Anybody heard the new Thiel 2.4?

Dealers are just getting their display 2.4s in the showrooms. The pair I listened to this weekend was received last week and had ~60hours on them. I thought they sounded very good considering this, but overall they sounded somewhat constrained across the board and obviously require more break in. I listened to the 2.4s in two different setups. Neither setup used cables worth noting. The first setup had a Cary 303/200 CD player, CJ PV14L pre, and CJ 2250 amp. The second setup had a Classe Omega SACD-1 CD/SAC player, Classe CP65 pre, and Classe CAM-350 amps. Having owned the Thiel CS7.2s in the past the sound was immediately familiar. Clear, transparent, precise, and very coherent. The CS2.4 is less analytical and sharp sounding, and seems to have a more even tonality top to bottom. Bass quality is excellent. With the CJ setup the bass was a little less present, deep, and pitch delineated. To me this indicates that the CS2.4 favors a more powerful amp, such as the CAM-350s. It has been a few years since I listened to the CS2.3s, but my impression is that the CS2.4s sound fuller and have more midrange presence. I always thought the CS2.3s were on the lean side.

Bump

Has anyone else gotten to listen to the 2.4???? I'd love to hear some additional reports.

Anyone care to offer an opinion of the 2.4's vs. the 3.6's vs. the 6's? I'm considering all three models.

I just took delivery of a pair of 2.4s and have close to 40hrs on them. My initial impressions at the dealer above and in another dealer audition are still valid. Now that I have them in my system I'm even more impressed. The midrange is much better than I expected, and the way they fill my 16w x 20l x 9.5h room is very satisfying. I've had the 6s in my room for a long weekend (driven by Bryston 7B ST monos at the time). The 6s will throw a larger soundstage (more height, larger scale) and deliver deeper, more impactful bass. Musically I think the 2.4 is a better speaker. Its also considerably easier to drive. The 6 is not as coherent sounding, and has some hardness/brightness in the upper mids. The 2.4 is smoothly integrated from top to bottom, and still provides the resolution and venue information that Thiels are known for. I haven't spent enough time in front of the 3.6 to offer an opinion. I did own the 7.2s for a few years before downsizing and still think the 2.4 sounds more like a scaled down 7.2.

My system for reference: Resolution Audio Opus 21 run direct into a Plinius SA-102, interconnects and speaker cable are Pure Note Epsilon Reference, power cords TG Audio SLVR, BMI Shark, dedicated lines and Jena Outlets.

Since I didn't get to hear them at the factory as I had hoped, I guess I'll (maybe) have to go and make a rare (for me) dealer showroom appearance if I can't stand the curiousity. Tom, since you are running the 2.4's with a similar quantity of watts (but presumably a higher quality of watts) to the above-referenced C-J amp, as opposed to the Classe's you heard, do you still feel these speakers want more power for the bass, or have you concluded that the superior bass in the Classe set-up may have also been due to the preamp and/or CDP? (You mentioned them seeming fairly easy to drive.) Also, I know you've only got a working week's worth of time on them so far, but how does the top-end extension and dispersion of the coaxial single-motor mid/tweeter seem to translate as far as "air" and openess go? And does this arrangement seem to expand the viable listening window at all?