sdl4
Welcome! Good to see you here and read that we have another fan of PS Audio. I look forward in reading more about your musical tastes and system. Happy Listening!
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
13,544 responses Add your response
The 3.7s for sure were not as bad a load as the 7.2s. I owned 2.3s before the 7.2s and now have 3.7s. I also have SCS2s (using them for side and rear surround but had them as mains in the bedroom system of my old house). When my friend worked at a local hifi shop many moons ago, I helped deliver most of their modes from the late 1990s for about 6 years. I currently drive my 3.7s with Class D (Modwright KWA 150SE before that and Bryston 14BSST before that and a smaller Bryston SST before that). The 7.2s were in a large 2 story room and would shut down on a regular basis from the load presented to the Bryston 14BSST (they made a 20 amp version but I didn't have a 20 amp circuit). |
I would like to once again weigh in on this issue as i have owned five different models of Thiel going back to the 2.0 and have used many different amps including modified Haflers (way back), Audio Research, Rowlands, Quads, Marantz Reference, old PS Audio, and now the PS BHK 250. To my knowledge i have never had a compatibility issue and i have been know to crank them a bit (but not above 90DB). I think any well designed amp from a reputable company (Pass, ARC, PS, Bryston, etc.) should all be fine unless one really really plays them loud, but then that is not what Thiel speakers are for. They are about quality not quantity. |
My 2.2s are used almost exclusively for kids tv shows these days and they're hooked up to a ~$900 Yamaha HT receiver. I'm surprised at how deep and forceful the bass is even from this very modest power source. I'm sure there'd be some improvement with a big power amp but it's pretty darn good the way it is. They most definitely don't require a massive amount of power. My 3.7s are hooked up to a pair of Cambridge 840s running bridged mono, have been for the last 7 years, and work great this way. I was somewhat afraid that the low impedance combined with bridging would be a problem but it hasn't been. I'm sure some Thiel models require monster amplifiers but the ones I have definitely do fine with more moderate amps. I don't listen especially loud so I'm sure that's a factor. Maybe the 3.7s with their well-behaved drivers and relatively simple crossover don't present as difficult of a load as some other Thiels do. I did notice a significant improvement in bass definition when changing from one amp to 2. |
Great story about Nelson Pass and his "dangerous" speaker design! In terms of amps for use with Thiel speakers, I've been very happy with my PS Audio M700 Monoblocks driving Thiel 2.2 speakers. These amps put out 700w per channel into 4 ohms and can handle peaks at 2 ohms if necessary. Fortunately, the 2.2 runs mainly at 4 ohms or higher and only rarely drops into the 3-4 ohm range (per JA's Stereophile measurements). It's clear that some of the later Thiel models are harder to drive than the 2.2, but folks on the PS Audio forum report great real-world performance of 2.4's and 3.7's using the M700's or the BHK signature designs. I don't think anyone should be hesitant to at least demo Thiels with PS Audio amps. |
That’s a great, and funny, story, Tom! And a good reminder of the compromises designers must make. Throwing money at the problem helps but even with unlimited budget, consumers will not have a “perfect” system. For myself, I most value transparency, resolution, imaging . . . musical immersion. Those are the very qualities improved with the CS2.4 XO upgrade. And I have assembled a system that addresses those priorities within my particular budget. I have zero interest in recreating SPLs of The Who in my room. |
The matter of music and its production and reproduction is very complex, and not readily solvable within real-world constraints. FWIW a story comes to mind. The story doesn't solve or settle anything, but it may shine some light on the depths of the conundrum. Thiel often displayed with and/or next to Threshold at shows, before Nelson Pass migrated to his self-named smaller operation. Around the mid 80s Jim and Nelson were trading bets at a Las Vegas CES where they bet each other that they could design the other's product better. Jim's first impulse was toward amplifier circuit design, and Nelson's was toward loudspeakers. Jim took it as a joke and went back to work, in the typical Thiel workaday mode. Nelson didn't. Next year he showed up with his Pass Transparent Transducer. The PTT never got publicity, in fact entry to its exhibition room was invitation-only and never more than 5 minutes, and sealed lips promised. You see, Nelson's ultimate solution to distortion (diaphragm and cabinet resonances, thermal compression and all that) was to have none. The air-moving driver was ionized air which moves when excited by an electrical field between wire screens. One driver (air) for the entire range (near DC to whatever upper limit of air's compressability (let's say 100K). Pretty close to no artifacts. The sound was thoroughly