Wilson or Kharma

Let me start by saying that I know this is a very subjective question, still I need some valid opinions. I am thinking about going a different route with my system (I am currently using Martin Logan Prodigy's powered by an ARC VT-200). My room is 19x15x11.

I have a couple of reasons for the change:
1.I would like a speaker that did not require as much power, and I could in essence have more amp. options in this regard (although I do want to stick w/tubes).
2. I would like a speaker with a little more low frequency "impact" than my ML's (this might take the Kharma's out of the running??).
3. The Prodigy's are quite large, something a little smaller might be the ticket.

I have never heard either the Wilson W/P (7's)or the Kharma's (3.2's) and am going on review's and Agone feedback and threads. I would of course try to audition before purchase but it might be hard as there are no dealers for either of these brands in my area. I would like to buy used so that might be a concern as well.
Any feedback on this would be great........... anything else I should really consider???

An audition is in yor best interest when investing the dollars you're talking about in either the Wilsons or Kharmas. A quick roundtrip $200 airplane ticket would amount to only 1%-2% of the purchase price. Something to consider.
I am fairly familar with both speakers- I like the kharma's a lot BUT it doesn't sound like what your looking for. The 3.2 has amazing bass for what it has(i.e. articulate, detailed, body), but it is not the last word in bass reinforcement- the Wilson would have my nod in that regard. Have you considered possibly the 1.0 midi-grand? it seems like it may be more on the same price plane as the Wilson and will have substantially more bass output due to the 12" driver. If you were comparing midi grand to the W/P7 it would depend what YOU as a listener want. The wilson will be more in your face and seemingly faster, with laser like precision in the imaging, along with greater bass output(volume). The kharma will bring you closer to the music, they have an almost sureal soundstage- once you've heard them set up properly you'll understand what I am talking about, fine tuning to the room(along with the right placement) will make this speaker sound MUCH different- its overall tonal balance/accuracy is amazing. You really must listen for yourself to make this sort of decision, also your room is unusual with its dimensions, I am sure it will sound great, its just a little shorter then most rooms that use this type of speaker (assuming you have the speaker's on the short wall firing down the length of the room). 15 feet is a great width to work with, however 19 is a hair on the short side for these full range dynamic speakers- even with that minor short coming I am sure when you get either speaker set up properly it will sound fantastic!

Good luck.
If you don't mind staying with large http://www.vmpsaudio.com/rmx.htm these hi-bred's are the best of both worlds at around $10,000. They love tubes and have bass down to 20HZ.

They are not my cup of tea,but i still prefer WP7.

Your Martin Logan Prodigy play lower than Kharma 3.2.
There is, in my mind, very little comparison to make here. I have spent a good bit of time with WP7s in a close friend's system and have owned the 3.2crms in the past. The Kharma's are very VIBRANT, immensely musical speakers. The soundstage is larger-than-life and detailed, and tonally they are phenomenal with good tube amps. That having been said, I was surprised at the bass you do get with them (so is everyone else consistently), but you don't get the lowest of the low bass. Kharma now offers subs built specifically to complement the 3.2s, though, and they are supposed to make the system completely amazing. If low end is critical and you are not happy with the impact of the 3.2s in your room, you can always add the sub (or better yet a pair) at a later timepoint. I never got around to it before I had to sell mine, so can't comment directly.

WP7s are better than most speakers out there. They tend to highly polarize people though. A lot of people love them and a lot hate them. You absolutely need to spend the money to listen to them before buying (an onviously good rule in general too, but essential here). I personally like them a lot but would never buy a pair with Kharmas as an alternative.

The choice is hands down for my own personal tastes, which seem to be somewhat similar to what I gather yours are. Kharmas let you just enjoy the musical experience in a way that most other speakers miss.

Just let me know if you have any questions, etc. By the way, I have nothing commercial to do with audio equipment. I work in dermatologic biopharm, so this is just a passion/hobby for me, but one I've spent a LOT of time on it over the years.

Good luck!
First, I do not participate much in these forums. I do read them and find them informative and quite amusing at times. Your question is one that I had not too long ago and find it necessary to now put my "two cents" in.

Having recently been in the market for a speaker in the $18 - $25,000 price range, I auditioned quite a few speakers. I listened to the Piega C40(35K), Wilson WP7, Wilson MAXX, Kharma 3.2 CRM, Eggleston Andra, and Maggie MG20.1's. All were pretty good, but none grabbed me like the Kharma's.

Here is my take:

The Piega's were nice, but not worth the money. Very open, good but not terribly deep bass and a bit bright.

The Watt Puppies were very impressive for about half an hour and then fatigue set in. I heard them with both the ARC Reference 300 MK II and Levinson monoblocks. Excellent dynamics, but musicality and driver cohesion were missing. Soundstage and imaging were terrific.

