Thiel 3.6's - Stereophile measurements

I recently picked up a pair of CS3.6's in used, but excellent condition. I can hear no midrange suck whatsoever, and my typical listening position is 9-10' from each speaker. In fact, I would call midrange accuracy to be one of their strong points, along with imaging, and an uncolored presentation. At 14' back, you should be very happy with them, unless your room is very large, in which case you may want to consider the CS6's.

Before I bought my 3.6's, I also auditioned the new CS2.4's and the 1.6's (both of which I auditioned with and without subs). Yes, the newer models have greater focus than the CS3.6's, but I found that I appreciated the more laid back and full sound of the 3.6's - especially considering that my system is a tad on the bright side.

Also, as I recall, in a subsequent, and fairly recent Stereophile issue, one of their reviewers revisited the 3.6's and stating that he did not hear the midrange suck that the '93 reviewer found.

I would suggest that you consider looking at some of the used CS3.6's that are out there. Many appear to be in excellent condition, and Thiel is quite generous on extending warranty repairs in situations where the speakers have not been abused. IMHO, the CS3.6's are a real bargain, considering the frequency range, neutrality, accuracy, and incredible imaging. And again, their customer support is excellent, even on used gear.

Happy hunting, Tom.

Gnobber:

I wouldn't say that the imaging or the soundstage was necessarily better with the 2.4's. More like you were listening through a thin sheet of fabric with the 3.6's by comparison. So, I guess that would also mean that to my ears the 2.4's were brighter and less laid back. And by using that term for the 3.6's, I mean laid back only by comparison to other, newer, Thiels. In general, they are not what I would call a laid back speaker. And from what I could tell (not being able to do a direct A/B with identical systems), I did not think that the 2.4's had smoother treble. In fact, I'd say that my ears told me just the opposite. The 2.4's are great speakers. And they really wow you with their scalpel-like precision. Notes end exactly when they should. The definition between instruments is palpable. Overall, I liked them a lot. However, I liked the more full sound of the 3.6's, and I find the 3.6's to be a tad softer on the high end. Another factor in favor of the 3.6's is that the 2.4's don't feel like they are moving as much air. They just didn't have the same degree of weight to them, when the music calls for it.

Drubin:

Yes, I agree that the 2.4's are more forward sounding than both the 1.6's and the 3.6's. If you feel that the 3.6's take a bit of the edge off of your music, then the 2.4's are a better match. Conversely, if your system needs to have the reigns pulled in a bit on the high end, and needs a little beef added, then the 3.6's may be the ticket. I will say that the midrange focus on the 2.4's clearly exceeded that of the 3.6's. While I consider the 3.6's to have full, balanced midrange, by comparison to the 2.4's, the 3.6's sound slightly warm and fuzzy. With my system, and in my room, that is not such a bad thing. But if you had a fairly neutral system in an acoustically non-reflective room, the 2.4's (especially with a sub) would probably make you smile a little harder than the 3.6's.

All in all, they are both Thiels, and probably sound more alike than they do different.

Hope this helps, Tom.

Jazzdude:

Yes, I do mean "fuzzy" in the sense that you are thinking of, and I suppose that you could also use the word "opaque." However, keep in mind that I say this only "by comparison to the 2.4's" - which are so phenomenally "UN-fuzzy" and "UN-opaque". I would not say that the 3.6's are a fuzzy speaker. In fact, I very much like their detailed midrange. It's just that the 2.4's take this focus and detail to a higher level. Now, that may or may not be a great thing, depending on the rest of your system and room. Personally, with my setup, I prefer the more full sound of the 3.6's, and I am quite happy with their level of detail and accuracy.

Hopefully, I am not confusing you more than I already have...

Tom.