McTeague,
You pay the price of assuming. If you think a speaker with a 7-9dB dip in the upper midrange on axis, audible breakup noise in the mids, double digit distortion at 90dB at 1 meter and several other malladies as "accurate" well I can see why you disagree with my assessment.
But when a speaker designer tells you that the side reflection will "fill in" the huge dip in the midrange...i'm drawing the line there.
Rave reviews? you're kidding me right? LOL!
As for my name, I'll put 7 channels against any BS 2 channel system an avid reader like yourslef can dream up.
Later. |
2.3 are terrible loudspeakers, pathetic in everyway except for the reputation of the company that made them....and the looks I guess.
The 2.4 is more inline with the Thiel reputation in performance and for me refreshingly good. Other than maybe the 7.2 which is still mediocre at best for the money, the 2.4 is the only Thiel since the 3.6 that I could look a client in the eye and know I would be sending him/her home with a good speaker with no real caveats to that statement.
A harsh assessment I know, but its your money. |
Tim,
Everyday at work for three years my job was to present the Thiel 2.3's to the public. I know more about that speaker than you will ever know. I have fixed them, upgraded them, tweaked them heard them in more rooms than I can remember. Got feedback from 100's of people. I have tested the drivers.What more can I tell you, what do you want me to do? conform to popular beliefs so you're comfortable? I'm not into "popularity" the fact that most people agree is a great reason to disagree.
You can't possibly know this but I build speakers and they are very well received. My measurement techniques are not flawed and I understand the topology of the Thiel system better than most. It's not magic. I owned 1.2 and 2.2's which may fuel the great dissappointment in the quality of sound available from Thiel since then. That is until the 2.4's which to me represents a rebirth for Thiel.
How you doubt my credibility because I'm going against the (objective?) press. You're acting the same as the person I inform that Consumer Reports has to place Bose in the top 5 because of a lawsuit in the 1980's. They are skeptical but its still true. Do you think Stereophile wants to lose Thiel ad money?
At the last store I worked we declined the offer to carry thiel because the 1.6 has such a terrible distortion problem, that it is just awful and not competitive with any of the speakers we had at half the price.
If you don't believe me look at the Soundstage measurements which show the cone break up modes in the 1.6 in the distortion measurement. Is this the kind of speaker you think should be considered world class? Look at any speaker in its price point and their distortion figures notice how all the subjective reviews understate this problem. I told the Thiel dudes this is unacceptable. And it is, but maybe you can accept it and call it clean and accurate?
Look I don't want to fight with you, but the problems with the 2.3 are not opinion or perception they are facts.
If you like the way the 2.3 sounds then you have to accept these facts. The flaws do not change with ones opinion. Your "awful" and "pathetic" may differ from mine in degree but the 2.3 is a great example of why you shouldn't listen to the press' Rave reviews. It never deserved it.
So there it is. buy the CS2.4, that's my opinion based on the facts. |
Sorry I wasn't more diplomatic? 3.5's were great in their day, driver technology limits them today, but I don't know of a 17 yr. old speaker that wouldn't have that problem.
I don't know what you guys want, do you want me to pitter patter around the truth and not make myself clear?
Measure a 2.3 sometime and then explain to me where the superiority is in this design where the accuracy is and its desirable Qualities show up. Why does its replacement seem to eclipse it by such a great margin?
addressing 1.6 issues
As for the "breakup mode" or possible distortion from the tweeter being over driven, do you see the huge distortion spike at 1.2Khz, that is not good and it is clearly audible. This is a $3000 speaker!
The measurements don't lie, even stereophile's measurements don't lie. That's were the truth is, an audio review magazine is a business and writers don't want their job to disappear in a poof of honesty.
Guys I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand that bad products get great subjective reviews all the time and as a participant in this industry It is a very bad thing. Because the magazines want to keep every possible stereo company in business and profitable. That way they have more clients.
Let's review some other quotes in this thread;
"to me the 2.4 is worth many times the value of the 2.3."
