Ken,
I'm using CS1.6's in front with an SCS3 center channel. If your system is strictly for HT this combo will work great for you. The 1.6's will be a better match for your receiver, than the 2.4's, as they are more efficient and a bit more forgiving. The 2.4's would really demand better electronics. For your HT use I feel the 1.6's will work better than the 2.4's, especially if you add the SW1. The only weakness the 1.6's have is their lack of low bass, which is moot by adding the SW1.
For your surrounds you don't want a floor standing speaker. Get something you can mount on the wall, or place on stands, at a position that is higher than ear level at your viewing position. I use M&K tripoles and they are great. I don't feel the timbre/voicing of the surrounds is nearly as critical as the fronts, so you can go with a different company for the surrounds. I picked the M&K's because they are specifically designed as surrounds. If you want to stick with Thiel, the PCS speaker will be more than sufficent.
Good luck.
I'm using CS1.6's in front with an SCS3 center channel. If your system is strictly for HT this combo will work great for you. The 1.6's will be a better match for your receiver, than the 2.4's, as they are more efficient and a bit more forgiving. The 2.4's would really demand better electronics. For your HT use I feel the 1.6's will work better than the 2.4's, especially if you add the SW1. The only weakness the 1.6's have is their lack of low bass, which is moot by adding the SW1.
For your surrounds you don't want a floor standing speaker. Get something you can mount on the wall, or place on stands, at a position that is higher than ear level at your viewing position. I use M&K tripoles and they are great. I don't feel the timbre/voicing of the surrounds is nearly as critical as the fronts, so you can go with a different company for the surrounds. I picked the M&K's because they are specifically designed as surrounds. If you want to stick with Thiel, the PCS speaker will be more than sufficent.
Good luck.