Anybody heard the new Thiel 2.4?

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?

All of these posts have me serioulsy considering upgrading from the 2.3 to the 2.4

I had figured on keeping the 2.3 a while and maybe getting an updated 3.7 or even the 6s when we moved to a new home.

Any thoughts.

Zaikesman, I think my statement about the 2.4s being easy to drive should be qualified as 'relative to the larger Thiel models'. The CJ 2250 amp I heard the 2.4s with sounded open, detailed, and sweet, but lacked overall weight, especially in the bass, compared to the Classe setup. My SA-102 has a lot more current capability than the CJ does and is able to control the bass very well at reasonably loud levels. I do sense some drop off in control and ease when the volume is pushed (100 - 105 db peaks). To be honest I'd like a little more power, however I have noticed that the 2.4s are getting more efficient as they break in, so things may change.

The dispersion of the coax mid/tweeter is quite wide. Wide enough that 3 seated listeners could be happy. I have my 2.4s 8' apart with about 3/4" of toe in. So far I think this produces the best combination of dispersion, air, and pin-point imaging. I sit 11.5' away. The 2.4s also stage outside their boundries more often than the 7.2s did in my room. This is software dependent, but I hear it more consistently with the 2.4s than I have with other Thiels. Overall the sense of space they create is quite large (could use more soundstage heighth, minor), hence my comment about the 2.4s filling my room.

Tom, how are you feeling about the bass you are getting from them?