The Thiels can definitely sound bright with the wrong choices of amplification, interconnects and room, but I've been fortunate with all of the above and they sound just right, though perhaps not 'cool'. However, I'll take a risk and say that there are many more 'musical' speakers out there. No doubts about the Thiel's coherence, imaging, all the technical specifics. Your gray area question of 'drawing the listener into a more *musical* experience' are not a selling point of Thiels in my experience, they lack a certain 'boogie factor', perhaps because they are so accurate. I certainly like mine for what they are, and have not heard the Gershmans, but might ask you to look farther afield to sample other mfgs interpretation of 'drawing you into the performance'. Don't rush it... Also read the thread about 2.3 power requirements elsewhere in this forum.
Gershman RX-20 /Thiel's 2.3's:Too Soft or Bright??
Need input on the "sonic" differences of these two speakers.I have heard Thiel's 2.3---generally liked them for their accuracy and coherence, but they sounded cool and analytical.I have not heard the Gershman RX-20 which have been recently ungraded. My question is which speaker will sound more musical, that is, the ability of drawing the listener into the music and providing something new about it. These are both expensive hi-end speakers, though the Gershman are about $500 more than the Thiel's. They both "should" provide "hi-end" baseline performance in terms of credible soundstaging, accuracy, etc. All reasonable comments appreciated. (FYI, I have a 15X20 room with a high ceiling; I listen to classic 60's rock(especially Grateful Dead) Big Band, some classical, and jazz, e.g. Dave Samuels, Spiro Gyra, Benoit and Flim)