Thiel CS3.7 and CS2.4 comparisons?

Hi Audioguy3107,
last year I auditioned CS2.4s in Vienna. The setup was with Electrocompaniet electronics, the room was perfectly tuned as was the sound - absolutely perfect (when feeding a good record).
The same dealer has now Avalon Indras on display in the same room and I auditioned with a very expensive dcs digital source, a Pass pre and Electrocompaniet power amps. They sound more relaxed, bass is not as powerful, fast and detailed as compared to the Thiels.
In terms of 3dimensionality, detail, etc. the speakers are very similar.
So my clear personal conclusion is that I like the Thiels much more and then consider the price tag...
Regards, Joachim

>With daily playing, it took me almost three years to break in my 6s and almost two to, finally, break in the 2.4s.

!!!

02-07-11: Drubin
>With daily playing, it took me almost three years to break in my 6s and almost two to, finally, break in the 2.4s.

you always have to be careful when it comes to these "break in" comments because they often have more to do with the listener's perceptions than anything concerning the equipment. the fact that it took that long for the "speakers" to break in is most likely more indicative that it took you that long to get used to the sound of the speakers.

you hear these "break in" comments when it comes to electronic equipment, but you never have any factual basis for what changes in the equipment itself that would lead to the claimed changes in the character of the sound over the "break in" period. when you buy audio equipment that equipment has it's own sonic character and it can take a while for your ears to get used to the sound. if you were to change the parameters of a phono stage that you have had for 2 years you would likely experience another "break in" as your ears got used to the sound. it has nothing to do with the equipment. yes, some equipment is submitted to a "burn in" period before being shipped but the purpose for the burn in is to identify component failures. yeah, the marketing of the equipment may make claims that the burn in "matures" the sound of the equipment but that's largly bs.

i can believe that there might be some "break in" with speakers because of the mechanical nature of speaker operation, but 3 years is not a credible break in period and i can't imagine anyone who could legitimately claim that a break in would take that long.

You do realize that I was quoting Stevecham, right?

Soulbrotherjoachim,

Thanks for your comment, I was starting to wonder if I was losing it by thinking my $10,000ish system was out performing $30,000+ systems. I understand that people like different things but sometimes different is not better.

I was listening to the song "Lacrymosa" by Evenanesence on the Sophia 3. This song has a very low rolling bass note from a base guitar throughout the song and on the Sophia 3 I was not even sure I could hear it. But at home it is very defined and clear, down to where I can hear the individual string move. Also on the song "Layla" off Eric Clapton's unplugged album the bass drum lacks some impact on the initial hit of the head (bass is pretty low on this album too) when played through the Sophia.

After many demos of different types of speakers I have come to think passive radiators have real advantages over ports. They simple have a more pistonic movement (air flow) and seem to have more definition over a ports.

Anyway I am done shopping for now and will look again when I have a bigger house. I will most likely move up to the 3.7 (or go for broke with a good deal on something used), it sounded a lot like the 2.4 but with more bass, a more detailed/warmer mid, and had cleaners highs. But all in all more of a refinement over the 2.4 than a giant leap.