Need info on amp rec. for these Thiel cs2.4's

Yea, I've had a pair of 2.3s for almost 15 years. The 2.4s are meant to be a real improvement -- but relatively similar. They definitely appreciate some real current, and don't do very well without it, at least in my experience. I've also found the new ones (new Thiels in general) can sound kinda awful until they break in. I got mine used (serial numbers 212 & 213, so they were relatively old when I got them in ’99), and never had to go through the breakin process myself, but I’ve heard new Thiels in shops several times, and they really don’t sound great new: brighter, anemic, pretty unimpressive coherency, and just plain flat (and not flat in a good way). I suspect that is an especially unsatisfying answer given your time frame, but not sure that there’s any real getting around it.

Over the years, I fed the 2.3s with all manner of permutation. Originally it was a VTL TL 2.5 in front of a Bryston 4b-st. Then swapped out the VTL for a Rogue 99 Magnum. Then the Rogue for a Plinius CD-LAD. Then both the Bryston and the Plinius for Rowland gear. Source-wise, went from a tubed CDP, to a Meridian 508.24, to a MHDT Havana DAC, to an Ayre QB-9. So, I’ve swung back and forth between tubes and solid state for everything other than amplification. None of it sounded bad, and really comes down to a matter of taste. And for taste, I can’t even manage to keep mine the same over the years, so I wouldn’t dream of foisting it on anyone else. Most recently, I swapped out the Thiels for something else (which, I must admit, I like a whole lot more), but am actually still running the Thiels in a second (ill-conceived and arguably downright strange) computer set-up.

In short, I guess that the Thiels are really known for being somewhat on the precise side. Call it flat, neutral, clinical, etched, bright, resolving or whatever – which you pick is really a value judgment – really comes down to whether you like that sound or not. For years, I found myself reaching for warm, lush more organic electronics in order to dial them back to more of a medium ground. The Thiels present a great lens for seeing into the character of whatever you end up with up-stream, that’s for sure. But pair them with anything tending towards the brighter side, and that’s very much what you’re going to get. (Not at all familiar with the NAD you’re using, so no guess on what synergies might be in play there). Gosh, I ramble.

Guess four things in short. Thiels can sound great, no question. Thiels like power and current, my rule of thumb has always been at least 200 wpc, doubling to 400 at 4 ohms. Many get by with less, but I wouldn’t choose to. Thiels benefit, to my tastes, from warmer electronics, and can spin out of the range of enjoyable if paired with gear that reinforces their brighter leanings. And, finally, new Thiels seem to need a lot of exercise before settling down. So, getting too far down the road of making commitments on 1-3 before working out no. 4 can be tricky. Yea, kinda sucks, but don’t know what to tell you. My experience, FWIW. Best of luck.

Curious to hear how the Channel Island monoblocks treat you. Had some Rowland 201s (class D monoblocks) on my 2.3s for a spell, and liked it just fine. Class D definitely elicits some strong reactions. As it's a relatively new way of going about high-end amplification, I suspect that there were some early efforts that weren't that swell and turned a lot of folks off of the idea. By all accounts, however, the technology has continued to improve. The Rowlands I have were relatively early, and I understand that things have only gotten better. Hopefully the Channel Island kit will be just what the doctor ordered. Certainly look promising to me (which is worth exactly nada, but anyway). Enjoy.