enrapturing. Sweet, clean, diaphanous - images hanging in 3 dimensional space, at once solid and ethereal. It was unbelievable. This was the same time-period when Dr. Hill was showing his Plasmatronic speaker which "burned" helium gas, modulating the plasma in a high-energy electromagnetic field. You can't make this stuff up. Anyhow, Nelson's TT was in its own league in my experience. There were some "difficulties". Efficiency was low. I don't remember how low, but his custom amp delivered something like a megawatt per channel with special consideration to the seriously low impedances. Maximum sound pressure level was less than 50dB. Another "difficulty" was that it required positively ionized air and produced ozone. So, an ultra quiet exhaust fan came with the territory. And, program material was length-limited, since more than 20 minutes' exposure could lay a listener out with Welders' Fever and worse. Even though Nelson "stepped outside" the room during demonstrations, he eventually came staggering into our room and , long story short, I accompanied him in the ambulance to the hospital to explain the nature of his illness to the ER doc, who "recommended" to CES that the display become passive. The point of all this is that the interplay between trade-offs and the depth of required understanding, and the limitations of physical reality . . . make ultra-quality music reproduction extremely complex and difficult. By solving part of the equation, other parts are compromised. Even the One and Only Nelson Pass must make compromises. In our real workd, the listener's assessment is the final arbiter because you really can't get it all. |
Under the conditions I use my system (seldom above 85dB and probably never above 90), my amp has more than enough power to deliver stress/compression-free music. It sounds superb. Listeners demaning peaks of 105+ should probably look not only for a different amp but a different loudspeaker than the 2.4. YMMV. |
Perhaps some are confused about the impedance/sensitivity relationship. Thiel like many other loudspeaker companies rates their sensitivity as 2.83V* / 1 M. This can be confusing. With each halving of impedance one can subtract about 3 dB of sensitivity. As evidenced in the "Description" in this link: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs5-loudspeaker-specifications-0 *Not 1 Watt |
@Beetlemania. Once again, it’s not about ultimate volume levels, but rather the ability to provide the power into the actual impedance loads of the loudspeakers. I never meant to single out anyone in particular. Just the opposite, I’m suggesting that some of the amp recommendations made here by others weren’t necessarily the best general recommendations for many Thiel’s. It just so happened that I ended up following up to those individuals that responded to my post. The power levels I suggested were actually based upon Thiel’s recommendations. Jim Thiel told me himself that Thiel’s power recommendations were based upon standard 8 Ohm power recommendations, with the assumption that the amps could double down as needed. He offered that for example that if using say a Thiel with a 4 Ohm rating, and one wanted use a tube amp (incapable of doubling down) then one should double the power recommendations appropriately. As you can see from the links in my previous posts, many of the amps frequently reccomended here, struggle to do so into lower impedances. As impedances drop so do sensitivitities. 400 Watts into 2 Ohms won’t provide much more volume output than 100 Watts into 8 Ohms. I don’t think many would find 100 Watts an outrageous number of Watts with an 8 Ohm speaker. |
@unsound If you’re trying to recreate orchestral climaxes in your room, I suggest you have the wrong speaker rather myself with the wrong amp. Most Wilsons or the JBL K2 9800 will play loud as hell without issue. I hope buyers of the CS2.4 are not expecting to get ear splitting SPLs. And I hope, for the sake of your ears, that you reserve that experience for an actual orchestra a few times per year rather than every night in your room. Yes, 85 dB is a low bar. It’s also close my upper limit of comfort. Unless I’m going to listen to folk or a quartet, I bring ear plugs to most concerts. Even at 90 dB, my Ayre has plenty of headroom, probably <15W with the 88 dB 2.4. It’s laughable to think my amp is sweating. 2 ohm, 4 ohm, doesn’t matter at this level. Meanwhile, go take a look at Soundstages measurements of the 2.4. Speaker distortion probably becomes audible before amp distortion (and the CS2.4 has superbly low distortion). Yes, extra power sounds better, all other factors equal. All other factors are not equal. I’ll take an Ayre, ARC, or Aesthetix over any Krell or Levinson, thank you (hey, I’m an A-hole!). I won’t assume your system is wrong for you. Please grant me the same and ronkent. |
