Focal Sopra 2 vs Sopra 3?


Has anyone compared side by side? If so what were the differences?

tnx.
2bz
Same time but two different rooms and different electronics. Think overall sopra no 3 is more full range which makes it sound bigger and also more nuanced in mid range. Hoping to test them both in same room with same electronics soon, I'm considering both and a few other alternatives as well.
If you have the room, get the 3.  If your room isn't big, go with the 2 and you will be thrilled.  

The 3 will sound considerably better than the 2 if the room is big enough, but the 3 will sound considerably worse than the 2 in a small-medium sized room.  
my room is approx. 18' x 12' (I say approx. because there's a portion of my chimney in there and it's "L" shaped. I was surprised the 3's only went 1HZ lower than the 2's. I would think the 2 with a sub might be money better spent?

tnx...2bz.
Friends and I went to two different dealers (1 in CT the other MA) listened to the Sopra 2 both places the sound was unlistenable! Were really hoping for something special. 

I bought the 3s after listening to the 2s. The 3 are more full range and better balanced. Fuller midrange and really smooth going to the tweeter. My room is large but not the width. Even close to side walls the 3s disappear
@rsf507 ,
Can you please elaborate "unlistenable". That is totally NOT what I found about Sopra when setup properly. I was in a properly treated room (Vicoustic) and the Sopras sounded pretty good with a nice bottom end. The front end was Simaudio and Hegel. Wiring was Nordost Valhalla 2.

@2bz this goes to prove how a speaker can sound so different in one setup Vs the other. Hence it is recommended that you try to audition yourself, rather than depending on users. Take our experience as a "guide", but not as "your experience".
I auditioned both speakers at a dealer.  Both were very good, but the Sopra No. 3 was clearly superior.  Everything the No. 2 did well, the No. 3 did better.  The No. 3's had better resolution, better dynamics, better transparency, and created a larger, deeper soundstage.  The No. 3 were exceptional at reproducing large scale symphonic music with authority and weight, whereas the No. 2 started to sound a bit compressed and congested in comparison.  Both were auditioned with Audio Research electronics.  I ended up buying the No. 3.  It is a magnificent, stunningly musical speaker.
I auditioned the 2's and so wanted to like them. I didn't. I actually liked the Sopra 1's better as I thought they were better balanced. So did I buy the Sopra 1's? Well, no. I also listened to the Wilson Sabrina which I though were quite good. I wound up with a speaker I liked better than any if the ones I just mentioned- Revel Studio 2's. Never heard the Sopra 3's. 

I will say that I gave also heard the Sonus Faber Olympica 3's, which I think are pretty terrific. The Olympica 2's sounded anemic to me. 
I heard the Olympica 2’s with Audio Reaserch and I found then anemic too.
Too much silky and soft to my taste, overall I was disappointed from every Sonus Faber speakers I listened to.Overtime I learned to prefer speakers that have more professional/ studio approach( not the fancy looking ones) such as Proac, ATC,Bryston act.
I'm not up in the more rarified air of buying Sopras, but if I was for my 13.5'x18' room I'd definitely do No.2. I wouldn't consider the 3 without twice that space. This is basically the dilemma you find between the 936 and 948; ever so much deeper bass and the dispersion characteristics of the narrower baffle vs. the wider baffle. I think the only way to rightly compare them isn't in the same room, but rather rooms appropriate to their intended size. I feel I'm missing nothing with 936 as opposed to 948's and I suspect the same would be true with No.2's and No.3's if the room is more appropriate for the 2's. 
Holy cow so well said and I absolutely agree.