I haven't compared the two, but I have a 3.5 available for sale if you are interested.
6 responses Add your response
It's been a long time since I compared them, but my failing memory is that the 2.2 was the *overall* better speaker by a small margin. The 3.5 had better bass extension, but it did so by means of an equalizer that somewhat compromised the bass quality compared to the 2.2. There were/are aftermarket mods to the equalizer that can improve it substantially, though. In the highs, the 3.5's advantage in air and spaciousness over the earlier CS2 was negated to a large extent, I thought, in the 2.2, though I still felt the 3.5 was better at portraying an air of spaciousness in recordings. Both speakers are quite flat in the highs, meaning that they might sound tilted to the bright side in overall tonal balance; I recall the 2.2 was a little more refined and less bright than the 3.5, and I think that's why the general consensus was that it was all-around a better speaker. I personally would have taken a 3.5 over the 2.2 for the bass extension, since I listen to a lot of Mahler and organ recordings; it was always one of my favorite speakers, the first one I heard that showed me what the high end was all about.
David: After looking at your ad, I would not think that the 2 2s (I should not have said 2.2, as Bose sued Thiel over that "point" between the 2s and got Thiel to change the name--sorry, Bose, it won't happen again) would be a substantial improvement over the 3.5s. Updating a crossover, even with the same spec'd parts, is likely to result in a substantially better-performing unit, although you'd obviously be in a better position to know from hearing it. Since you know the sound of the 3.5s, I'd summarize the difference by saying the 2 2 is less spacious-sounding, a little more coherent and a little less bright, with slightly less extended but better quality bass. If your listening biases don't take you below 30-40 hz, it is a better speaker.