Sophia 2/Magico V2 versus Sasha/Magico V3


So I'm currently enjoying Wilson Sophia 2s and Magico V2s in my home.

Amplification is Pass XA 100.5, preamps alternate between H20 Fire (solid state) and Audio Valve Eclipse (tube). Sources are Modwright Transporter and Raven One/Tron Seven.

These speakers are very different. The Sophia 2s are more energetic and vibrant, have more robust bass and a lot more forward presence. They can bark at you with certain recordings (upper midrange glare), they are not gentle. Used with a tube preamp, I find the timbre to be very natural sounding, giving a great deal of the 'instruments are in the room' feeling. With solid state preamp, they sound a little cold - a little 'ceramic' if you will.

The Magico V2 is slightly colored in comparison - more of a wood sound, not as much as Avalon, but it's there. The highs are nowhere as crisp, the bass comes up a bit short and they do not have the dynamics of the Wilsons. However, they offer a heck of a lot more detail in the upper midrange and highs. I hear so much more of what is going on than the Sophias. For example, horn sections on the Wilsons almost sound compressed, whereas on the Magicos they open up and come to life; I can't get over the difference.

So here's where I'm going with this: the natural upgrade path for the Magico is the V3 and the Wilson, the Sasha. Can anyone speak to what characteristics are retained versus gained (or lost for that matter) in the two upgrade paths? If it were easy to hear them in my own home, I wouldn't ask, but unfortunately it's going to be work and I may only get to hear one of these.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
madfloyd
I think Magico mids are much better than Wilson mids in general--though the Maxx3 is amazing.

on the V3 vs. Sasha---while Sasha may have more apparent bass due to the mid bass hump of the ported design, the Magico is certainly no slouch and has real bass.

but the Sasha just doesn't have the musical quality of the Magico and does not match its coherency top to bottom. i value coherency a lot--and why i had Sophia Is vs W/P 7s years ago.
Ricred1
once you move to Higher End, you will be more amazed with result of Sophia 2. Regarding your system context, you haven't heard anything yet with Sophia 2. Keep going, keep going.....
Mert
I have already upgraded to Densen B-350 mono-amps and Densen B-250 preamp. In additon, I have upgraded all of my AC cords. The results is a more natural sounding system. My next step will be to upgrade from the Rega Apollo as the source.

Keithr
I haven't listened to the V3, they are out of my price range. My comments were about the V2's. If you read my previous post, I mentioned that I thought the V2's had great mids and the Sophia II's had very good mids. I used different language, but essentially said the same thing you did.

I've listened to many speakers and really enjoy the Sophia II's. That doesn't mean that someone won't prefer something else.
Thanks for the feedback Madfloyd.

Curious as to why you ruled out the V3?

IMO, the Sashas are best suited for your current system. I find Wilson and Pass Class A amplification to be very synergistic. I found Magico and Pass Class A amplification to be a mediocre match. The highs seemed attenuated, the bass became wooly and the midrange lost it's definition (in comparison to VAC, ASR and Soulution). Something to keep in mind as you listen to the V2s (the V2's you're listening to have greater potential). Also, IMO, I get the feeling you no longer REALLY like the Wilson house sound. The Sashas improve on many of the earlier generations, but at the end of the day, it's still voiced like a Wilson. Wilson, as you know, should only be heard when they are set up perfectly in a great sounding room. They have the ability to disappear and sound natural (within their natural voicing), but without proper setup, they can be more forward, less detailed, thin, and just un-natural sounding. I think the Magicos are a bit easier on setup, but with the caveat that they don't deliver that last 1-2% of palpability that Wilsons can create. Just another's opinion, but I think Wilsons are more transparent to the source than Magicos (that last 1-2% thing I mentioned), but each speaker is colored. I just hear Wilson speakers morphing with each CD/LP change just a little bit more than Magicos, moving you a bit closer to the source.

I think the V2s give a slightly recessed presentation, and the Sophia IIs give a slightly forward presentation. The V2s are easier to listen to because of this, and sound a bit more natural.

Comparing the V2 to the V3 is a mixed bag. The V2 has new technologies, so you get a slightly more coherent, smooth sound. BUT, I still think the V3 is more capable all around. The highs are debatable because I hear more defintion, while others I know hear more roughness and distortion in comparison to the V2. The midrange on the V3 is more nuanced, defined, and textured than the V2's. To me the V2's midrange sounds more colored to the warm side because of the woofer below it, augmenting the bass and creeping up into the true midrange. I think you loose some separation and detail in the V2, whereas the V3 has a truly dedicated midrange driver. Lastly, the bass is great on the V2, but truly better on the V3. The V3's bass move air. You can feel the air change and pressurize, even when you can't hear it. The bass adds weight, presence and ambiance to just about any type of music. The V2 feels weighty because of the warmer midrange (I think), but it can't match the foundation the V3 lays down in the bass.

I hate to say it, but I think the V2 is a more engaging speaker, but the V3's a better speaker, so it's tough to choose. I'm interested in hearing the Q5 and eventually a Q3 when it comes out...