Wharfedale Diamond 220 Budget Speaker Review

[Deleted member 24907]

I've traveled a "two-way" road in audio since my first "hi-fi" system my dad helped me put together in 1958. Of course, at my age, even the best track record of audiophile experience will not overcome age-related HF hearing loss, and my upper limit is now about 8KHz - but I can still hear when a tweeter goes out. However, the "sparkle" and "air" that comes from high frequencies (HF harmonics) is absent in my perception of music, and I would be far less likely to hear differences that are obvious to you, if you are younger and with good hearing. Like younger music lovers who have hearing loss for various reasons, my interest in such audio differences is much more academic than practical.

I've jumped on and off of the objective/subjective audio train for decades, but always judged the sound of my components and systems subjectively. The advancement of audio science in recent decades simply tells me interesting things about what I was preferring at various stages of my audio enthusiast life. (I have a life-long interest - and a university degree in science. I worked in science - on the technician/support side, and in sales and support of scientific software - for many years.)

My "beliefs" are that many supposedly audible "differences" not confirmed by blind testing and/or measurements may not be real. Decades of audio engineering and acoustic science supports that view. Please explain why you think that is a not a valid position.



Wow! That is a classic strawman argument. I have never said that, nor do I "believe it to be true".

View attachment 129890​

However, I am very interested in the correlation of measurements with subjective impressions. And I am also aware of the interactions of amplifiers, speakers and rooms. But please be aware that Amir rarely if ever posts subjective opinions without caveats and comparisons to measurements. One of the most important aspects of this forum website for me is the opportunity to learn about correlations of perceived audio qualities with measurements under the scrutiny of an international cast of audiophiles, audio engineers, and industry professionals.

Your dismissal of the suggestion to measure your perceived differences with a program like REW or an equivalent (a layman's simplified version of science - the basis of this website) tells me that you are not really interested in the science side of audio, but yet post at an audio science website.

Your "unscientific" subjective opinions may have merit, but without measurements, their validity has not been confirmed.

Hey the measurements are right here. What's the argument. I should do room measurements?

I've traveled a "two-way" road in audio since my first "hi-fi" system my dad helped me put together in 1958. Of course, at my age, even the best track record of audiophile experience will not overcome age-related HF hearing loss, and my upper limit is now about 8KHz - but I can still hear when a tweeter goes out. However, the "sparkle" and "air" that comes from high frequencies (HF harmonics) is absent in my perception of music, and I would be far less likely to hear differences that are obvious to you, if you are younger and with good hearing. Like younger music lovers who have hearing loss for various reasons, my interest in such audio differences is much more academic than practical.

I've jumped on and off of the objective/subjective audio train for decades, but always judged the sound of my components and systems subjectively. The advancement of audio science in recent decades simply tells me interesting things about what I was preferring at various stages of my audio enthusiast life. (I have a life-long interest - and a university degree in science. I worked in science - on the technician/support side, and in sales and support of scientific software - for many years.)

My "beliefs" are that many supposedly audible "differences" not confirmed by blind testing and/or measurements may not be real. Decades of audio engineering and acoustic science supports that view. Please explain why you think that is a not a valid position.



Wow! That is a classic strawman argument. I have never said that, nor do I "believe it to be true".

View attachment 129890​

However, I am very interested in the correlation of measurements with subjective impressions. And I am also aware of the interactions of amplifiers, speakers and rooms. But please be aware that Amir rarely if ever posts subjective opinions without caveats and comparisons to measurements. One of the most important aspects of this forum website for me is the opportunity to learn about correlations of perceived audio qualities with measurements under the scrutiny of an international cast of audiophiles, audio engineers, and industry professionals.

Your dismissal of the suggestion to measure your perceived differences with a program like REW or an equivalent (a layman's simplified version of science - the basis of this website) tells me that you are not really interested in the science side of audio, but yet post at an audio science website.

Your "unscientific" subjective opinions may have merit, but without measurements, their validity has not been confirmed.

