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
sdecker

Showing 2 responses by drubin

Sdecker: excellent write-up. Very thoughtful of you to share your
experience with us. Thanks.

I bought a used pair of 2.4's about 3 months ago. My first Thiels except
that I had a pair of 1.6's in the house on loan for a few months. I liked
the 1.6's a lot, but wanted more bass. But as others have commented,
the 2.4's are not 1.6's with more bass, unfortunately.

I was finding the 2.4 rather disappointing. The midrange was too
forward, for one thing. Mainly they were not engaging me in the music
(sorry to be so vague) as the 1.6's had.

Anyway, to get to the point of this story: I was using Valhalla speaker
cables, which I think are as terrific as everyone says. They worked
wonderfully with the 1.6's and with other speakers I have tried. I
had an old pair of Cardas Golden Cross laying around, which I was
planing to sell. A friend and fellow 'Goner beat me about the head
and shoulders until I finally stuck the Cardas in the current system.

I've used a lot of Golden Cross over the years and I know its sound very
well. And with the Thiel 2.4's, the Cardas certainly sounds like Cardas:
warm, dimensional, soft on top, "organic." But I had never heard it
change the sound of my system as much as it did this time. I don't
know what to make of it, really, and it's too soon to reach any final
conclusions. But with the Cardas, the 2.4's no longer sound forward at
all, nor do they exhibit any of the characteristic Thiel brightness or
thinness. They sound downright warm, rich, and "woody", like a cello
sounds. And they have become musically engaging in a way that
transcends all of these sonic particulars. Plus the tonality is often scary-
real. They are almost unrecognizable as Thiels, except that they retain
the detail, resolution, and image specificity that Thiel does so well.

There's some downside, too (too fat in the upper bass, a bit blurred,
slow), so I may start playing with some other speaker cables, but I will
tell you that this experience surprised the hell out of me. I really do
think that Valhalla is very neutral and that Cardas is not, but the
Cardas with Thiels seems more "right", without question.
I was wondering about MIT. Have never tried it except for some modest ICs many years ago. It's always seemed prohibitively $$$ for the good stuff.

(Waitaminute, I own Valhalla...)