Wilson Audio Watt Puppy 7 vs. Kharma 3.2

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.

I listened to both, in depth, in several different systems, over several months a few years ago. These were the current versions of both speakers at the time. I don't know what their designations were.

I found both designs to be extremely pleasant to listen to. Although, I agree that the WP7 seems to fall victim to improper setup with greater frequency, I found both to be easy to listen to over a prolonged period, my first criterion for ownership.

I found myself most sensitive to the differences in the dynamics of these speakers' presentations. Orchestras, solo voices, drumkits and lutes, which span the full gamut in terms of their dynamic envelopes seemed more convincingly portrayed by the WP7s. As a result I felt more connected to the musical flow, be it rhythmic, melodic, etc. While there was never anything abruptly discontinuous about the Kharmas presentation, I didn't quite feel the sensation of being "permeated" by the music as I did with the WP7s, and at live events. Their musical radiation pattern seemed to stop short of wherever I was. This is not to say that the soundfield of the Kharmas was in anyway curtailed. In fact, I've seldom felt more immersed in the sound than when listening to these speakers.

There are many other differences between these speakers, any of which may be more important to you than anything I perceive as being particularly important. So, go listen. They are both astoundingly good, and deserve your full consideration.

Personally I think Jtinn is right on the money,in his description(especially regarding the Kharma sub,addition).I have heard both,on many occassions.I've even a/b'd both,in differing electronic configurations.The watt/pup's are a great MTV set-up(not a criticism,but you get the point).The 3.2's can do damn good bass.It MUST be set up right.Not deep,but when set up correctly,with proper amp/pre,like the LAMM stuff(please Jtinn,don't go on,about the virtues of the "Darts"),they are "ALL ABOUT IMMERSING YOURSELF IN MUSIC"!I can't put it any other way.BTW--I don't own LAMM or Kharma,but I know what moves me.Just my opinion,though.