Wilson better than Thiels?

FWIW, I find the Wilson's to be more dynamic, but the Thiels more linear and coherent.

"FWIW, I find the Wilson's to be more dynamic, but the Thiels more linear and coherent."

I agree 100% with this statement. I think that the 3.7 is the most coherent 3 way I have heard to date.

James 63. I think you are correct when you say "This extra detail was NOT brightness but real detail." This has been my experience with Thiels. The highly revealing nature of them are also merciless in showing the characteristics of other components in the chain. So some folks fault the speakers for being "bright" when in reality it's another component. This was evident in recent changes to power cords and conditioners in my system. The Thiels revealed the character of every single brand tested. Some components did accentuate the highs in a slight but unnatural fashion. I also upgraded the speaker cables to a brand/model which were more expensive than the speakers itself and the Thiels took the system to a whole new level by vanishing completely.

As for the Wilsons and the midbass/bass hump giving the music more body, I completely agree. However, after listening to the entire line of Wilsons, my experience has been that a seamless integration of the bass with the mids and treble happen when you get to the MAXX range and above. I'm sure that many Sophia and WP owners would disagree.

Although the Thiel Vs. Wilson comparison is a lot of fun, discussing what Thiels don't do well is missing the point completely. It's like looking at a glass which is 85% full and concentrating on the 15%. Thiels do a lot of things well while the Wilsons do a lot of things exceptionally well. But then again $$$$$.

Ok, well then there you have it! It's official!
Just about every audio enthusiasts and/or audiophile here apparently agrees that Thiel's are indeed better (+ value) and Wilson's are worse (+ > cost , thus = < value), correct?
Surely there must be a mathematician amongst us
who can turn the above theory into a real mathematical equation, and thus a scientific proof of some sort, yes?
OK so who then would like to step forward here and tackle this one for the Nobel prize in Home Audio? DOH!
Amazing... OK well let me just make sure I've got this right. So then would it be safe to surmise that, instead of buying a pair of, say, Wilson Sophia's, I could basically simply pull out several thousand dollars from my wallet, go over and flush it down the toilet, proceed to punch myself in the groin a few times, then make my way down the the local Thiel dealership to buy a pair of 3.7's, and I'd then still be ahead of the game, yes?
OK but wait. Wait. What if I were, say, into listening to stuff like Pink Floyd's SACD version of Dark Side of the Moon at concert playback volume levels?! Could I then assume that it would sound better plaid back on a pair of Thiel 3.7's on some tube amp's, over maybe a pair of WATT Puppies on Levinson's? Hummmmmm...I'm not so sure there. Or would it be safe to surmise that that listening to a full scale orchestral piece on vinyl would be best playing back through a system including a pair of Theil 2.4's over some Sophia's? Really? Or how about perhaps playing back Transformers or Iron Man at THX playback levels sounding better played through something like some Thiel SCS4's or even Power Points than it would using something like Wilson CUB's? Just checking...
Um, I'm not so sure that equation might work out after all. But that's just me. could be wrong ya know.

Playing music at concert levels or films at THX levels, I would first invest in some custum made earplugs. A concert is most of the time between 100 and 110dBA that will damage your ears.

At home I almost never go past 80 to 90dB, 80% of the time I listen between 75dB and 80dB.

I think it is safe to say that Wilson and Thiel both make excelent speakers both are really expensive but Wilson is even more expensive then Thiel.