From Thiel CS6 to Wilson Sophia 2 or 3

Has anyone replaced a pair of Thiel cs6's with the current Wilson Sophia's and if so what were your impressions. I have the Thiels now and after listening to the Sophia 3, I feel they sound more natural, but am concerned that they are not as big or expansive as the Thiel. This may be the room or equipment. I am running the Thiels with a Classe 301, Joule Pre, and a audio research cd3 mark 2. I heard the Wilson's on Ayre and boulder. Thanks for any response.
Moving from Thiel to Wilson is a step in the wrong direction in my very honest opinion. Why would you sacrifice the superior frequency response and time and phase coherence of the Thiels with high order crossovers in the Wilsons?

From Stereophile measurements: "The tweeter and woofer are connected in positive acoustic polarity, the midrange unit in inverted polarity."

This is something Wilson does consistently that is rarely addressed in the audio world and few seem to care about it. But it does make a difference, and I can hear it.

Why anyone is his/her right mind would even consider any speaker that has out of phase polarity for the drivers is beyond me. Why intentionally sacrifice or damage via the speaker the phase requirements of accurate timbre reprduction of musical instruments, by design? That's simply poor physics and nothing can correct that which is lost in the first place. Speakers should attempt, by design, to preserve this content as much as possible.

I'm sure I've opened the can of crawly things here but I stand by my opinions on this as I have extensive listening experience with both designs.

Perhaps consider improving your power amplification with something stouter into 4 Ohms. Mark my words, if you move to Wilson you will regret it and it will take about a year to conclude that you should have kept your Thiels.
I have not.
I tend to agree with Stevecham.
Stevecham, Life is not that simple. Based on your logic, every speaker designer should use 6db slope crossovers, and any design not using them is inherently inferior. That's just not correct. A speaker can sound very good (or bad) using either first-order or sharper slope crossovers. That aspect alone doesn't tell the whole story.

It is true that first-order (6 db) crossovers have a mathematically ideal performance, i.e. the frequency and phase response of the two drivers will add mathematically to a flat frequency and perfect phase response. Other types can come close but are not textbook perfect. However, there are other considerations. A first-order crossover makes greater demands on the out-of-band performance of the drivers. Each driver needs to have smooth response for at least two octaves beyond the nominal crossover frequency. Also, the driver must be able to handle high levels of power beyond the crossover frequency since there will still be high signal levels there. These factors limit the drivers that can be used with a 6db crossover.

In addition, a speaker with first-order crossovers has more pronounced lobing. It's easy to hear this by simply moving your head up or down vertically while about 3 feet away from the speaker. There will be significant peaks and valleys in the response due to lobing. This effect can be averaged out by being further away from the speaker, and it also bothers some listeners more than others. I found it quite annoying when I owned Thiel 3.6 speakers.

I have used first-order crossovers on many speakers (including the Thiel 3.6's that I owned for about 10 years), yet my speakers now all use sharper slope crossovers for the simple reason that they sound better with my particular drivers.

With regard to the midrange driver being connected out of phase, this is the proper means of connecting a driver to a second-order (12db) crossover to get the optimal response due to the phase shifting that occurs with the crossover itself.

As far as the OP's question is concerned, I have no opinion since I haven't heard the CS6. I have heard the Sophia 3 and the Sasha several times recently and they are certainly very good sounding speakers whatever crossover slope they may have.
IMO, I wouldnt get hungup on all that geeky stuff,go listen and judge yourself.Personally I think the Wilson Sophia 3 blows away the Theils...all day long!
I've owned time and phase-coherent speakers, as well as speakers that use higher order crossovers. While I believe there is truth to both sides of these arguments, I am sensitive to phase shift and have found that first-order crossover speakers constructed with attention to minimizing phase shift - for example, Dunlavy and Audio Machina - are more engaging and natural to my ears, particularly with respect to transients. The Wilsons do some things very well, but I would try to spend as much time as possible time - at least 100 hours - with the Wilsons and then go back and spend a few dozen hours with the Thiels before you make a decision (it takes a lot of time to properly evaluate speakers).
////////01-02-12: Stevecham
Why anyone is his/her right mind would even consider any speaker that has out of phase polarity for the drivers is beyond me///////////////

are you out of your mind? more than half speakers on the market have inverted polarity of one of the driver. more than 85% speakers have higher order xovers on the market(and actualy there is 0,00074% speakers on market which have true, uncorected 1rd order transfer functions). are you saying all enginiers went out of their minds?

someone needs a doctor. and the sooner the better.
Buy with your ears, not your eyes reading specs/tests.
Interesting point, counter point.
The 'skin a cat' argument was good.
Ultimately, Rockitman said it with one with your ears, not your brain.
I think (being a THIEL devotee for many years) that there's an intellectual affirmation with them...Jim WAS a scientist...made compelling arguments FOR his rationale. However...if a THIEL doesn't sound like music to you, as musch as the the Wilson...'ears vs brain'.
My only problem with the their generally 'God Awful' frequency if Dave makes no pretense at a smooth response. I don't get it...if tonal balance is a worthy goal of loudspeaker design, how/why would he not attend to that? It's so basic to the formula that I personally think should be attended to that I'm totally flummoxed by his 'forever ignoring' that aspect.
The only person who can decide and behappy with that decision is the buyer.

Good listening,
Have you ever been at a real Record Label? Worked with well known Composers? Written your own songs for a Record Publisher? Had Publishing Deals?
Well if you have a lot of CD's and LP's you'll find out soon enough how many real bad & good recordings you have in your collection. By using the Thiel's CS6 Mr. Thiel's favorite speaker that he used until his passing. Well what does that tell you? Just because it's newer and much much more money. Dosen't mean that they're BETTER. If you live by the reviews. You'll die by the reviews. Best of luck on your journey to the whole truth.
"are you out of your mind? more than half speakers on the market have inverted polarity of one of the driver. more than 85% speakers have higher order xovers on the market(and actualy there is 0,00074% speakers on market which have true, uncorected 1rd order transfer functions). are you saying all enginiers went out of their minds?"


Who needs a doctor you ask?

I've up and down this road for a long time now.

Look, 85% of the speakers on the market are pure crap and so called audio engineers who promote, manufacture and sell this stuff are in it for reasons that have nothing to do with timbral accuracy of musical reproduction, they do not know, nor do they care, what they are doing to the music being reproduced by these products. And Wilson and their paint jobs, good grief man, do you think for a single second that this improves the sound in any way, shape or form? Automotive paint does not preserve musical timbre. And what's this I hear about some cracking defects to boot?

I know what I hear. I am also a long time musician and composer. I select all my gear based on how it plays and sounds, not on specs. And yes, by my preference for time aligned, first order designs, I am dismissing the vast majority of speakers as intentionally destructive to timbre. The one technical parameter a speaker must have is that, in the time domain, the drivers must respond together and in phase. Thiel, Vandersteen, Meadowlark I have owned; Dunlavy, Magnepan and Martin Logan are also time coherent. Dunlavy and Meadowlark are gone, Magnepan and Martin Logan sound good to me, but I prefer dynamic drivers. Otherwise, John Bonham sounds choked.
This thread is almost year old, not sure where the OP ended up. The only Thiel I've heard is the 2.4 I believe. Sounded thin and dry to me. I'm sure the bigger ones can sound good in the right setups. I've heard wilson sound AMAZING and I've heard them sound analytical.

The difference is the room, nearly always. The OP heard the Thiel and the Sophia 3 in totally different systems & different rooms. Unfortunately, comparing components in different rooms is only going to mislead the conclusions.