From Thiel CS6 to Wilson Sophia 2 or 3

Interesting point, counter point.
The 'skin a cat' argument was good.
Ultimately, Rockitman said it with one sentence....buy 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 Wilson...buy the Wilson...'ears vs brain'.
My only problem with the Wilsons...is their generally 'God Awful' frequency response...as 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,
Larry

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?"

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.

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.