jafant...
Just about anything that supports or is near something electronic in my humble abode rests atop, in, or on a Salamander rack. The piece in the virtual systems photo is the only one not from its Synergy series which I've had for years.
I appreciate the clean lines, understated design, and the heft of their construction - one of the foremost reasons I had from the outset was in providing as much isolation as possible. The block of maple under the BAT may be somewhat superfluous at this point, but what the hell. I don't need another cutting board in my kitchen.
I've been reading about one member's questioning a move from his 3.6's to the 6, whether or not such an investment is sonically worth it. From my experience, limited as it has been with 2.2, 2.3, 3.5, and now 3.6, I can state with some degree of accuracy that the differences between the first three models is, by comparison, modest in terms of anything relevatory. The difference in "moving up" from the 3.5 to 3.6 is remarkable. They are VERY different loudspeakers which, given my journey thus far, could have me pining for a 5 in short order. There again, I would assume that the 5 is VERY different from the 3.6.
I hasten to to add that, IMHO, the 3.6's are more detailed, perhaps even more focused on the mids than were/are the 3.5's - and all to an impressive degree. I don't believe I was missing anything with the 3.5's in that respect, but the 3.6's just deliver more - especially at the conservative level I listen at. I always had the 3.5 eq employed because I had no reason to question Thiel's engineering. The sacrifice in low end hertz with the 3.6's is hardly anything to kvetch about. (3.5's 20hz-20khz, 3.6's 27hz-20khz.) Sheesh, vot's a few hoitz between friends, anyway.
Since we now no longer have the opportunity to audition the legacy models, I guess I'm saying that moving up yields risk to some degree, but seeing how the speaker models evolve is a gas.
Just about anything that supports or is near something electronic in my humble abode rests atop, in, or on a Salamander rack. The piece in the virtual systems photo is the only one not from its Synergy series which I've had for years.
I appreciate the clean lines, understated design, and the heft of their construction - one of the foremost reasons I had from the outset was in providing as much isolation as possible. The block of maple under the BAT may be somewhat superfluous at this point, but what the hell. I don't need another cutting board in my kitchen.
I've been reading about one member's questioning a move from his 3.6's to the 6, whether or not such an investment is sonically worth it. From my experience, limited as it has been with 2.2, 2.3, 3.5, and now 3.6, I can state with some degree of accuracy that the differences between the first three models is, by comparison, modest in terms of anything relevatory. The difference in "moving up" from the 3.5 to 3.6 is remarkable. They are VERY different loudspeakers which, given my journey thus far, could have me pining for a 5 in short order. There again, I would assume that the 5 is VERY different from the 3.6.
I hasten to to add that, IMHO, the 3.6's are more detailed, perhaps even more focused on the mids than were/are the 3.5's - and all to an impressive degree. I don't believe I was missing anything with the 3.5's in that respect, but the 3.6's just deliver more - especially at the conservative level I listen at. I always had the 3.5 eq employed because I had no reason to question Thiel's engineering. The sacrifice in low end hertz with the 3.6's is hardly anything to kvetch about. (3.5's 20hz-20khz, 3.6's 27hz-20khz.) Sheesh, vot's a few hoitz between friends, anyway.
Since we now no longer have the opportunity to audition the legacy models, I guess I'm saying that moving up yields risk to some degree, but seeing how the speaker models evolve is a gas.