I just posted some subjective opinion related to an above measurement. I don't need to prove I don't like it. What will a measurement do? If its the same as Amir then I don't like a speaker with this measurement. If it's different due to the room or proves I don't like that. What's the extra benefit?

 

[Xulonn]

Hey the measurements are right here. What's the argument. I should do room measurements?

The correct term for what would be useful and interesting information is "in-room measurements" because they might differ very significantly from Klippel near-field measurements and modeled results. Your "subjective opinion" may not actually correlate in a truly useful manner with the Klippel measurements, which are designed to eliminate the acoustic influence of a room. Your room is not an anechoic chamber, which is the only listening space that might come close to simulating the Klippel "sound environment".

I don't need to prove I don't like it. What will a measurement do? If its the same as Amir then I don't like a speaker with this measurement. If it's different due to the room or proves I don't like that. What's the extra benefit?

I'm not asking you to "prove" anything - just suggesting that since you are posting in a science-based forum, and not a strictly subjective audiophile forum, you might want to play with simple technology when you attempt to correlate your subjective listening impressions to the speaker's actual in-room performance. Many ASR members and visitors are probably not seriously into science, but appreciate the benefits of applying it to audio purchasing decisions and for revealing the flaws of human hearing and highly subjective consumer desires. Not being heavily into science is not a bad thing, it just means the you are not fully in sync with those or us who are very curious about science, and that significant segment of our members who work in audio science, technology, and engineering. Many of us like to see subjective opinions, which are biased in many ways, confirmed (supported?) with objective evidence.

The benefit of correlating your subjective listening impressions with actual in-room measurements is that it would be more "scientific" and interesting/useful at an audio science forum. Amir at least does parametric equalization on many components, based both on Klippel results and his awareness of a bass mode in his room. In these modern days, being serious about in-room response that is either flat or has a desired response curve necessitates playing with in-room measurements and EQ. Otherwise, one can easily bash otherwise good or bad speakers that might easily be tuned to sound good. (Although I am not fanatical about it, I do use the room correction tools that are included with my IOTAVX AVP to EQ my L/R Wharfedale D320 speakers plus a D300C center.)

 

[infinitesymphony]

Thanks. Anyone tried to add some spacers between the baseplate and the speakers? And then measure it again? I read people do this and then say it's better sounding. Might do something in the lower regions?

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I've never liked terminal bridge plates on bi-amp speakers. I always replace them with short runs of speaker wire in the binding posts.

Am trying something. View attachment 129818

Speakers were too bassy, so maybe let the extra bass out of the bottom?

 

[Deleted member 24907]

not really interested in the science side of audio,

Not true. I asked about measurement of dynamics and did a suggestion how that might be done. That suggestion was done to get a measurement explaining what this speakers subjectively seems to lack. I also asked if there is a sort of harman curve for speakers as there is for headphones.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I've never liked terminal bridge plates on bi-amp speakers. I always replace them with short runs of speaker wire in the binding posts.


Speakers were too bassy, so maybe let the extra bass out of the bottom?

There are rings between the base plate and the speaker. Some people change the rings with bigger-higher ones. Then, based on subjective listening and some placebo effect, they claim it sounds better. So I was wondering if this indeed changes something when measured.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

The correct term for what would be useful and interesting information is "in-room measurements" because they might differ very significantly from Klippel near-field measurements and modeled results. Your "subjective opinion" may not actually correlate in a truly useful manner with the Klippel measurements, which are designed to eliminate the acoustic influence of a room. Your room is not an anechoic chamber, which is the only listening space that might come close to simulating the Klippel "sound environment".



I'm not asking you to "prove" anything - just suggesting that since you are posting in a science-based forum, and not a strictly subjective audiophile forum, you might want to play with simple technology when you attempt to correlate your subjective listening impressions to the speaker's actual in-room performance. Many ASR members and visitors are probably not seriously into science, but appreciate the benefits of applying it to audio purchasing decisions and for revealing the flaws of human hearing and highly subjective consumer desires. Not being heavily into science is not a bad thing, it just means the you are not fully in sync with those or us who are very curious about science, and that significant segment of our members who work in audio science, technology, and engineering. Many of us like to see subjective opinions, which are biased in many ways, confirmed (supported?) with objective evidence.