@ronkent, I like and respect Paul. There is very little I disagree with him about, such as the importance of time coherence. If he did ask why a BHK might be disqualified for use with a given Thiel, then I have to question whether or not he actually read my post. I don't usually like to speak for those that can speak for themselves, but this was addressed to me, and I might be doing TomThiel a diplomatic favor in this case; if you were to search through this thread, you might find from himself regarding, yes, the inquiry about BHK amps with Thiel's, and further along in the thread a caution about Thiel impedance loads and the " 2 Ohm Stable for musical transients" rating. |
@Beetlemania, That would depend on the loudspeakers and room. 85 dB is rather a low bar. Much music is intended for much greater peaks. At this level I think we can reasonably expect a lot more. I would really like to be able to achieve about 105 dB peaks on symphonic crescendos. Since ultimate volume levels are not that high a priority for me, I settle for less. I think that compromise might be the weakest part of my system, but I’m OK with it. Though I haven’t measured it, I suspect I can achieve somewhere between 95 dB and 100 dB peaks. But, that’s not the point. It’s about providing the least distorted, clean power into the actual load at hand. If I recall correctly, your running Thiel CS 2.4’s? If that’s the case, I’d suggest a minimum of 400 Watts into 2 Ohms per channel. Preferably twice that. That might sound like an outrageous amount of Watts, but that minimum can be had with a true high current 100 Watt rated into 8 Ohms per channel amplifier. If your enjoying your system with less than that, just imagine what it might sound with appropriate power into the actual impedance of your own CS 2.4s! As to why JA might suggest a "... good 4 Ohm - rated amp..." I would offer because sub 4 Ohm loads are unusual, amps are rarely rated as such, perhaps due to the fact that way back when tubes ruled the day, very,very few amps had less than a 4 Ohm tap. As for the numbers, if they can provide guidance, why not? Would you prefer that I just shoot off !@#$ from my hip or some other part of my anatomy? Despite all the guru mysticism marketing BS in audio, these are still exercises in engineering. |
I tested the need for high current amps with my new 3.7. And compared carefully my Bryson 3bst with a pair of 7bst, both in parallel and serial setting. Bottom line, the difference in current capacity never came into play as I never reached the spl where the 3bst was under powered. If your listening level is 85 db or less, this is a non issue. My amp was using less then 30 watt per channel and the basic laws still apply. My listening space is fairly large, 30 by 30 by 16 ft. So I like a full sound that the 3.7 delivers. Of course, if you like your music loud and push the limit, the actual current limits may come into play before you realize it. |
@unsound Can’t decide whether to trust you or my lying ears. @ronkent probably in the same predicament. But because you’re apparently into numbers, riddle me this. How many watts are needed to get 85 dB from CS2.4 at the listening position 8-9’ away? Also, what do you imagine JA meant when he wrote: “Thiel CS2.4 owners should make sure they have a good 4 ohm–rated amplifier to drive this speaker.” |
@Beetlemania, Let me say that off the top of my head I can't think of any amp manufacturer that's complete line is ideal for all Thiel's. Yes, it's somewhat complicated, but most of the difficult leg work has been done and the results are often readily available. With such information it's not too difficult to get a fairly good idea of what's going on with such interactions. As for the impressions of others? Well, I'm cautious about that. I have no idea what some of these strangers experience might be. We've had posters repeatedly state that particular amplifiers were "high current" when they weren't. At least not by my definition of that. Subjective impressions are important. After all in the end, one should like what they're buying. But, I sometimes wonder why they do. I have occasionally offered my own subjective opinions, with the caveat that others might disagree. But, I do try to offer some objective perspective too. I prefer to make decisions based on what I know, not on what I don't. Let's look at some of the examples that you cited: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs16-loudspeaker-measurements Notice that impedance stays below the rated 4 Ohm load of the amplifier referenced most of the time, and with a phase angle that might be stressful. https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-ax-7-integrated-amplifier-measurements re: distortion: …."However, it more than doubled each time the impedance was halved, implying that low-impedance speakers are best avoided."... ..."Considering the fact that Ayre's Charlie Hansen eschews negative feedback, the AX-7 still provides excellent linearity and basically good measured performance, provided the amplifier isn't asked to drive speakers with an impedance that drops below 4 Ohms."