Thiel 3.7 vs Wilson Sasha

Mr_bill,

Do you think these two speakers are very close? Can you specify the pros and cons while comparing these two speakers? I don't have opportunity to compare these two speakers side by side. Thank you.

I've owned WP 5.1's and Thiel 2.4's. One of the things Wilson speakers are known for is their electrostatic like resolution of low level detail. The material used in their cabinets, while expensive, absorbs less energy than conventional MDF. While my 5.1's had issues, they did have that spooky realism of an electrostatic along with the slam of a good dynamic speaker. I suspect the cabinet material contributes toward this.

The Thiel 2.4 actually had a better sense of 3D space than the Wilson's in my listening room. But, I couldn't hear detail down the the noise floor as I could on the Wilson. In short, the 5.1's were so revealing I could hear micro details at lower volume levels as one could do with the Quad ESL 63. The Thiel simply didn't have the resolving power and required increased volume. I realize an argument can be made that the 5.1's resolving ability resulted from an overly hot upper midrange and treble. Which is why the later WP's have moved toward retaining the resolving power while reducing the excessive brightness of the 5.1.

My question to those that have heard the Thiel 3.7 and the Sasha is this. Can the 3.7 resolve low level detail as well as the electrostatic like Wilson or does it require increased volume levels?

Egrady,

"Can the 3.7 resolve low level detail as well as the electrostatic like Wilson"

In short yes. The 3.7s are one of the most resolving box speakers I have ever heard. But I have never heard a box speaker get more details in the mids than a good electrostatic (wilsons are far from it too...). I also own a pair of CS2.4, while they are a good speaker the 3.7 is on another level.

I find it interesting you found the Wilson more revealing than thiel. Was it just in the highs or was it also in the mids and bass? I am not a stickler for highs and find most good speakers recreate the highs good enough for me because of my tastes I may not have noticed the CS2.4s short coming in the highs (if it exists). But I am very picky about the mids and bass. I like a LOT of midrange detail and smooth textured bass. In those two areas I feel Thiel hit a home run with the 3.7s.

I recently heard also the Magico Q5 and the M5 series.
Both driven with super high end gears.
Definitely i can appreciate the refinement of these speakers.
But for a floorstander, it isn't quite as full range sounding as say a Wilson Sophia or sasha.
For the amount of $ these speakers are involved, I'd really have to think twice about them.
I've also recently heard the Sophia 3s and the Sashas.
For the cost of these speakers compared to the Magicos,I'd put my money on these speakers and spend the rest on electronics.
However, I can understand why some people would prefer the Magicos over the other speakers.
As they say, to each his own !

I'd pick the Thiel 3.7s over both the Wilson Sasha and the Magico Q5.

Thiel makes an excellent speaker at their respective price point. Not perfect, but again, consider the price.

To Egrady, I always thought my 7.2s required some volume to become involving. Not excessively loud, but they need to move some air to get the detail. In contrast, my Avalons sound fantastic at a whisper or a roar. The 7.2 was such a great speaker, it took the Avalon Isis to get me interested in upgrading.