2. speakers
  3. 1278947419

Thiel 3.7 vs Wilson Sasha

I auditioned Thiel 3.7 and Wilson Sasha recently. The upstream for 3.7 is Bryston BCD-1+BP 26+7B SST2+Cardas Neutral Reference cables, while the upstream for Sasha is Ayre CX-7eMP+K5+V5+Tranparent Reference cables. Both speakers were driven very well. Let me compare them in each category below.
1. Treble: 3.7 is more reavling, 3.7 win.
2. Mid range: 3.7 is more reavling and transparent, while Sahsa is fuller, it all depends on your preference, a tie.
3. Bass: 3.7 is more reavling and transparent, while Sasha has an obvious deeper bass extension, and more weight. Sasha win.
4. Coherency: Both have great coherency. But from my point of view, 3.7 has an edge.
5. Color: 3.7 is very neutral and transparent. Sasha is neutral too, but it is a little bit towards warmth side.
6. Sound stage: both can produce a huge sound stage, a tie.
7. Imaging: 3.7's imaging is pin point sharp. Sasha has great imaging ability too. 3.7 win.
Overall, both are outstanding speakers. Personally, I prefer Thiel 3.7's sound signature. IMO, regarding price, Thiel 3.7 might be one of the best buy in High-End world.
actuary616
brianmgrarcom
1,317 posts
 
I, too, fully concur with Actuary's comparisons #1-10 except #3. IMO, I believe the CS3.7 wins in the bass department. I've auditioned Sasha while I was still deciding on what speakers to purchase and the bass I heard didn't come anywhere near the bass extension of the CS3.7...which was surprising.

I haven't heard either, but Wes Phillips stated this about the bass in the Stereophile review:

Choose not alone a mate
I briefly auditioned the Thiels while the Avalon Indras that I reviewed in October were still here. The two speakers were essentially cut from the same cloth—both had startling clarity and detail without the in-your-face quality usually implied by "detail." Like the Thiels, the Indras lack a sock-'em bottom end. Of course, the difference in price could buy the Thiels a pretty good subwoofer system. But shipping schedules kept the Indra/Thiel comparison brief, so I trotted out the trusty Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 8 system, because it's such a known reference point for a compact high-quality monitor.

The title track of the Dave Holland Quartet's Conference of the Birds (CD, ECM 1027) perfectly illustrated one of the W/P8's greatest strengths: The speaker propels music forward through its bottom-end impact. With Holland's big acoustic bass setting the pace, the piece loped along splendidly, with Sam Rivers and Anthony Braxton chattering away on flutes and soprano saxophones (switching from one to the other as required), while Barry Altschul supplemented the sound as needed with trap set, chimes, gongs, and marimba. The Thiels did a good job of delivering all that harmonic complexity, but the Wilsons had the nod in the slam department—which also means they had better pace.
james63
534 posts
 
Actuary616 and Jtein:

Congratulations on your new systems! I think you both did it right by making a short list and listening for yourself. Once your at this level in the game personal preference plays a big part.

Bvdiman

Your comments are interesting. I agree with you on the Sasha for sure but I did not find the 3.7 thin. Does your taste lean toward the warm side?

I think the best thing about both the Sasha and 3.7s that set them apart from other brands is there transients or in the words of Dave Wilson "dynamic contrast". They are both quick and detailed and fun to listen too while staying accurate.

I do feel that the Sasha (Wilsons in general) are voiced more by ear than Thiels speakers. Jim always stated he wanted total accuracy while Dave Wilson states he wants both accuracy and beauty. I feel that both these speakers represent want there designer was shooting for.

can you give me any comments on how the 3.7 compare to the Magico line. I see you have owned Both the mini and V3.
bvdiman
491 posts
 
James63,

In my quest, I value first and foremost the musicality aspect of things--in which the music, mediated through my stereo set, has to have that special ability to draw/drag me in emotionally into the performances. Neutral is more my taste, but coherency, tonal rightness, dense, organic and palpable presentations are also of top priorities. Not so big on imaging and soundstaging, but the fact that the Magicos do it well is an added bonus.

Three great speakers (in their own rights) to comment on, just so happen for my taste, Magico's balance slots in just nicely in-between the two--CS3.7 and Sasha.

During the Thiel audition, we felt its presentation to ultimately lack that organic, weighty feel, hence palpability, that, in spite of use with all tube Mcintosh 2301 (hope I got the model right) partnered with their dual 2in1 pre (tube section was used). Likewise the Krell Revel demo, albeit fuller sounding, but missing to our ears were some essential tonal harmonic richness and overtones which the ARC driven Sasha has.
actuary616 OP
38 posts
 
Bvdiman,

Sasha is a little bit fuller and warmer than 3.7. But for tonal balance, coherence, especially flat response in bass department, 3.7 definitely beats down Sasha. I value these characters as top priority. Although Sasha is a little bit warmer, 3.7 is more involving to my taste. I mainly listen to classic and jazz. I think 3.7 perform extremely well in these two genres. I played Mozart violin concertos recently, and I don't think 3.7 lacks organic and dense at all. IMO, 3.7 is the best speakers for jazz and piano music. I prefer 3.7 to Dynaudio Evidence Temptation system which costs more than 100K in these two categories.
BTW, sorry for my bad English. My native language is not English.
james63
534 posts
 
Bvdiman,

Thanks a lot for the detialed responce, it is exactly what I was looking for. Sounds like the Magico are pretty nice too. I can see why you thought the 3.7 were not organic.

I find them very music dependant and hit or miss based on music choise. Not the speakers fault but actually a sign of transparency.

In all the 3.7 are the only speaker of the three in my price range but I would try a different brand if I could fine a good deal on the used market. The only real turn off of Magicos for me is the lack of dispersion (I have not heard them) in the highs. I like a wide sweet spot because my wife joins me from time to time. I also think the sound stage is better with less toe in and narrow dispersion means they will need some toe in.

Thanks again and enjoy the music.
More to discover