Wilson Sophia II vs. Thiel CS3.7


Anyone compare the two directly?

Looking for detailed impressions on these two loudspeakers only if you feel you auditioned them in their absolute best light. Mis-matched systems and problems with synergy don't really reveal what a speaker can do, so be honest and voice your opinion only if you really know the strengths and weakness of each speaker.

Bass:

Which one went deeper, tighter more impactful, tuneful?

Midrange:

Which one had more presence, texture, tonal accuracy, inner detail, transparency?

Highs:

Which one extended farther, had less grain, sounded most natural?

Overall:

Which one was more coherent, dynamic, resolving, transparent?

Which one had a wider soundstage, fuller images, shaper images, better depth, layering, separation of instruments?

Which one has the more accurate tone for acoustic instruments?

Again, looking purely for sonic differences, how do they honestly compare to each other?

Thanks!
hce4
Some of the most recent Thiels are indeed more sensitive than the older ones. The 3.7's seem to be a return to tighter impedance curves, but, I don't really believe that was ever much of a concern. Still the tighter the better. I suspect these moves are all an attempt to allow users to use less powerfull amps and perhaps open the fold to users that prefer tubes. While I have the most sincere respect for Jim Thiel, I can't help but wonder if he would be better off risking some sensitivity in order to keep a flat impedance load above 4 Ohms, like some of the older models.
I've never heard the Sophia II, but the technical descriptions I've read of the changes seem pretty minor. They're still using the same Focal inverted dome tweeter, but with some new modifications to reduce its distortion somewhat.

I disliked the Sophia because of its whitish, grainy treble.

Same can be said about Wilson System 7 and 8. They look very similar on paper, but sound very different.

I peronally hated system 7 - I was very "hot" sounding to my ears, esp. in the treble - but I have to confess that the new system 8 is very listenable.

Prolly same can be said about the Sophia 2, since once properly broken in (they require 400h or so), they DO NOT sound "whitish" or bright at all.

And that comes from an ex-Avalon Eidolon Vision owner, which should tell you a lot.
Thanks for the responses everyone.

Elberoth2, your impressions are very helpful, given you have directly compared the two. Someone asked about imaging capabilities, I'd be interested to hear which one you found to be a better imager, and which one had a wider and deeper soundstage.

Regarding the hot or white treble of the Sophia, the tweeter was modified along with a stronger cabinet and some other features between version one and two, so the brightness may have been mitigated between the two versions somewhat. Do you think your Audio Research components put the Sophia 2's very revealing treble in better light?

Also, any comparisons with the Avalon?

Since I'm off topic, Tom, what specifically did you like about the new midrange in the Quatro Wood over the original? And other differences, bass, treble, timbre, tonality, dynamics, transparency, soundstaging?
Fjn04,

I know what you mean! That's why I was so specific in my first post about asking for opinions only if you feel you really have auditioned each speaker properly and in their best light. I'll definitely have to visit my Vandy dealer again and give the Quatro Wood and 5a a listen again with different electronics.

Patent,

Thanks for the link. Jim Thiel's catch phrase about the 3.7s "Be Amazed" is fairly appropriate. The 3.7 did surprise me, as I mentioned earlier, with a seamless sound that clearly is a result of technical advancements made to driver integration and implementation.

For the best deal, used is a great option for older models, but since the Sophia 2 and Thiel 3.7 are expensive even when used, buying from a dealer makes the most sense, you get a warranty and dealer assistance with set up, synergistic components, etc...

Keep those comments coming!