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.
jkw1

Showing 2 responses by stevecham

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.
"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?"

Yes.

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.