The benefit of correlating your subjective listening impressions with actual in-room measurements is that it would be more "scientific" and interesting/useful at an audio science forum. Amir at least does parametric equalization on many components, based both on Klippel results and his awareness of a bass mode in his room. In these modern days, being serious about in-room response that is either flat or has a desired response curve necessitates playing with in-room measurements and EQ. Otherwise, one can easily bash otherwise good or bad speakers that might easily be tuned to sound good. (Although I am not fanatical about it, I do use the room correction tools that are included with my IOTAVX AVP to EQ my L/R Wharfedale D320 speakers plus a D300C center.)

Thanks for elaborating. I listened to the speakers in 2 different rooms, multiple positions and speaker heights. I have an electrical desk for instance. With a-b switch I compared with the Sony's. Outcome is the same. They don't excite me. As for my Tannoys; I have been playing with frequency range tests, found some room resonance which I compensated with the use of Wavelet. Starting point was subjective listening, and then I checked it with a measurement and found confirmation in an online measurement with a testsetting in a room very alike my room dimensions. For the 220 I just don't know what is causing my subjective opinion. I think (lack of) dynamics, or maybe box resonance at low volume. I am unsure how to check this with measurements.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Napilopez started a thread called How do we measure dynamics? Very difficult, and perceived dynamics include reflections. I will not be able to test this.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Another possible explanation might be the choice of music I am listening to. I already suggested that earlier. I listen to a lot of sixties stuff. What I understand is that a lot of recordings back then started to roll off the high frequencies above 10 kHz. On a fairly even speaker that would be kinda lacking in highs but true to the original. Maybe I like some added treble because a lot of recordings are lacking this. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/comparing-tonal-balance-in-popular-music.html

 

[Robbo99999]

I've traveled a "two-way" road in audio since my first "hi-fi" system my dad helped me put together in 1958. Of course, at my age, even the best track record of audiophile experience will not overcome age-related HF hearing loss, and my upper limit is now about 8KHz - but I can still hear when a tweeter goes out. However, the "sparkle" and "air" that comes from high frequencies (HF harmonics) is absent in my perception of music, and I would be far less likely to hear differences that are obvious to you, if you are younger and with good hearing. Like younger music lovers who have hearing loss for various reasons, my interest in such audio differences is much more academic than practical.

I've jumped on and off of the objective/subjective audio train for decades, but always judged the sound of my components and systems subjectively. The advancement of audio science in recent decades simply tells me interesting things about what I was preferring at various stages of my audio enthusiast life. (I have a life-long interest - and a university degree in science. I worked in science - on the technician/support side, and in sales and support of scientific software - for many years.)

My "beliefs" are that many supposedly audible "differences" not confirmed by blind testing and/or measurements may not be real. Decades of audio engineering and acoustic science supports that view. Please explain why you think that is a not a valid position.



Wow! That is a classic strawman argument. I have never said that, nor do I "believe it to be true".

View attachment 129890​

However, I am very interested in the correlation of measurements with subjective impressions. And I am also aware of the interactions of amplifiers, speakers and rooms. But please be aware that Amir rarely if ever posts subjective opinions without caveats and comparisons to measurements. One of the most important aspects of this forum website for me is the opportunity to learn about correlations of perceived audio qualities with measurements under the scrutiny of an international cast of audiophiles, audio engineers, and industry professionals.

Your dismissal of the suggestion to measure your perceived differences with a program like REW or an equivalent (a layman's simplified version of science - the basis of this website) tells me that you are not really interested in the science side of audio, but yet post at an audio science website.

Your "unscientific" subjective opinions may have merit, but without measurements, their validity has not been confirmed.

