Wilson Audio Watt Puppy 7 vs. Kharma 3.2

Extemely different speakers. Maybe even opposite ends of the spectrum.

Here goes:

Wilson WP 7: Very dynamic, detailed and good depth in bass. With proper setup and amplification, good imaging, soundstaging and sense of space. Can sound mechanical, bloated and slightly etched. Musicality is something you have to really work for.

Kharma 3.2 FE: Excellent coherence, inner detail, imaging and soundstaging. You should expect as much from a two way speaker. Good musicality although sometime a bit dry and lean. Depth of bass and dynamism is definitely it's weakness. Adding a subwoofer hurts coherence and does not add dynamism, only adds to depth.

I would say that depending on room size, musical tastes and accompanied equipment would make a suggestion on my part easier.

Sebastian has summarized the differences very nicely. Also listen to the Sophias; irregardless of their lower price, they combine some of the virtues of the 3.2 FE's with those of the WP7 and may be the most appropriate Wilson speaker to compare sonically to the smaller Kharma.

I will provide some additional information about my system. My room size is about 22' x 22' with a 20' high ceiling. Accoustics are difficult, due to several open walls leading into other rooms and windows. Equipment is Classe CA-401 amp and Mark Levinson CD player. My musical preference is jazz, but I also listen to some classical and some blues. I plan to upgrade the amp, source equipment & speaker cable shortly.

I have read that the dedicated Kharma sub integrates 'seemlessly' with the 3.2's to help on the low end. Perhaps this is not so. In that case, would a larger model of the Kharma provide the bass I need, or the bass a WP7 can provide? Or, would I loose something from the 2-way design of the 3.2? Thanks.

Jtinn, your description makes me believe that I wouldn't want to own either of them.

Oz

I think the 3.2s are nice, but no bass for over 20k would make me pause.