Yes, I would be glad to. Since the Veil was mentioned by someone else I will use that as an example. In my C11 only the eastern section is visible without using a filter at my moderately light polluted backyard site. In the 175EDF both sections are visible without any filtration. In addition to being more visible, I am able to see structure in the Veil with the 175. With the C11, the Veil is bright but not as tenuous as in the 175.
I can name other examples, this spring I was able to detect fainter galaxies in the 175 that could not be coaxed out of the C11. And galaxies that were visible in both had more detail in the 175. One that comes to mind is NGC 4565. In the C11 it is a silver streak against the sky. In the 175 it was the same silver streak but I could detect a "fattening" in the middle.
I understand that this is fantasy according to another poster but it's a fantasy that occurs in my backyard on a regular basis. Maybe my backyard is the Nexus of the Universe and the laws of physics don't apply here.
The C11 is f/10 and 2800mm, the 175 is f/8 and 1400mm. I have a nice selection of eyepieces and can match exit pupils pretty close and magnifications even closer.
Couple of points here. The C11 can out resolve the 175 on doubles by a substantial margin. Fainter stars are visible in the C11. For point sources, the C11 beats the 175. It (the C11) also shows a tremendous amount of detail on Jupiter, however I have stayed away from making any comments regarding planetary performance between the two because I haven't done that kind of comparison yet. Lunar performance is close enough between the two that I would almost call it a draw.
My experience is that on DSOs from a moderately light polluted area, my C11 cannot compete with a 7 inch APO. I attribute that difference to the APO's contrast that Yuri mentioned in his comments.
I have similar experience from my light polluted backyard. I had very good 250mm f/6.4 Newton, and I bought Sky Watcher ED100 to complement it. Somehow I'm still using the refractor, while the large Dobson is gone. In general, 10" dobson was showing fainter objects - but not that much as would a difference in aperture suggest (10"should reach 2 magnitudes deeper than 4"). I can reach stars fainter than magnitude 14 with ED100, while with Newton, I was able to go only down to 14.7 from my backyard (and 14.9 in darker side).
I think there were 2 reasons. One has to do with the fact, that I could not observe effectively with Newton at high powers (I mean 300x and more) and simultaneously guard my eyes from side-light. This is probably not your case as your SCT was mounted on driven mount.
The second reason is the different ways how the side-light is treated by various designs. While refractors could be baffled almost perfectly, this was not the case of my Newton. Even though it had solid tube, fully flocked, I could still see some effects of side-light when looking into the eyepiece. The weak point was the focuser, but I sold the telescope before I forced myself to experiment with baffling the focuser tube. As a result, I glimpsed in ED100 few objects that I could not find in 250mm - these were typically large DSO's with low surface brightness (for example NGC5053 comes to my mind). And opposite, there were objects that I saw in 10" Newton but not in ED100.
I have never owned SCT or large Mak and I never studied how these desigens handle side-light. But may be, this could be an answer to your observation.