Anybody heard the new Thiel 2.4?

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?

I have another 24hrs on my 2.4s and the quality of the bass has improved noticeably. Overall the bass is nicely balanced with the rest of the spectrum and now has a greater sense of ease and depth, especially at higher volumes. I don't get the sense that the upper octaves are overpowering the bass at all. There is a touch of richness in tonal color where the upper bass hands off to the lower mids that makes the 2.4 more engaging, and less analytical sounding.

While I don't get the same impact on kick drum or timpani that I did with my 7.2s I'm surprised at what those 6" diameter woofer cones are capable of. They're clearly capable of shaking the room if the music has low frequency content.

First of all Tom, thanks for your feedback!

Can you give some comparisons to the 2.3 or (better for me) the 2 2?

Akkadict, its been three years since I had the 2.3s in my room, and the pair I listened to had the original coax. From what I recall the 2.4 is fuller sounding, and actually sounds like a larger speaker. I think partly due to the fuller and more extended bass, and the fact that the soundstage is both broader and deeper. The soundstage on the 2.3s stayed pretty much between the speakers when driven by Bryston 7B monos. The midrange on the 2.4 is meatier, more tangible, and blends evenly with the highs and lows. The 2.4 doesn't have any of the leaness that I recall the 2.3 had in the mids on up. The upgraded 2.3 coax may have addressed this to some degree. The 2.4's bass is solid to below 30hz in my room, and has a tactile quality that clearly delineates notes and the pitch of different instruments. One other important difference is that the 2.4 appears to be easier to drive. My Plinius SA-102 can drive them hard with good control across the spectrum. That's not to say the 2.4s won't respond to more power, but I think its safe to say the 2.4 doesn't require the same muscle the 2.3 does for good results. The manual indicates they're rated to 400 watts @ 4 ohms output.

I've listened to the 2 2s, but to long ago to comment.