... *To be fair we might want to take the above measurements with a grain of salt, as the reviewer as some point replaced the fuse with a different from recommended value. ______________________________________________________ https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurements ".....it's impedance plot (fig.1) indicates that the CS 2.4 demands a lot of current from amplifiers. Not only does its impedance drop to 2.7 Ohms at 600Hz, but it stays significantly below 4 Ohms between 100 Hz and 50kHz, and there is a difficult combination of 4.5 ohms magnitude and -45degrees electrical phase angle at 80 Hz.".... https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ax-5-integrated-amplifier-measurements …." into 2 Ohms the (not shown), the Ayre clipped at 220 Watts with one channel driven, with a higher level of distortion at lower powers." Quite a bit less than the 500 Watts per channel of an amp capable of doubling down an down again from it's 125 Watts at 8 Ohm rating. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why this stereo amp was only tested into 1 channel at 2 Ohms. ______________________________________________________ https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs72-loudspeaker-measurements "Like most Jim Thiel designs, the CS7.2 features quite a low impedance over most of the audio band (fig.1), with a magnitude dropping below 2.7 Ohms above 8 kHz and ranging between 2.9 Ohms and 4.2 Ohms between 60 Hz and 8 kHz." https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-v-1-power-amplifier-measurements …"While the amplifier easily meets specified power into 8 Ohms, it didn't do so into 4 Ohms, though the line voltage was slightly lower than normal."...…."In order to test the amplifier using continuous test signals into 2 Ohms, we had to replace - at Ayre's recommendation - the V-1's internal 10 amp resistor-fuses 15 amp versions". I'm willing to make concessions due to the line voltage issue. Note that this stereo amps 2 Ohm output was again only measured into 1 channel and put out 555.5 Watts into that one channel, rather than outputting the 800 Watts of a similarly rated 8 Ohm power amp that can double down and double down again. I Couldn't find anything on the Ayre V-5. _____________________________________________________ https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs37-loudspeaker-measurements ….".....the 3.7's impedance remains between 2 and 3 Ohms over much of the audio band (fig.1), and that there is a demanding combination of 3.8 Ohms and -40degrees capacitive phase angle at 60Hz. Thiel specifies the impedance nominally at 4 Ohms, with a minimum of 2.8 Ohms. I actually found the impedance to 2.4 Ohms at 125Hz. The difference being academic, either mandating the use of an amplifier that has no problems delivering high currents." 35 Watt Fischer. Really? "It didn't acquit itself too badly." I'd rather hear that my blind date had a nice personality. _______________________________________________________ https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs5-loudspeaker-measurements Yada, yada, yada. See above, I'm sure your get the point. _____________________________________________________ I'm confident that you are aware of most of the following, but for the sake of those that might not. Remember sensitivity predictably decreases as impedance decreases. That power requirements for increased volume levels is exponential. What might appear to outrageous amounts of Watts into lower impedances, really isn't. Furthermore, the inability to increase power as such, causes more distortion from the amp (if not down right self destruction), and at higher volume levels can effect frequency response deviations from the loudspeakers, and perhaps even timber perception for the listener. It's not all about volume levels, but more about amplifier linearity and minimizing distortions. And even actually protecting the loudspeakers from damage. It behooves one to at least listen to an amplifier truly capable of handling the actual load of a loudspeaker to get a baseline, before deciding to accept otherwise preferred distortion artifacts. Otherwise one might find themselves as though they were haphazardly running through a maze blindfolded. Some Thiel's are somewhat unique and require more discriminating amplifier choices. Good listening my audiophile friends. |
The larger the baffle the lower the frequency of the baffle step where the wavelength drops off the edge of the baffle. You can calculate where the 8x8 glitch will occur. Circle is cleaner than square. Put the driver in the middle of the baffle. Now, there's the floor (ground) bounce to copy with; so, if possible, tilt the baffle parallel to the ground, firing the driver upward with the mic 1 or 2 meters away (whichever protocol you use.) Firing up does lots of stuff right if you can manage the particulars. We also used an infinite baffle or ground plane. Hole in the ground with known-sized insulated box in the ground. Compare and subtract low frequency enclosure back pressure against open air performance. That ground-plane "sandbox" provides zero baffle step response, which is what you want to know. Correct the curve for box pressure rolloff and you have the true infinite baffle measurement. I will repeat that measurement series after 10 feet of snow melts from my neighbor's flat field. Or we can rent the Bell Labs anechoic chamber in New Jersey for perhaps $1K / half day (guessing). |
