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
james63
534 posts
 
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.
nolitan
865 posts
 
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 !
rtn1
535 posts
 
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.
andromedaaudio
170 posts
 
Very scientific test .
andromedaaudio
170 posts
 
I mean not off course , you should always test with the same "upstream" components /room , stereophile has a fine balance off testing :listening/measurements
More to discover