Thiel 3.7 vs Wilson Sasha

I now own the Thiel CS3.7 and Parasound JC1 monoblocks and JC2 preamp for almost 2 months now. All I can say is, "AHHH....THIS IS IT!" with a big wide grin.

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. The drummer and bassist sounded as if they did not have breakfast before the recording session! The Sasha gave me a sense of listening to two-dimensional hifi whereas the CS3.7 really made me feel the musicians and musical instruments are being played right there in my living room. So James63, you're right in your post in one of my threads. I saved $15k by getting the 3.7s over the Sasha.

I've heard Magico V2 driven by Soulution 720 preamp and 710 power amp. I thought I was in for a treat but to my shock, the whole thing sounded hard and uninvolving.

Accompanying a friend in search for new speakers we recently went on an audition spree. This friend has extensively auditioned the three set of speakers for weeks before finalizing, I, however, only attended his last.

The $20k+ Revel with all Krell Evo gears, excellent top to bottom extensions, but rather uninvolving. Thiel 3.7 with Mc Intosh latest cdp, amp and pre (cool looking stuffs with windows showing off their nice glowing tubes innards--can't recall model), good holographic soundstaging, but thin bordering on clinical sounding. Sasha with ARC smaller Ref gears (210 I think it was, plus their CD8), the bass could be a bit overbearing at times in the dealer's room, but with surprisingly most inviting mids of the three, albeit a tad on the warm side of neutral--overall the most involving package. All sources were digital.

He ultimately bought the Sasha, our group of friends present conclusively agreed that he had made the right choice based on what we all heard at the different dealer demos on that decisive day. Again, synergy, rooms etc could have played a part, but aren't dealers supposed to know and show off their gears at their best.

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.

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.

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.