Rules - Go for it! I mentioned way back that Jim's first focus and indeed we built early prototypes of active speakers. At that time the market would not accept the concept; now, the time has come. There are many details to tame. I hope that you stick with first order slopes to get time coincident and phase coherent output. Please share your driver rig and results. Get your primary curve from free air mounting in a large wall - infinite baffle. A huge pro of the active approach is taking the guesswork out of cables and amp responses, along with lower cost of low power crossover components. Keep us informed, please. |
I have ordered some test equipment to do some measurements of the mids of my 3.5 and will compare the specs to some alternative drivers. I'm interested in tri-amping each speaker with digital active cross overs and incorporate fir and peq filters for equalization, as many of the eq of the 3.5 have become repair prone. It's a different approach then the original, but I'm just curious about the pros and cons of this adaptation. Still researching this area but it looks promising. |
Bluetone - Yes, it would be instructive and helpful for me to test those midranges as a baseline reference standard. Since I don't have an anechoic chamber, my curves will not match the other published curves, but it will be a step toward progress. The rest of the parts can wait; I am really not ready to take on the 3.5 as a project. Please send a PM to exchange shipping information. Thank you. |
Meanwhile, back in 3.5 land.... So I collected the components from the parted out 3.5 from our Long Island friend (thanks again, btw!) and I'm ready to ship the mids to Rob for a rebuild. So my question (TomThiel), would there be any value to redirecting the rebuilt mids (Scanspeak 13M/8351) to you or someone who could map the frequency curve to compare with published frequency curves of the two most popular Scanspeak replacements? The idea is to find the closest (understanding that it won't be a perfect match) to the original for those 3.5 owners that may have received a pair of 3.5s where the original mids have long departed (which was the situation I was in). Also included in my haul were the original crossovers, tweets and woofers. I'm hoping to help out the community a bit here, let me know what I can do. |
@ronkent, I've posted much of this before on this thread, but here it is again: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurements Notice that the Thiel CS 2.4's spend the vast majority of their time "..significantly below 4 Ohms between 100 Hz and 50Khz.." with a challenging phase angle to boot. https://www.psaudio.com/products/bhk-signature-amplifier/#tab-specs Notice that PS Audio only indicates that at 2 Ohms the BHK 250 is only "Stable for musical transients". That's a rather low bar for these speakers, basically saying that the amp won't blow up if briefly exposed to 2 Ohm loads. No mention of how much power and for how long it can deliver that power into that load. Well, never mind "...musical transients" we can see from above that the Theil CS 2.4's practically live in that impedance region. Now the BHK 300 seem to be spec'd much more up to the task, though the amps are not quite doubling down to 2 Ohms. So one is paying for some unused power over the vast majority of the time. Still this would appear to be a pretty good match. Notice the last sentence: "....,though it will perform best with speakers having and impedance of 4 Ohms and above.-John Atkinson I have no doubt that these are fine amplifiers, and that they can provide much enjoyment, but at nearly $15K I think one could find amplification better suited to the demands of speakers like the Thiel CS 2.4's I don't mean to pick on PS audio (FWIW, I'm quite impressed with their digital products, though they are rather expensive), similar results can be found on many of the other highly touted amplifiers. |
I listened to a pair of Harbeth super HL5 plus tonight and I think these may take my Thiels' spots. Definitely a non-fatiguing sound, with the best ability to separate individual instruments of my listening so far. Also the best chamber music and jazz trio presentation, with a palpable sense of the players in the room. I've heard better renditions of the Tympani shots in Sibelius 1/Scherzo, but i could pick out the instruments, hear the wood in the strings, and feel the venue. I discovered some new information in each of my audition tracks. And, important for us apartment dwellers, they still drew me in at low volumes For those interested, the other equipment was Aurender-Backert Rhumba-Bryston 4B cubed. |
