speakers are close. The CS6 is a better overall music speaker in certain ways. Not by a lot however. However, the CS2.3 is a better more effective HT speaker in my oppinion!!!! The reason? I find the 2.3 isn't as laid back sounding in teh pressence reigion as the CS6's!..making the 2.3 possibly the best HT speaker Thiel had made to date if you ask me. I've extensive experience with even CS7.2's and 1.5's and SCS3s/MCS1's And as an HT/music speaker choice, noto considering the Newer Thiel stuff, I think the 2.3 is the best for this application...IMO

I'm looking 2 channel speakers, rather than HT. I currently have a stock McCormack DNA-1, BAT VK-3i (tube pre), and Audio Alchemy front end (DDS-Pro, DTI-Pro and DDEv3).

I just took a ten-year old pair of Thiel 2 2's into a dealer who had B&W Nautilus 804s and N801 on a pretty good display using Krell FPB 600, an $8k Wadia CD/pre and kilobuck wires.

In comparison, I found the 2 2's to have a good image/stage, and a better depth (even than N801's). Where the Martin Logans have an image that is forward or rather "in your face", the Nautilus seem to be all in the same plane as the speaker, and the Thiel image is behind the speaker in better 3D (hence a need to place them out in the room).

Although a brief prior exposure to the Thiel 1.6 was astonishingly different - they were against a wall and the image was in the other room!

The N801 had an image that was "larger than life" (per my wife). She felt we didn't need that much presence in our living room (but she really liked it on a Chesky recording of Beethoven's 9th).

I felt the Thiel 2 2 had a lot more bass than the N804s, but was also a little bit brighter on sibilants (e.g. Holly Cole-Tennessee Waltz).

I also felt there was more grain to the Thiel 2 2, and the N80x had better detail.

I've heard that the 2.3 has better detail, and a smoother top end, but other than a brief listen to them in a showroom during a business trip, I don't have access to them to put them through their paces.

I also briefly heard the CS6 on the same trip, but the 2.3 and 6 were in different rooms, on different electronics. At that time I decided the 2.3 wasn't good enough. But hearing the 2 2 on solid electronics makes me think I undervalued the 2.3 (as I did the 2 2).

Can anybody else compare/contrast the CS6 and CS2.3?

Thanks

Will a 10 year old Thiel 2 2 sound significantly different than it did after it was broken in 9 years ago?

In other words does speaker performance degrade over time?

(No visible deterioration of the cone or the surrounds).

Check out the 2.4 if you are looking for that size speaker.

CS6 and 2.3/2.4 are very different sizes. 6 needs a lot more current but goes way deeper in the bass. 2.3 and 2.4 are way newer designs, probably more coherent, but when push comes to shove if you have the power and current for the 6 I bet you'd be better off.

I have never found traditional solid state geat to be a great match for Thiels bot others do. if you make that match be sure to try Cardas Golden Cross speaker cable. This is mandatory with Thiels and solid state in my view and sounds wonderful.

If you get a used 2.3 make sure it has the midrange upgrade.

Art

About the deterioration question on the 2.2 - I don't think so, and this would be true generally for most any recent speaker of this quality. Mine aren't quite as old as yours, and I've replaced some drivers I killed over the years, but there's no reason to suspect you've lost any performance in that time. Like you, I've found this speaker has been able to keep exceeding my expectations of it as I've improved my system and rooms.