[pistolpete]

Has anyone else here compaired these two speakers?  I have a couple times in two different stores, and found the 1.6s to sound better.  It was very odd that the 1.6s seemed to have a fuller bottom end, but still one could tell the 2.4s went deeper.  In both stores the speakers were in different room with different gear. 
I KNOW, when I am closer to buy time, I will compair in same room with same gear.  Just looking for ANY feedback on this and any other Thiel gear.
Thanks, Pete

[denjo]

Pete
I moved up from the 1.6 to the 2.4. Yes, the 1.6 had a bit more character and at 90 dB was easier to drive. But, I found the lack of bass was its Achilles' heel! The 2.4 has the Thiel signature and should sonically sound very much like the 1.6, perhaps more neutral. The Thiels are extremely fussy with positioning: get it wrong, and they sound dull, nondescript. But, if you get the placement right the Thiels are extremely engaging. Although Jim Thiel himself recommends no toe-in (but is not averse to slight toe-in, depending on room conditions), I have found that toe-in for my 2.4s work well. I toe them in so that from my listening position I cannot see the speaker sides. I am quite intrigued myself why Thiels do not have a bigger following. Most people I know are disdainful and frown on Thiels, describing them as "bright", unexciting, etc. They are absolutely neutral that is for sure and simply expresses sonically what one's system is! One other caveat: adhere to Thiel's recommended listening distance from the speakers. With the 2.4s I find that 9 feet gives me a sweet spot. No nearfiled listening with Thiels!
I feel that Thiels grow with the listener. They don't have that "wow, stand up and boogie" factor but extended listening will make you realise how extremely neutral they really are.
If you want your music to go to the lower, seismic regions and if you have an amplifier to pump enough power, go for the 2.4s. The bass is not bloated or in your face. As one reviewer put it, you feel the bass more than you hear it!

Dennis

[pistolpete]

Dennis,
Thanks for the info. 
I have a Bryston 4B-SST that I think should power either speaker well.  I hope to hear the 2.4s in a proper setup, as it is the 2.4s I have had my eye on.  I am about a year away from buying, and almost 100% sold on Thiels.  I just wish the 3.6's replacement wasn't going to coat 10K !!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob Reynolds]

I don't know how the costs would compare, but you might consider the PCS and one of Jim's subwoofers. One advantage that sat/sub systems have over floorstanders is that the bass and M/T can be placed in a room independently of each other. Placing a floorstander for good imaging and soundstaging is unlikely to be good for bass.

This review may be of interest: http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/thiel2/trio.html

Here's a quote that I think is very relevant.


Why? Placing two full-range speakers in any room must be done with expert care if one is to achieve anywhere near the bass linearity that the SS2 was providing - if it can be achieved at all. If you can find such an orientation, count yourself very lucky if the speakers end up being positioned for anywhere near optimum imaging and soundstaging at the same time. That's why I've been subwoofing for 15 years. The likelihood of being able to successfully shoehorn a pair of large full-range speakers into a room -- and particularly one of moderate size -- looks well nigh impossible alongside the relative simplicity and almost guaranteed success of a pair of monitors with an adjustable powered subwoofer. Of course you still have to properly mate the sub to the speakers. But that the PX02 makes easy as pie.



It turns out that it's very very hard to beat a properly done sat/sub system.

BTW, Pete, your user name is interesting. Do you happen to like basketball?