Artmaltman
The 2.4 is not "nearly the same speaker" as the 2.3. It's way, way better"
Keithr
"listened to both and fortunate that the dealer had a close out pair of the 2.3s and the 2.4s were better in every way"
Theo
Let me tell you a story that shows how bad the 2.3 is:
We were a reasonably successful Meridian dealer and we were selling 5-6 Meridian 568's a month on average, then we switched in the thiel 2.3's with the new MC1 Center channel and we didn't sell a 568 for 1 month, until we switched the thiels out and put the Dynaudio's back in. That next month 4 568's sold.
So bad you couldn't sell any of the equipment connected to them either! Do you want to know that information? Is that relevant to you? Or should I keep that stuff under the rug. You guys all have great jobs that allow you to afford this equipment. I realize that people are free to make their own decisions but he asked and this is my experience...not my opinion.
So, subjective words like pathetic and horrible are rough should be backed up which I think I have. I'm sorry i don't have the documentation any longer, I switched measurement programs. But words like reborn and excellent should be weighed just as heavily. I am not a Thiel hater, I'm a bad speaker hater, whether I made it myself or someone famous made it.
My list of bad speakers would shock you, and trust me many of them show up in class A lists.
Finally buy the CS2.4 its a great speaker and the great people at Thiel make it,and I like it. that's the best reason of all :) have a good holiday everyone,
PS: Sorry to have to say those thing about your speakers McTeague, my intentions were only to help D99 make the right choice atleast from a objective performance standpoint, value for the money etc. |
I might wait, I only remember liking the Thiel 3.5's, I don't think I've heard a pair since 1990. but my instincts tell me the 2.3 does not offer much more than the 3.5 is giving you already, especially since you spent money to keep the parts new. You would be changing speakers but not upgrading.
I cannot be a judge for you but if I were to buy a speaker to upgrade the 3.5's the CS3.6 comes to mind. I bet you could find a 3.6 in the 2.3 price range. Your electronics will likely hook up nicely to them also. The 3.6 is easier to drive than the 3.5
The 3.6 is a nice upgrade for sure and a certain one in my mind despite its age I like the 3.6 over the 2.3.
It can't be too far off until you can score a demo or previously owned CS2.4. So it depends on how much patience you have....might want to broaden your scope and look at the 3.6 too. See if the 2.4's are worth the wait.
++There are just newer drivers with refinements from those companies, like the revelator split paper series and Dynaudio is several generations passed the D26? things have gotten better when it comes to woofers and tweeters. |
Artmaltman,
I respect your opinion and agree with everything you say except Your assessment of the Meridian. The Meridian equipment not only has tone controls but it will wipe the floor with any tube pre/CD player you can come up with near its price range. The Meridian wasn't the problem let me reassure you, infact the 2.3 sounded their best on that system by far.
Just so you know. Let me add, that I did everything I knew to sell Thiels....everything. best cables best spot in the room, tilted them towed them, measured them,,,etc. A good sounding Thiel would make me a hero, my life would have been simplified exponentially.
No the reason the thiels are the way they is two fold,
1. Thiel is still maturing as a speaker manufacturer the leap in the 2.4's quality has more to do with the drivers than any changes in design philosophy, on the surface the 2.3's and 2.4's are very similar as mcTeague stated.
2. Dynamically almost all the Thiel speakers have an issue because the drivers are pushed to do too much over to wide a range, so they always have this characteristic at which the seem to just snap and get bright. Using tubes with slower rise times of course will add a layer of resistence towards this tendency.
This tendency to be super "revealing" is an instablility in the speaker and that is enhanced by a purposeful accentuation of the High frequencies.
People in audio have been conditioned to believe that a components ability to "reveal" changes in the system as a high quality mark, but like anything else too much of a good thing can turn bad.
See how that logic makes you react, think about it. Excellence should not be so fragile, it is not a fine line. This is a tactic to keep you chasing your tail, Dynaudios and ATC's sound great on a $300 NAD receiver and $25,000 Mark Levinson equipment. Yes you can tell the difference, but neither system makes you run for cover because the speakers are great with a margin. |
My fault Art, we used a number of amplifiers with the 568 and Thiels in an effort to stimulate sales.
BAT
Classe
Bryston
Rowland
probably everything but a Meridian amplifier :)
I realized that we weren't talking about the same thing after I hit submit
have a good holiday |
"the 2.3 does not offer you much more than you are already getting from the 3.5's" and " you would be changing speakers but not upgrading"
David its simple, I was 20 years old when I last heard your speaker. I "liked" it but with the level of experience I had at the time I "liked" many speakers I'm sure I would not recommend now maybe even hate.
