Drubin, good idea to try some different cables, it's amazing how the Thiels pass along what's fed. My experience with 3.6 has been: Kimber 8TC - too lean, Alpha Core Goertz MI2 very nice, fat midrange with extension on both ends but almost too warm with my CJ preamp/mullards, MIT V3 - Thiels on steriods, had a problem with my Classe shutting down, maybe related to the preamp passing DC, this is the only cable that was problematic, MIT T2's much of the 750's with a little less of everything including refinement, finally MIT 750 s 3's with reference MIT IC's have been the most balanced from top to bottom with excellent imaging. I know the 2.4 is a different speaker but sounds like it has the Thiel house sound. With some work I believe you can get Thiels to sound the way you want them to and when you do they are hard to beat IMO.
Thiel CS2.3 vs 2.4 -- my 2 cents
Having owned 2.3s for over a year, I've wanted to know how the 2.4s compare, probably like most 2.3 owners. A couple insightful posts on forums, but no direct references in the "mainstream" reviews. So I just drove my 2.3s 200 miles to the nearest Thiel dealer to hear for myself.
Nice room all to myself, and certainly good equipment: $5K Cary 306 CDP, $8500 Krell KCT preamp, $10.5K Krell 400CX pwr amp and stupid-expensive Siltech cables. I ultimately didn't get my head around the differences as well as I'd like despite the 2+ hours. I should have switched between spkrs more often, tedious with the 2.3 terminals beneath the base. So all this is just another data point for everybody to take in; as always, YMMV...
What hit me first, and is still the most defining difference, is the 2.4 vocals seem more relaxed and open. Male vocals especially had a bit more richness and weight as well, less obvious with most female vocals, and not readily apparent through the mids without vocals to focus on. This is still a lean midrange compared to the B&W warmth and body (that I prefer), but it's a step in the right direction vs the 2.3. Vocals on the 2.3 seemed compressed and even a little 'grainy' in comparison. Not night and day by any means, but consistent across a variety of music.
I found the bass in the normal musical range to be a *bit* stronger and possibly slightly more dynamic. Sub-40Hz bass had noticeably more output, though this might be worth it only for electronica and the HT crowd. Bass on the 2.3 seemed shallower (in dynamics, level and extension) in direct comparison, though I've never found it lacking on its own.
The Thiel bugaboo for many, their 'forward' upper mids/lower treble, that can be a hard, edgy glare with mismatched components, rooms or source material, was unchanged. I couldn't detect any real difference between the two in this area, though it wasn't a problem with what I was listening to and my familiarity with the 2.3s.
But surprisingly the 2.4 seems a little hotter on top, added sparkle and brightness - without any more apparent 'air' - which I'm surprised at given Thiel's reputation for sizzle. Again, subtle, but noticeable esp due to knowing my 2.3s so well.
The other attributes of the sound were identical, no surprise as it's basically the same speaker: imaging, coherence, resolution, speed, dispersion and the overall 'voice', all of which made it easier to focus on the differences, but harder to come to any solid conclusion, as even these differences are quite subtle compared to A/Bing a 2.4 vs a 1.6, much less altogether different speaker manufacturers.
So the more relaxed mids are the biggest benefit, the enhanced lower mids and greater bass output an improvement, the same forward upper mids and hotter top end disappointing. For some folks the styling and easier amp loading are in the real-world 'plus' column. As mentioned, these were NOT big differences, but certainly an audible evolution of their design. When I got the 2.3s back home, they sounded as good as ever. I feel I'd prefer the 2.4s, but not at the resale loss I'd take now. That $1500+ might be better spent towards a top-notch phono preamp, CD transport, or psychotherapy to prioritize other things in life :-O
-sdecker
Nice room all to myself, and certainly good equipment: $5K Cary 306 CDP, $8500 Krell KCT preamp, $10.5K Krell 400CX pwr amp and stupid-expensive Siltech cables. I ultimately didn't get my head around the differences as well as I'd like despite the 2+ hours. I should have switched between spkrs more often, tedious with the 2.3 terminals beneath the base. So all this is just another data point for everybody to take in; as always, YMMV...
What hit me first, and is still the most defining difference, is the 2.4 vocals seem more relaxed and open. Male vocals especially had a bit more richness and weight as well, less obvious with most female vocals, and not readily apparent through the mids without vocals to focus on. This is still a lean midrange compared to the B&W warmth and body (that I prefer), but it's a step in the right direction vs the 2.3. Vocals on the 2.3 seemed compressed and even a little 'grainy' in comparison. Not night and day by any means, but consistent across a variety of music.
I found the bass in the normal musical range to be a *bit* stronger and possibly slightly more dynamic. Sub-40Hz bass had noticeably more output, though this might be worth it only for electronica and the HT crowd. Bass on the 2.3 seemed shallower (in dynamics, level and extension) in direct comparison, though I've never found it lacking on its own.
The Thiel bugaboo for many, their 'forward' upper mids/lower treble, that can be a hard, edgy glare with mismatched components, rooms or source material, was unchanged. I couldn't detect any real difference between the two in this area, though it wasn't a problem with what I was listening to and my familiarity with the 2.3s.
But surprisingly the 2.4 seems a little hotter on top, added sparkle and brightness - without any more apparent 'air' - which I'm surprised at given Thiel's reputation for sizzle. Again, subtle, but noticeable esp due to knowing my 2.3s so well.
The other attributes of the sound were identical, no surprise as it's basically the same speaker: imaging, coherence, resolution, speed, dispersion and the overall 'voice', all of which made it easier to focus on the differences, but harder to come to any solid conclusion, as even these differences are quite subtle compared to A/Bing a 2.4 vs a 1.6, much less altogether different speaker manufacturers.
So the more relaxed mids are the biggest benefit, the enhanced lower mids and greater bass output an improvement, the same forward upper mids and hotter top end disappointing. For some folks the styling and easier amp loading are in the real-world 'plus' column. As mentioned, these were NOT big differences, but certainly an audible evolution of their design. When I got the 2.3s back home, they sounded as good as ever. I feel I'd prefer the 2.4s, but not at the resale loss I'd take now. That $1500+ might be better spent towards a top-notch phono preamp, CD transport, or psychotherapy to prioritize other things in life :-O
-sdecker
- ...
- 6 posts total
- 6 posts total