Disagree, unsound, with wholesale dismissal of multiple brands known to work with Thiels, including those with sub 4 ohm impedance. It’s complicated to predict the interaction between impedance and phase angle, never mind how the partnering amp will interplay. The measurements can flag models unlikely to work and those likely to work but there is a large in-between that can only be known by listening. Also, there is the room and the listener’s preference. The Ayre AX-7 drove my CS1.6 louder than I cared for as does my AX-5 drive my CS2.4. In responding to a PM from jafant, I estimate my personal upper limit of comfort at the listening position (9’ away) to be about 85 dB. There’s about another 12 dB available before clipping with my particularly combo of amp and DAC. My experience with the CS7.2 was also powered by Ayre, either a V-1 or V-5. And my CS3.7 demo was in the Rowland room at RMAF. Wes Phillips reported that his 35 W Fisher wasn’t his first choice for the CS2.4 but “it didn’t acquit itself too badly”. General guidance of amp brands is useful but not any more so than actual reports from users who have tried specific combos of Thiel and amp. Even for the CS5, I’m confident that there are suitable amps from most of the brands you mentioned. |
pwhinson, Did you ever figure out that electronic digital glare/sound experienced while auditioning the 9H loudspeakers? I believe that I was hearing the same effect earlier this week with the BlueSound Node2 / Bryston Pi playing ROON/Tidal files? I did not detect any extraneous "sound" while playing CDs on the same system. Happy Listening! |
Thanks for the responses guys! I have a buddy going to listen to the one pair of 2.4s that will need to be shipped if I decide on them. (He’s taking his Laptop and Mytek DAC with familiar music to demo) We both have Revel F208s, although his are 2 channel duty and mine are L/R part of a HT/MCH music system in a massive open living area. The 3.6s are semi-local to me (in Texas at least) lol but haven’t contacted that seller as of yet. Thanks again and I’ll update when I have something going. |
"Not to pick on any specific brands, but the some of the often
recommended amps from companies such as Ayre, Bryston, Pass, PS Audio,
etc. might work wonderfully with some Thiel’s, but are not designed or
spec’d by those very manufactures, (independent testing, such as those
found in Stereophile will also confirm this) for the sub 4 Ohm loads of
some later model Thiel’s." I cannot comment on some of the other brands listed by Unsounds, but the PS audio BHK 250 amp is magnificent with my 3.7's, and i have a friend who sold a Classe amp to get the BHK for his 3.7's, and he too is very impressed and pleased. the only thing better would be to get the BHK mono blocks. |
Laser - I, also, have not heard either speaker, but can provide a broad outline. As time progressed, each model line (1,2,3, etc.) benefited from accumulating knowledge and solutions. So, in some ways, the latest speaker was the greatest due to benefiting from newly developed technologies, usually in higher-numbered series. The 3.6 is 1993; its tweeter is from the 1988 CS5, and the other drivers are then-state-of-the-art Thiel designs. A 1996 midrange XO change smoothed out the upper midrange. Considered an all-time great. The 2.4 is 2003; its tweeter is from the 7.2 with double-cone coincident coax ideas from the 7s. So, even though the 2.4 is for smaller rooms with less bass capability, it possesses more advanced technological solutions than the 3.6. The 2.4 is an audiophile darling. If your room is large, you like deep, loud bass and can sit farther away (at least 8'), the the 3.6 might suit you better. If smaller space, closer position and with more delicacy, the the 2.4 might do better. By the way, they are both on the hot-rod upgrade list for future upgradibility. Beetle and Holco have tricked out their 2.4s. Note that the 3.6 has relatively less room for improvement than the 2.4. The 3.6 stock parts quality is higher. I hope I haven't buried you in TMI. Context sometimes helps some people wade through complex comparisons. There is no substitute for your own ears, if you can arrange to hear them both. |
Large threads like this are good for maintaining a specific community. On the other hand, large threads like this can become cumbersome to sort through for very specific considerations. With that said, let me again point out, as I oft have; that over generalized recommendations about amp compatibility with Thiel’s can be misleading. In past times, Thiel recommended amp brands for the speakers made at the time. Later models have different powering needs. Those previous recommendations may no longer apply to later model Thiel’s. I’d also suggest caution in reading too much into what Thiel or any other manufacturer used at shows. One might assume that accompanying gear was specifically hand selected by the manufacturer to demonstrate the utmost capabilities of their own gear. The truth often is; that rather than transporting crates of heavy equipment over great distances, the manufacturers depend on local dealers to assist in providing gear for demonstrations. Those local dealers might have their own convenience or agenda at the top of their priority list. Not to pick on any specific brands, but the some of the often recommended amps from companies such as Ayre, Bryston, Pass, PS Audio, etc. might work wonderfully with some Thiel’s, but are not designed or spec’d by those very manufactures, (independent testing, such as those found in Stereophile will also confirm this) for the sub 4 Ohm loads of some later model Thiel’s. Be wary of dealers selling(!) you otherwise. |