I said my "instincts" say that the 2.3 would be a trade off not an ubgrade. Meaning it may do somethings better but in areas not as well in others... it is not an upgrade. If you're looking for a reason to buy the 2.3 go ahead just tell yourself that I am clueless and don't know what I'm talking about. Its not like I'm coming over to your house anytime soon. Plus I said the CS2.3 is a bad speaker, I didn't say you couldn't like it. Lots of people like technically bad speakers and there is nothing wrong with that. You are free to buy whatever you want without being judged. I don't listen to music in Trifield all the time to win popularity contests either. So go with what feels right for you.
I'm restricted by you desire to buy a Thiel, so I have to work within that parameter and I have respected that. My effort was to sort out the CS2.4 versus the CS2.3 for you and I think I have and I think the consensus of people have backed me up but its still your choice and you have to live with it. Not ours, not us. |
Technically questionable speakers that people like and have endless positive reviews.
Sonus Faber Amati Homage
Aerial 10T (recent versions)
Eggleston Works Andra
Talon Audio --
Krell Lat-1
Martin Logan Prodigy
I cannot begin to fill in all the holes and all the factors that I feel justify my statements. I did not arrive at the comments arbitrarily and don't think you think that I did.
We have a good repore going here but this is the frustration of the internet. I cannot have you here to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Something I have done many many times. I don't run my (keyboard) mouth unless I have converted several people through demonstrating what I'm talking about before I go on and on. That's why I won't back down because other people have soldified my points of view through there actions and their own comments. So my opinion is based on others...many others.
I don't like to kid myself, its a waste of time.
This conversation outlines why buying audio is so difficult.
We are discussing a brand that by all rights is an outstanding company with press and happy customers to back them up. My job was to sell their product and not being an ordinary fellow I'm always looking at the strengths of a product and unique features that make it sellable and explaining it in a way that would put my customer out of reach of my competition. Something I do very well, and Thiel was an endless stream of positive advantages.
Thiel had everything going for it, looks, reputation, world class customer service and brochures. And yet in 3 years I sold 1 pair of 2.3's. Having been a Thiel owner only 5 years before my enthusiasm for the product was very high. I can tell you all the things I tried (it would boggle your mind) to make these speakers sound so that when a person with Thiel on the brain would sit down and go oh yeah box them up! That day never came for the .5, 1.5, PCS, 2.3, 6, or 7.2. CS3.6 managed to pull it off on occasion. Thiel came to visit us and they were astounded by the lengths we had gone through to sell their product. I'm talking Kathy Gornik fellas. We moved the store around tried all the equipment we had and some equipment we didn't have to make them right. The day never came. The speaker never impressed the listener enough not to ask the deadly question. "What else do you have in this price range."
What we had was a speaker that was better in every way, and the masses agreed by immediately plunking down the cash to cast their vote. Thiel exhausted me, because no matter what I did they never sold. Which is unbelievable considering the brand that people were buying at the time had none of the things going for it on the marketing side that the Thiel had. I still shake my head today, we did so poorly with that brand.
If I was a terrible salesperson, I wouldn't have sold anything. But the fact is I sold almost everybody, in the end something else.
That's my experience.
Notice no judgement on sound quality, admittedly I have put 2 and 2 together to arrive at my comments and the final straw is would I buy that product...
|
There are many 2.3's out there. And this makes it a good speaker.....B.O.S.E. No safety in numbers my friend
The 3.6 is a $4000
The 7.2 is a $14,000 speaker,
The question is; can the 7.2 beat the snot out of a $15,000 ATC,or Dynaudio and the answer is absolutely not even close.
I'm not bitter, puzzled to this day yes. Dissappointed we couldn't sell a sellable speaker. What should have been a sellable speaker.
