Thiel speaker model range

niodari,

FWIW, from my experience of having lived with the CS6s (years ago), and now the 3.7s and 2.7s...

I agree the CS6 has more substantial bass than the 3.7s.   It was denser, more punchy, and goes a bit lower.  I remember the CS6s as giving the best bass I've ever had in my system and I still don't think anything has surpassed it overall.  (At least going on my memory).

The 2.7s are interesting because in some respects they actually remind me more of the CS6 than they do the 3.7s.  The 2.7s have that amazing dense, punchy quality like the CS6s, except it's shifted upward somewhat into the upper bass region.  And they have that CS6 like density of imaging. 

The 3.7s have, to my ear, the most refined midrange of all the Thiels I've owned or heard.  Just really low in noise, super transparent and delicate in nuance.  The midrange sounds more "complete" and lush, relative to the other models like the CS6 which have a mild reductive quality - instruments get just a bit smaller and thinner on those models, a character I tended to remain aware of when I had those speakers.  (But generally speaking, instrumental timbre and density was so beautiful, it made up for it).

And the 3.7s are by far the imaging champs.  They still image like nothing else I've had in my room (or heard from any speaker near it's size).  And they are overall the most coherent and boxless sounding of any Thiel speaker I've had or heard.  As I've mentioned before, in terms of eliminating obvious speaker colorations (e.g. hearing the box),  from top to bottom, and sounding holographic and uncolored top to bottom,with no frequency response bumps or nodes sticking out,  I honestly have never heard the equal in any other set up.  It blows me away every time I use them.

That said, I'd love to hear the CS6s again some time, just to re-visit that wonderful sound.

Thanks, and just one small complement: I had no chance to verify, but I may suggest that the recently rebuilt coaxes sound beter than the originally fabricated ones 15 years ago, as newer made pieces and perhaps somehow upgraded ones were used (I had no chance to audition a pair of CS6  with original coaxes lately)  - or that is not possible? 

And I agree that CS3.7 midrange is really lovely, but I am not sure comparing the overall performance of CS6 and CS3.7. Why you think that CS3.7 are more coherently sounding? This also has much to do with speaker placement and room characteristics which might be more appropriate for one or another type of speaker. 

I can only say that the CS6 displayed in my room the same characteristics I heard in other rooms, though I had a long time to play with many positions of the speaker in the room, and listening heights, etc, and hence I think I got as good a picture of that speaker as I could.

So I'm comparing what I remember of the CS6 to the 3.7 in the same room, which has been an excellent room for a variety of large floor standing speakers.

As I said, it's been years since I had the CS6s, but I do remember what I loved and didn't love quite as much about them quite distinctly.  (They remain one of my favorite speakers, which is why I sought out the 3.7s)

Both speakers CS6 and CS3.7 have similar skeletons,  a single coax drive, a woofer and a passive radiator.  Perhaps, the coherence has to do something with woofer/low frequencies, the more you have them, less coherent sound the speakers? So one chooses what prefers. I think CS6 give all the sensations a speaker may reproduce, I can precisely feel and hear the way a record is made, how it was recorded, etc. They give open, clean, realistic sound and  I do not feel that there is some real lack in midranges (with CS3.6s a little lack of midranges (and also a bit of high frequencies) is notable though). 

When I will have a chance, I will again try to audition CS3.7s which I think are significant valuable speakers. 

Excellent discussion and valuable information here guys.
Happy Listening!