I owned WP6s for a couple of years and switched to the Kharma 3.2s. I still have the Kharmas and I am happy with them. I had the Wilsons (with a Pass X350 amp and ML No. 32 preamp) and could never get the midrange & highs to sound right (they were too etched and tizzy). Maybe the WP7s are smoother up top, but I can't say. The scratchy highs did not appear on some recordings, making me think the Wilsons were just too ruthlessly revealing. Maybe different upstream equipment would have helped.
The bass of the WP6s was just about perfect: resolute and "just there," never calling attention to itself. The Kharma bass is actually more prominent, and almost as deep, and I would describe it as a very fast, warm-and-friendly bass, far superior than my old Aerial 10t bass, which was kind of one-note and pumped-up.
The Kharma bass, I think, comes from the rear port, which kind of serves as a phantom woofer, so the 3.2 acts more like a true 3-way speaker.
The Kharmas are great on all classical music, really making instruments come alive but still sounding natural.
Piano is rich and fast with just the right amount of "clang" with perfect decay but no weird overhang. Most popular music is fine too, but the Kharmas also tend to be revealing and can be a little etched on heavily equalized rock or close-miked vocals. (But this problem is nowhere near as severe as with the Wilsons, which sounded this way on almost every popular CD.)
On the other hand, the Kharmas make older music (50s or 60s rock and pop) sound gloriously real, like you've entered the time tunnel, and you're in the studio with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin a few feet away, ambience included. It's a real trip. I think some of the modern stuff (post 80's) is recorded pretty horribly, with a pumped up midrange and a harsh sound that is meant to sound good in a car or on an Ipod. (If your still reading this, thanks for reading my rant...)
So I would go with the Kharmas, unless you want to wait for Dave Wilson maybe to put a nice ribbon or Revelator tweeter on a WP8 in the future, and maybe take a hint from Albert Von Schweikert on getting the highs right like he has in the VR9SEs, but that's another story...
The bass of the WP6s was just about perfect: resolute and "just there," never calling attention to itself. The Kharma bass is actually more prominent, and almost as deep, and I would describe it as a very fast, warm-and-friendly bass, far superior than my old Aerial 10t bass, which was kind of one-note and pumped-up.
The Kharma bass, I think, comes from the rear port, which kind of serves as a phantom woofer, so the 3.2 acts more like a true 3-way speaker.
The Kharmas are great on all classical music, really making instruments come alive but still sounding natural.
Piano is rich and fast with just the right amount of "clang" with perfect decay but no weird overhang. Most popular music is fine too, but the Kharmas also tend to be revealing and can be a little etched on heavily equalized rock or close-miked vocals. (But this problem is nowhere near as severe as with the Wilsons, which sounded this way on almost every popular CD.)
On the other hand, the Kharmas make older music (50s or 60s rock and pop) sound gloriously real, like you've entered the time tunnel, and you're in the studio with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin a few feet away, ambience included. It's a real trip. I think some of the modern stuff (post 80's) is recorded pretty horribly, with a pumped up midrange and a harsh sound that is meant to sound good in a car or on an Ipod. (If your still reading this, thanks for reading my rant...)
So I would go with the Kharmas, unless you want to wait for Dave Wilson maybe to put a nice ribbon or Revelator tweeter on a WP8 in the future, and maybe take a hint from Albert Von Schweikert on getting the highs right like he has in the VR9SEs, but that's another story...