2. speakers
  3. 1360760644

Affordable "Thiel type" speakers are?

Hi All,

I am a big fan of the Thiel's highly detailed, transparent, tight sound. In my main system in a smaller room I have 2.4s and in my secondary system in an 18x14x10 room 3.5s. I like the 3.5s a lot but the 2.4s are a clear step up in all respects except for bass depth. I have been looking for 3.6s within driving distance for almost a year with no luck. What I'm wondering is, is there any other candidate I should be considering if I come across it at a good price (i.e. $1400-$1700)? Again, my priorities are detail, transparency and tight bass.

Thanks in Advance
drjay
donvito101
278 posts
 
Why would someone recommend Vandersteens when the guy likes Thiels? Apples and Oranges.
sdecker's avatar
sdecker
143 posts
 
I find it surprising that given your desires nobody has mentioned Thiel 2.3. They can be had for cheap these days ~$1K+, and are in most respects identical to the 2.4, which was merely a mildly tweaked 2.3. I bought 2.3s in '02 & 2.4s in '06 and have kept both of them as main speakers ever since, so am intimately familiar with their similarities. (2.3 > 3.6 IMO)

Frequency balance is the main difference, 2.4 having more output below 50Hz, less output in the presence region (2-5K).

My experience is the 2.3 soundstages better because the baffle is rounded w/o sharp edges and the grille does not interfere unlike the form over function recessed 2.4 grille.

2.3 every bit as detailed, transparent and tight as 2.4.

Same cabinet structure, slightly different crossovers, 2.4 coax uses a smaller more powerful magnet that doesn't handle high power as well as 2.3, woofers very similar, 2.4 has better spikes and terminals, both excellently constructed and detailed.

In fact, I can make you a sweet deal on my own 2.3s!
unsound
7,356 posts
 
Well, just for the record Drjay, I've heard both speakers many times in many different rooms with various gear, and I have a differing opinion on the 2.4's vs. the 3.5's. IMHO, not only do the sealed box 3.5's go deeper, but are tighter and better better defined in the bass, as well as more coherent too, than the passive radiator 2.4's. The 3.5's do show bass limitations when called upon to play low bass LOUDLY. YMMV.
audioconnection
1,271 posts
 
Don Vito
If you got out there and heard both speakers with a good low feedback amp
You would appriciate that its the phase correct area that they are both connected. They both play live recorded music with superb tonality while also preserving overtones thats where other speakers are much different.
drjay OP
27 posts
 
Hi Unsound,
I totally respect your opinion and you are a gentleman whose inputs in past posts have helped me a great deal in getting my main system to the point I am truly happy with it. What I personally prefer most in the 2.4s over my 3.5s is the detail. I notice more of everything from top to bottom in a recording with the 2.4s and do not feel that this is due to frequency response issues. As Gary at Thiel says, "2.4s reveal everything in the recording whether you like it or not."
I see that a legitimate point of view of this could be that the 2.4s have crossed the line from wonderfully detailed into being "clinical or hyperarticulate". I certainly don't feel my 3.5s are lifeless or homogenized, so it seems perfectly appropriate to describe them as more coherent. As you point out it is a matter of personal preference.
If I run across some affordable Audio Physics I will certainly try to audition them since their design philosophy suggests they might have a lot of the 2.4 characteristics that I like, but my intuition tells me moving to Thiel 2.3s, although a worthy suggestion, would feel like a lateral move.
Based on all the input so far it appears that my best bet is to be more patient and just keep looking for 3.6s, which from all I've read, are somewhat more detailed than the 3.5s. I am, however, still open to any other suggestions.
Thanks to All
More to discover