Sad and Happy

[cmalak]

Tom...great to hear you are enjoying the SF O3s so much. Can you describe sonically how they compare? For me the Thiels are coherent (speak in one voice), resolving, and throw off a wide and relatively deep soundstage with good imaging within, pulling off a nice disappearing act. I don't know if you agree with these attributes but if yes, how are the SF O3s similar and/or different? By your description of them being musical/natural it sounds like they are getting your toes tapping and emotionally engaged which is great. Just wondering what specific sonic attributes they excel at that generate the positive response you are experiencing with them?

Thanks and congrats once again

[RLF]

Congratulations Tom. I am a recent convert to Sonus Faber too. Enjoy.

[jazzluvva]

I've recently done exactly the same transition with one xtra step ( Thiel 2.4 to 3.7 then to SF Olympica 3's). Major difference initially for me - in my room , the SF are fussier about exact placement. Both Thiel's were more forgiving.
But , and again IMO and in my rooim , the SF , once dialled in, are a very very well balanced speaker which are more "laid back" in presentation. To me, this presents as a more recessed soundstage , not necessarily deeper. I love my Thiels , but like the OP , had a SF itch I had to scratch after hearing the O3's many times at my dealers. To me , there is a significant difference between the 2.4's , 3.7's and SFs.

[tdelahanty]

Originally Posted by cmalak

Tom...great to hear you are enjoying the SF O3s so much. Can you describe sonically how they compare? For me the Thiels are coherent (speak in one voice), resolving, and throw off a wide and relatively deep soundstage with good imaging within, pulling off a nice disappearing act. I don't know if you agree with these attributes but if yes, how are the SF O3s similar and/or different? By your description of them being musical/natural it sounds like they are getting your toes tapping and emotionally engaged which is great. Just wondering what specific sonic attributes they excel at that generate the positive response you are experiencing with them?

Thanks and congrats once again

So far the biggest difference is how visceral and dynamic the 3.7's are, the SF O3's don't have as much dynamic contrast. In my room both have a wonderful sound-stage and imaging. The SF's magically generate great detail (mids & highs) yet are more musical than the 3.7's, very difficult to quantify.

[tdelahanty]

Originally Posted by jazzluvva

I've recently done exactly the same transition with one xtra step ( Thiel 2.4 to 3.7 then to SF Olympica 3's). Major difference initially for me - in my room , the SF are fussier about exact placement. Both Thiel's were more forgiving.
But , and again IMO and in my rooim , the SF , once dialled in, are a very very well balanced speaker which are more "laid back" in presentation. To me, this presents as a more recessed soundstage , not necessarily deeper. I love my Thiels , but like the OP , had a SF itch I had to scratch after hearing the O3's many times at my dealers. To me , there is a significant difference between the 2.4's , 3.7's and SFs.

I also had 2.4's then 3.7's with Marantz Ref pre and mono-blocs, traded the Marantz for levinson. The first time I heard the SF O3's (hansen's dayton ohio) they were mated to a Sim Audio Moon I700 integrated & CDP, the cables were Nordost Valhalla. They were absolutely stunning. Sadly I don't think I'll ever own Valhalla due to its cost.