All digital with SS gear and Thiel's here |
The Jim Thiel era Thiels have a treble that can easily do wonders or go bad. The difference seems to be if you listen to a lot of vinyl and/or use tubes. Then it may be heavenly for you.
If you are all digital with SS gear, avoid it.
Another set of alternatives from the era are the Vandersteens of course.
Of course, ALWAYS listen for yourself. This is just cheap advice given in case you have no ability to listen yourself.
Best,
Erik
|
what art said, Kef's get the midrange right no exception and work out from there that said the 104/2 had the 'British' sound much like the B&W 801 of the time without the bass. thiels of that era were too bright/etched for my taste but I can't listen to martin logans either. so if your system is all analog and you need speakers that will wake up the room Thiel all the way otherwise roll with kef. |
|
I own both KEF 104.2's and Thiel 3.5's. And, like someone
already mentioned, they are two different animals.
Speakers tend to reflect the taste of the designer. Although my Thiels are an older model, most all Thiels are
cut from the same cloth. Their balance is definitely tilted
upward. Jim T. likes em on the brighter side, so careful
system matching is important. When matched properly, they can be very detailed and sweet, but if your electronics are
even a little on the bright side, you'll find yourself running for the volume knob more often than not.
The KEF's, on the other hand, are a more evenly balanced
speaker and tend to be less fatiguing. They are also more
dynamic and far more efficient at 92db than the Thiels.
They can be driven by as little as a 15W SET amp and still play beautifully.
It's a tough call, you picked two excellent speakers, but
if i had to choose, i'd probably lean a little toward the
KEF's for long term listening. |
i own the 104/2 and am looking to upgrade to the 2.3 or 2.4. i have worked on obtaining higher quality electronics, and with that the thiels are a much better speakers, but less forgiving. if you have a receiver or a mid-fi amp/pre then the 104/2 might be a better choice. the thiels will expose the flaws in your system. |
Thiel speakers are designed for accurate reproduction and coherence and soundstaging.... If you go with Thiel 2.3 make sure it's a newer model with the midrange upgrade. Andy make sure you have superb amplification - with a lot of power, very clean sounding source and high quality cables. And that you break in the 2.3's. Under the right circumstances 2.3's can sound magical.
Older British speekers are generally much more forgiving of faulty sounding gear or source material, and have a more relaxed sound.
It's not so much a matter of which is better, they serve somewhat different purposes.
Art |
In my opinion the best speaker Kef ever made! |
I prefer Thiels, but respect Kef. If you like Kef you might like Vandersteen. |
You're all kidding, right?
Mluthier - You don't mention the associated gear, so I can't say that I'd recommend them for your system...But the Thiel 2.3s are a MUCH better speaker.
Am I missing something here? |
|
Those 104/2's are pretty awesome sounding speakers for the money. If you can find them on the cheap, I'd recommend them. Check on the age though, make sure the surrounds etc haven't detoriated with age. Also, didn't they make a small electronic crossover for those? It may have been the next model up, anyway, that little box made a difference in the bottom end. Went between the pre and amp or in a tape loop. |
What is you amplification? |
I havent heard thiels, but ive always enjoyed the sound of KEFs, i dont think you could go wrong there. they have some pretty sweet imaging. |
I remember hearing the 104/2s years ago. I thought at the time they were an excellent musical speaker that had good resolution, a natural tonal balance, and no obvious flaws. I don't know if it was the early digital, my then un-damaged hearing, or the speakers themselves, but it seems like most speakers of the 80s had a distinct harshness to them, but the 104/2s were an exception (I ended up with Spicas). I don't remember the 2.3s specifically, but I remember Thiels in general being very analytical, and quite harsh in the high frequencies. I think they have gotten better (more musical) over the years, or perhaps I've gotten deafer. In any event, I would take the 104/2s over any Thiel I've heard. |
