#11
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Congratulations Tom. I am a recent convert to Sonus Faber too. Enjoy.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
System: ML:5206,5302 Serafino's Nordost Lumin U1 RM15 |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
System: ML:5206,5302 Serafino's Nordost Lumin U1 RM15 |
|
|
Audio Aficionado Sponsors | |