Thiel 3.7 vs Wilson Sasha

FWIW- I heard the 3.7 with Mac 1201's and the sound was sublime. If I was considering the 3.7's I would also want to hear them with the Mac's 2301's.

Maybe the Mac's transformers mitigate the upper mid range energy that James63 mentions.

I also agree that the 3.7's are a great bargain.

Based an a single experience walking into a showroom and listening to the Thiels (with expensive Krell electronics), I have to agree that dollar for dollar these were the best sounding speakers I ever heard (either that or this dealer had a magic setup touch). I had a somewhat similar revelation about 9 years ago with the revel studios - than 14K, which I ended up being able to afford used 8 years later. I never liked the Puppies (sounded worse than the Revels at twice the price) so I am somewhat negatively biased against Wilson.

Edorr,

I totally agree with you.

In Korea, The thiels and WPs are imported by the same importer so we can do a side by side comp. at the importer's showroom. Anyway, both speakers are truly great, for the price Thiel does a lot, but WP Sasha definitely beats out Thiel 3.7 in the bass department hands down but not sure if you want to spend that much more. James, for your Thiel 2.4, you should definitely consider used Naim audio set as a candidate. I am not sure what the model # was but they looked pretty old, may be from 90s, but they totally tamed the 2.4 beautifully.

Pkoh,

Thanks for the tip on the Naim. I have a dealer that carries them and I have heard them on Magnepan 1.7 and they seemed pretty good. I might give them a go some time.

Now back on topic.

Pkoh,

I would like more detail on how the bass compared. Was the Wilson truly better or did it just have more bass quantity/output? This is a real question and I am not trying to give you a hard time. I would really like to known. My thoughts on the subject are below feel free to disagree if you heard differently...

Wilson:
I ask because looking at measurements and listing to the Sophia 2, the woofer start to fall quickly around 40hz and the port picks up the rest. The combined outputs bring the bass down to 29hz. The Watt Puppy 8 (I have not see measurements of the Sasha) had a similar approach the port picking up the bass where the woof left off.

My issues with the port picking up the bottom-end is it looses texture and detail compared to a larger woofer etc. My other issues is the port is almost always a good 5-10 db lower than the woofers output. Making for lumpy bass at the extremes and room placement complications. In order to have the port the same loudness as the woofer it would need to be very long and thin, causing cuffing. The last problem I have with a port is the sound coming from inside the box (let out through the port...) is colored on many speakers.

Thiel:
Now the Thiels use a passive radiator which has some real advantages. The 3.7s woofer also takes a dive around 40hzb but the passive radiator acts just like a driver with piston motion. The piston motion maintains detail until the radiator drops off at 30hz. Also the output of the passive radiator is tuned to the same loudness as the driver (tensioning the surround and box volume used for tuning) and the speaker measures flat till 31hz with no boundary reinforcement. The last but most important advantage of a radiator is it helps block the internal noise of the box and does not create port noise.

So again my question, is the Sasha bass better or just more prominet? I question the 20hz spec honestly. I know many people would/will say the room will add bass down low... but it just muds it up for me.

Now with all that being said I really like the bass on both speakers but I heard them at different dealers with a large amount of time between auditions. But I think the radiator is great and I am at loss as to why more bands don't use them. They are a good trade off between a sealed box and ports.

Thoughs?