And like I said I sold everybody anyway,so it was no big deal. Your attempt to find some negative motive is futile. Like that phrase in A Few Good Men, "you can't handle the truth", And I've gone to great lengths to show that my opinion was not formed by some single audition. And its funny but all this effort will prove out that you will believe what you want to to believe no matter what. What is funny is with all my experience selling speakers, building speakers and the literally hundreds of systems I have installed It cannot buy one inch of credibility with you in the end. I'm trashing Thiel, well actually I'm trashing the Thiel 2.3 and praising the 2.4. What you see before you is a very methodical exercise to show you the facts. And as the corner gets smaller and smaller your true feelings are squeezed out....you don't want to believe me.
Let me note that I have heard about 3 songs on Thiel 2.4's but I guess since we agree that its a good speaker I know what I'm talking about in that case.
So ignore me as some bitter dude and buy your 2.3's and be happy. As for hardcore audiophiles, what do they know? Everyone I ever met either ran out of the store afraid that everything he thought coming in was suddenly wrong or he left with a surround processor from me to replace his tube preamplifier.
Amati Homage: When you watched a DVD or played spoken word on them they lisped and sounded like mush mouth, we sent a pair back because it was so bad yet we were told it was fine. Maybe to some people that's a signature of a more "musical" speaker. I couldn't disgree more.
ML Prodigy: Tell me its better then the QuestZ at half the price and we'll have a huge disagreement
Aerial 10T: Used a Dynaudio Audience 52 and a Rel Strata II to trick some "hardcore audiophiles" into thinking they were listening to the 10T's. Then when I switched over to the 10T's they claimed our pair was broken because the Dyn's/Rel destroyed them head to head. I have more on this speaker. Well they weren't broken because a 10T owner bought his second pair and didn't notice a problem.
Krell Lat-1, Talon, Andra: If I have to explain? go listen for yourself first.
As for my character and trashing Thiel, who should I serve the manufacturer or the customer? You guys bitch and whine and have bad systems because people give you what you want they "Enable" you to buy the wrong thing. Like $500 power cords! The path of least resistence to get you out the door with less money. Is that what you want from your dealer? Let me make you feel more comfortable.
Look at all the press on the 2,3 its all positive. Crystal clear highs and coherent source design plus the Thiel heritage. How can you go wrong? I can tell you that no speaker images like the Thiel either its a known fact that a flat phase response is key to getting a stable wide image. The 2.3 are definitely a bargain at this price. They make all their own drivers in house which helped move them ahead of the lead pack because it cuts down on R&D time. Before they had to have samples sent from Scandanavia and that took time and cost money. Now all of the works is right in Kentucky, quadrupling the development speed of their speaker line. Let's listen to some music.
There you go brother. The light is green. |
how then did other dealers move them?
We think (a collective answer of the staff through research) that those dealers carried speakers of equal of lesser quality to the Thiels. We on the other hand offerred a vastly superior speaker which would not let people circle back to the Thiel.
In fact we aksed how certain dealers did and the most successful dealers had weaker speakers than Thiel at that price range. I never said Thiel was the worst speaker. Also like our Levinson sales people just bought them without listening. Thiel had such a powerful marketing that people wanted to listen to them as a reference, then go look at other speakers. Dude I'm exhausted, I could write a research paper on this. Like I said the thought we put into making this work for us was immense and sincere.
We had much better speakers to offer and people bought them. That's why they didn't sell. |
David my attempt here was not to beat you into submission, but more to make you understand all of the experience and thought that went into my original comment.
Let me state clearly, you may love the CS2.3's and you should listen to them.
McTeague loves his and many others do too.
But now you have about 20% of my experience with the speaker and all of this going on and on I hope helps you find the right speaker that you can keep for as long as your 3.5's.
Thanks Everyone who participated and commented
Happy New year |
You wouldn't believe me if I told you.
Just think the absolute opposite of your system and that's what we sold.
Back then My favorite 2 channel System was probably; but 2 channel is such a compromise
ML 32
Meridian 588
Warner Imaging ER300's
Dynaudio Temptations or Confidence 5's
My System at home
Was (7) Custom/Active 3 ways using the Seas Excel Fibreglass midbass and Aluminum 8" with Scan Speak 2509 tweeter.
Had a EAR864 with Meridian 565 and HW19MkIv with ET arm maxed on mods and a Pioneer LDS2/or CLD-D79 for a transport.
Warner Imaging amps and B&K amps & custom crossovers I built with some assistance from Warner Imaging. |
