Thiel CS3.7 and CS2.4 comparisons?



Has anyone compared these two speakers? I have auditioned the 3.7s a number of times and really liked them. But I never bought them for financial reasons over the last year...

Specifically I would like to know how vocals on the CS2.4s compare. But any information on them would be helpful.

My room is 12X20X8 and the CS2.4 might be a better fit anyway. I am looking at other speakers too but would like to keep the thread to just these two speakers.

Thanks,
James.
james63
Attention ALL Thiel owners.

Regardless of your favorite Thiel model (I have CS6s and 2.4s) you MUST, I repeat MUST, give them ample time to break in, if you don't then you will miss out on what they can do when they finally do (extended and clear bass, sweeter mids and highs and deep and wide soundstage).

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

Give them time.
My comment-USED Thiels CS 2 2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.6 and 3.7 with good electronics are tough to be VALUES
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.