The MAXX was also very impressive, but more of the same as the WP7. A bit bloaty in the lower midrange and a little mechanical in the vocals. BIG DYNAMICS and air movement.

The Eggleston's were a bit on the dark side and appeared to need massive amounts of power to get the pumping. Like the Wilson's, they did not seem to integrate too well between the woofers and the midrange.

The Magnepan MG20.1's were very impressive for easy listening music. With the kind of music I listen to (70's rock, jazz, blues and bluegrass), they do not provide any of the dynamics I like. Nice staging with good, but not great pinpoint imaging. Very fast and sounding "whole" throught the frequency spectrum. Way too big and massive amounts of power are required. Not for me.

I have saved the best for last. I visited Chambers Audio and Jonathan Tinn had the 3.2's setup with the Tenor OTL's. This was the best sound I have ever heard, regardless of the music we played. It had a bigger soundstage and much better imaging and clarity than any of the other speakers I listened to. The bass was a complete shock to me. How could these little 70 pound speakers produce the punch and bass that I heard? I have no idea. It was AMAZING! Maybe the Wilson's had a slightly greater degree of impact, I am not sure. I did not hear them in the same room. All I can tell you is they did everything that the Magnepan's did in terms of cohesion, but had punch and a clarity I cannot live without. I listen to live music at least twice a month and these speakers come closer to "being there" than anything I have expereinced.

Needless to say, I bought the Kharma's from Chambers Audio and my search is over. They play everything better than any speaker I have heard. If you are anywhere near Portland, consider this an open invitation to come listen. If you hear them, I would be shocked if you did not buy them.

Where did you hear the Piega's?
Oakrow, too bad you didn't get to audition the WP7 on amps in the same league as the Tenors ; )
I find these discussions to be remarkable, less because of what they reveal about the nature of the equipment than what they reveal about the people that use it. Listening biases are much more clearly divulged than any truly salient characteristic of the components musical abilities. That being said, I will add my humble opinion to this list because I've heard both speakers in similar conditions. First off, both the 3.2s and WP7s are immensely likeable speakers. I found neither off-putting during extended audition, both leaving me with the intense desire to listen further when the CD or LP was finished. For me, this is the first, and most essential measure of a speaker's ability to convey music. I've found many wonderful sounding speakers that fail in this regard. The second most critical characteristic of a music system is the ease with which I become emotionally engaged with all kinds of music. In this regard I found the WP7s to be my better match. The range of emotions that I found myself experiencing while listening through them was extraordinary, and unprecedented. I found the 3.2s to be engaging as well, but not to the same degree. I'm not at all interested in exploring the high-end lexicon for sonic explanations. That is better left to the critics for whom that is their bread and butter. Suffice it to say that these speakers differ significantly in their sonic emphases, and that could bear significantly on your preference. Finally, there is no way that I would substitute anyone's experience for my own, especially with components as special and expensive as these.
Listening to both was a great pleasure that I wouldn't want anyone to miss.
Neither! Your speakers are better than W/P or Kharma. You will be regressing if you are to switch to either dynamic speakers. W/P are as demanding speakers with unquenchable thirst for power. Maybe Revel Salon, but only if you must!
If I had enough money I would just grab a pair of VMPS RM-X..just for 10 000 $..best bargain..
"Finally, there is no way that I would substitute anyone's experience for my own"

Siliab, without going through the coarse and fine of things, if you tell me the moon is round. I'll believe you. Sorry, for the off topic. :-)
I'm sorry--but 20k for a 2-way with no bass below 40hz is just the total rip off in audio (and yes, i've heard them). I like the Midi-Grands if you go with Kharma, but obviously they are 2x the price.

At 20k, i don't think its hard to ask for a full-range speaker. Even Wilson, often called "overpriced," gives you one for 20k.
Besides how well it performs, you must take into account service. Will the speaker company or its distributor be around 5 years down the road when something goes wrong?
How many distributors have some of the above mentioned changed hands? I can call Spectral or Avalon any day, and if I have a problem (real or imagined), they are there to help solve it. I guarantee Wilson will, the others, there are only promises, no matter how well the intention.
Just a thought, maybe the speaker is not the problem. Suggest that you contact martin Logan and ask them about their experience using the Parasound JC-1's to drive their Statement speakers. Apparently, the JC-1's replaced a pair of very large Krell mono's.
Fcrowder, If the JC1 can indeed run the statement
Martin Logan, then I would probably try them with
my Andra. Bryan from essential audio, wants me to
try them. Iam curious, Because my extreme ODDyssey
stratos monos kills the KRELL 300FPB, MC intosh mc500
demolish the X250 in my system in terns of musicality
and dynamic.Your post on Kharma vs Wilson stating
that the JC replace the big Krell its shocking, because
Gayle Sander use krell for all his speakers, and they mate
well too.
Don't miss an audition of the Piega C-10 ltd.