Even if you can only hear up to 8kHz, that doesn't mean you can't judge the sound up to 8kHz, you of course can judge the sound up to 8kHz, so that's still totally valid for those frequency ranges. If there are problems above that range then you won't know about it, but you know where you're at, I can see it in you're post, I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Anyway, I sold them. Same price I paid for them. They deserve to make someone happy.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

They are only £ 119 at Richer Sounds at the moment https://www.richersounds.com/wharfedale-diamond-220-blk.html

 

[whyfi]

I have these connected to an old Sonos Connect amp. I haven't connected them to a source capable of playing higher res content yet but that setup is fine. My only observation is that the Connect Amp doesn't seem to have the power to drive these Wharfedales. I don't play music loudly but I have to turn the Sonos amp pretty high to get them to an enjoyable volume.

 

[MarkWinston]

Anyone that felt the 220s are a bit dark is probably correct, especially when compared to most speakers which are brighter. The subsequent diamonds got 'brighter' with every generation until it became overly bright to some on the on the 11, clearly not in line with the signature sound of the diamond series. Wharfedale and Fink rectified this problem with the 12, and made it what most call the best sounding diamonds yet. Ive seen a few measurements online and the 12 is basically flat with a BBC Dip and rolls off at 17k. From my ears alone, they sound phenomenal and they are truly the best diamonds to date. Mids are so sweet and fluid, bass is rather deep compared to the claimed specs, treble is revealing but never intrusive. Balance is the keyword here, and balance is what the 12 does best. Sold mine Q 3030i right away after I heard the 12. This is all of course subjective (got to always put that out around these parts) but measurements would be great to confirm what Im hearing. Looking for a diamond? Look no further, the 12s are THE one.

 

[mononoaware]

Not sure about everyone else. . . but always thought wharfedale product performance is for entry-level.

 

[MarkWinston]

Not sure about everyone else. . . but always thought wharfedale product performance is for entry-level.

Definitely not the evos and elysians. And some 'entry level' speakers nowadays would take a dump on products costing way more accuracy wise.

 

[kism]

Anyone that felt the 220s are a bit dark is probably correct, especially when compared to most speakers which are brighter. The subsequent diamonds got 'brighter' with every generation until it became overly bright to some on the on the 11, clearly not in line with the signature sound of the diamond series. Wharfedale and Fink rectified this problem with the 12, and made it what most call the best sounding diamonds yet. Ive seen a few measurements online and the 12 is basically flat with a BBC Dip and rolls off at 17k. From my ears alone, they sound phenomenal and they are truly the best diamonds to date. Mids are so sweet and fluid, bass is rather deep compared to the claimed specs, treble is revealing but never intrusive. Balance is the keyword here, and balance is what the 12 does best. Sold mine Q 3030i right away after I heard the 12. This is all of course subjective (got to always put that out around these parts) but measurements would be great to confirm what Im hearing. Looking for a diamond? Look no further, the 12s are THE one.

Which diamond 12s do you have? .0, .1, or .2?

 

[MarkWinston]

Which diamond 12s do you have? .0, .1, or .2?

The 12.2s... price difference is negligible. I wonder how the .1 compare to the .2 though, with the .2 crossing over at 2khz while the the .1 at 2.7khz. To my ears, this 12.2 sounds almost flawless in every department when set up right, certainly one of the best speakers Ive owned regardless price.

 

[akarma]

What about 10.2? Is sound signature similiar to 220?

 

[MarkWinston]

What about 10.2? Is sound signature similiar to 220?

Weirdly, not quite. The 220 are way warmer and smoother sounding than the 10s. I personally prefer the 200s over the 10s just for that. 225 is the way to go for floormounts.

 

[kism]

The 12.2s... price difference is negligible. I wonder how the .1 compare to the .2 though, with the .2 crossing over at 2khz while the the .1 at 2.7khz. To my ears, this 12.2 sounds almost flawless in every department when set up right, certainly one of the best speakers Ive owned regardless price.

That's good to hear. I'm currently debating between the diamond 12 series and the elac dbr62 that received a really good recommendation here. I've heard mostly good things so far, but I was also wondering about the differences between the 12.1 and the 12.2. It's hard to find comparisons online. I tried searching YouTube and Google, but there was only one video that compared all 3 of the new diamonds. So far nothing I've found compare the diamonds to the dbrs.