Comparison of Thiel CS2.4 vs. Vandersteen 3A Sig.

Interested in hearing about any comparisons between these two speakers, Thiel CS 2.4 and Vandersteen 3A Signatures, integration into rooms, ability to drive speakers, sound quality, any new updates or options that should be considered, etc.
Pops, you could be right. Must be contagious though. The comments from friends and visitors on my system seem to be...effortless, smooth, and detailed more than anything else.
Maybe its the water.
Hi Braro,

The 3As should be much more dynamic than you describe. Mine have plenty of slam and jump factor. What is the rest of your system like?

Just curious...
While ancillary equipment is important I don't think you can change the fundamental characteristics of either of these speakers. Thiel's = cool, dry, analytical, revealing. (Not a "harsh" word here for them). Vandersteen 3A Sigs = warm, lush, involving. It really does come down to personal preference. I lean toward a warmer, more involving sound at the expense of precise imaging and ultimate detail retrieval--and therefore the Vandy's. However, unlike the 5A's (and to a lesser degree the Quatro's) in which the bass response can be tuned to the room, the 3A is overripe, fat and ponderous. To my ear this is the fatal flaw of all the Vandy designs below the Quatro. In addition, the sub-Quatro models also are lacking in their ability to portray dynamic gradations (micro and macro). These speakers are like warm cozy slippers--great for a Sunday morning but you wouldn't want to work in them all day--or at least I wouldn't. The Quatro is really the starting point for this brand (and as such is a costly "entry level" model) and the 5A is in an entirely different league. Ultimately, having heard both the Thiel's and the Vandy 3A Sigs with the "right" ancillaries, I believe there are far better choices out there that present somewhere between the two extremes.