|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.63.144.215
I am a Maggie guy, but have always like the Thiel sound...the 1.6's and 2.4's, I always thought were good values...with the 2.4's IMHO, reaching its place as an iconic speaker...
But have not heard very much about the 2.4's replacement, the 2.7's...
I personally have not heard the 2.7's...
With Jim's passing and the company going in a different direction (s), I am guessing that Jim's designs are going to become more coveted by Thiel fans...
The reason for this curiosity, cursing Agon, I see Saturday Afternoon Audio, ???, not sure about the name off hand...seems to move quite a bit Thiel's older models...but I saw the first listing for the 2.7's a couple of weeks ago and that particular speaker, I have yet to see a private owner selling a pair...
Just wondering what Thiel owners opinions on the differences of the 2.4's verses the 2.7's...
I have no dog in this fight what so ever...just curiosity of a speaker brand that I have admired and never owned...
thanks
Mark
Follow Ups:
Was that "Thou shall make phase coherent"
:-)
Could not resist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
It is worth remarking about as both Thiel and Vandersteen loudspeakers are of a 1st order, cross-over design, yet, 2 very different presentations upon audition.
How would you characterize their differences? Have you heard both the 2.4 and the the Treo?
Thiel is very evenly balanced speaker capable of playing very load with no observable distortion. Very coherent sound, spacious, with more of the back of the hall imaging. However, it presentation is very dry restrained which also completely falls apart at low levels.
Vandy can not play that loud, it is slightly less (even in its presentation and can not play that loud. Presentation is more of the middle of the hall. However, it is more musical speaker with great ease and natural flow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
Thanks for your observations.
My pleasure ST.
Not to be misled, I do like the Vandy 2 and 3 series, just did not find the magic in the Treo nor Quattro models, which was disappointing considering all of those hyped-up reviews by the Audio press.
Recently, I did read were the Treo was getting an upgraded 'carbon' driver. I will post here if I find a dealer/retailer that has a pair for audition through my travels.
I heard the 7 (top model) driven by Brinkmann gear and that was phenomenal. Really came as a surprise being an all SS setup (Brinkmann amps though don't use feedback...at least global).
As for Thiels, they really need very musical amp and then they sing wonderfully...even at low levels. We drove my friend's 3.7s with my KR audio VA350i and VAC 30/30 and the sound was magic. Put on most SS and the sound is bright an edgy...a truthful speaker IMO.
Thanks! for sharing. A truthful speaker, indeed.
Understood.
If you hear the Treo with the carbon drivers...please report back!!!!!
Excellent observation Stale.
If the Vandy is considered 'fast' then the Thiel is 'super-fast'.
We all know that each manufacturer uses different composition in its respective drivers, yes, this is one major difference. Perhaps it is an out-board x-over making the decision, certainly it plays a factor?
I, personally, listen to Rock/Hard Rock and Jazz. To my ears, the Thiel nails these genres perfectly. This is not a speaker for the faint of heart...
Sure-
I have auditioned the Thiel CS 2.4 & 2.4SE, as well as , the Vandy Treo & Quattro.
The Thiel is truly full-range, does not hold back any dynamics of the music (most important). It plays well (no pun) w/ both tube/ss gear.
Easy to place in a room. Plays loud as Hell on Rock music.
I found the Vandy to be softer/rolled off on the top octave?
I has a nice sound, seemed to hold back on dynamics compared to the Thiel. After all of the review hype surrounding the Quattro, i am disappointed- can be difficult to place in a room and requires its own cross-over. Associated gear were ARC, Anthem, Aesthetix, Ayre, Bryston, Creek,
NAD, Cary, Esoteric. Associated cables/cords were Audioquest, Silent Source, Signal, Wireworld & Transparent.
I seem to recall at least one pro reviewer characterizing the Quatro as a "fast" sounding speaker with an almost clinical, hyper-detailed upper-frequency presentation. Your characterization ("softer/ rolled off") would seem to suggest something quite the opposite.Care to comment? Is it possible that a different room and/or a different stack of components might make the Quatros sound... different?
Edits: 04/06/14 04/06/14
I concur. Active bass management is dicey at best. IMO, this design is suited for subwoofer(s) only.
Thanks. The difference may come down to driver materials.
Also, I am not a fan of speakers with outboard crossovers and active bass management...I just prefer simplicity. Even reviewers went bonkers trying to dial in Vandy bass on the active line.
Mark-
me as well, I am awaiting to demo the CS 2.7-
You would be hard-pressed to find find a better value via the CS 2.4 at this juncture. Keep me posted if you audition the 2.7...
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: