Thiel CS3.7 and CS2.4 comparisons?

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.

02-07-11: James63
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.

i have a pair of cs2.3 speakers and when i listened to the cs3.7 i didn't find the bass to be any stronger than the cs2.3. to me the biggest difference seemed to be in the midrange where the cs3.7 seemed to have a bit more definition. but for my part i like the sound of my cs2.3 speakers and i think that they look better than the cs3.7 also (let's face it, there is an aspect to which audio equipment is sold as an article of furniture). that said, i thought that the cs3.7 is a nice sounding speaker although i probably tend to lean toward thiel; in part because i don't have a lot of motivation to "audition" lots of equipment since what i have sounds fine to me (my ears don't detect strong night and day differences in general).

02-16-11: Lrsky
James,
As a side note to the comment about Sound Labs...some people know this, others may not--Jim Thiel was actually a serious fan of Electrostatics--and once told me that he felt that that was the optimal way to build a speaker.

the thing that strikes me about sound labs speakers is that they are HUGE speakers but if you've got a huge room with high ceilings, they aren't bad looking speakers in my opinion. from the information on the website it sounds like they are interesting speakers. one of the advantages that they cite is because of low mass of the electrostatic sheet, the speakers can maintain relatively high impedance levels even at low frequencies, which reduces the strain on power amplifiers. on the other hand, because of the low mass you need a huge sheet to move enough air to drive low frequencies.

sound labs has an faq on the website that addresses the lifetime issue. according to them, the speakers have "heirloom" duration and are not particularly influenced by things like moisture, &c. the have some technical papers that you can also access from their website.