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.

Thank You All. . . for the Very helpful information.
A mention was made regarding the "Proper Set-up" for the Wilson WP7's. (?) If I purchased a used pair on-line, would I be out-of-luck with "correct" set-up? What are the proceedures required to set-up the WP7's for optimal performance?

Cinematic_systems -
Well said in a cohesive, organized and logical presentation. Therefore, if one is accepting of your argument, Wison's becoming esoteric, Amati's as visual works of art and Kharma's with their own issues... what then would you recommend as a decent speaker design (?) -- Accepting that a reasonable, but not outrageous, amount of money could purchase? (I guess "Value" would be a good word.)