• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Wharfedale Denton 80th Anniversary Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 138 55.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 83 33.6%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 12 4.9%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 14 5.7%

  • Total voters
    247

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,502
Likes
4,662
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
Too much tweeter with or without grille and no bass below 100Hz which is a killer for me. Amazing what taking the bass to 60 - 80Hz reasonably well can do despite what's going on up top and I suspect the 85th version may be better lower down? Just my take of course...
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,506
Likes
2,544
Location
Sweden
Hi Thomas,

Aside from stating what we have all can observe, not sure what your goal is here? I suggest Amir is simply stating his overall assessment of the Denton (and with corrections, now makes more sense). Is there something more you are expecting? If so, will help if I can.:)
Amirs reviews are excellent and especially the measurements that are state of the art. All I am saying is that this speaker suffers from quite severe diffraction without grille. which is visible in e.g. the dispersion heat maps with ”beaming” peaks between 2-4 kHz. As I am interested in why things measures as they do, I would be interested to see the effect of the grille.

It is not much to do unless someone does a spin or gated measurements including horizontal dispersion in 10 degree increments with and without grille and good resolution > 1 kHz. I can’t really find the speaker where I live so that would be hard for me to do.
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,666
Likes
7,426
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Amirs reviews are excellent and especially the measurements that are state of the art. All I am saying is that this speaker suffers from quite severe diffraction without grille. which is visible in e.g. the dispersion heat maps with ”beaming” peaks between 2-4 kHz. As I am interested in why things measures as they do, I would be interested to see the effect of the grille.

Amir did the on-axis comparison and that seems fairly indicative of the impact of the grille. Amir returned the speaker to the owner and so cannot expect any further measurements from him. The disturbances around 2-4 kHz is clearly due to the lack of a grille. It is also right around where you would expect given the wavelength. For that matter with the grille-on has a new 12 hHz hump so just indicates the diffraction moved to a higher frequency as the grille shortened the distance....

It is not much to do unless someone does a spin or gated measurements including horizontal dispersion in 10 degree increments with and without grille and good resolution > 1 kHz. I can’t really find the speaker where I live so that would be hard for me to do.

I regret no other spin is forthcoming as far as I know. The owner and I plan to meet in March. Understand the curiosity but him and I discussed and did not consider more measurements worth the time.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,506
Likes
2,544
Location
Sweden
Amir did the on-axis comparison and that seems fairly indicative of the impact of the grille. Amir returned the speaker to the owner and so cannot expect any further measurements from him. The disturbances around 2-4 kHz is clearly due to the lack of a grille. It is also right around where you would expect given the wavelength. For that matter with the grille-on has a new 12 hHz hump so just indicates the diffraction moved to a higher frequency as the grille shortened the distance....



I regret no other spin is forthcoming as far as I know. The owner and I plan to meet in March. Understand the curiosity but him and I discussed and did not consider more measurements worth the time.
The only ”measurement” I found besides Amirs was this low resolution one. I don’t know what it tells though.


1707589394178.gif
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,502
Likes
4,662
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
Peter Comeau (did he design this model?) mentioned once long ago that a lift in the upper kHz region could make perception of guitar playing better amongst other things. Now, this was before better drivers came along at realistic prices and I really don't know if he still believes this as his experience has grown. He does seem more 'analogue' inclined I believe and that does worry me a bit.

Over the more contemporary speakers Wharfedale sells, who exactly is going to buy these retro looking boxes? The Linton comes across as a much cheaper alternative to the BeeBeeCee inspired boxes now costing multiples more - and may well be better than some of them - but these Dentons? Honestly not sure here.
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,666
Likes
7,426
Location
Stow, Ohio USA

moonthink

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 5, 2023
Messages
36
Likes
37
Location
Oberlin, Ohio, USA
Peter Comeau (did he design this model?) mentioned once long ago that a lift in the upper kHz region could make perception of guitar playing better amongst other things. Now, this was before better drivers came along at realistic prices and I really don't know if he still believes this as his experience has grown. He does seem more 'analogue' inclined I believe and that does worry me a bit.

Over the more contemporary speakers Wharfedale sells, who exactly is going to buy these retro looking boxes? The Linton comes across as a much cheaper alternative to the BeeBeeCee inspired boxes now costing multiples more - and may well be better than some of them - but these Dentons? Honestly not sure here.
Peter Comeau did design these. Confirmed by email from Wharfedale CS.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,506
Likes
2,544
Location
Sweden
Lol, not much! Just made me wonder how old is this speaker? More than a decade old it appears. :eek:
Not sure what it means since they say that that they do two different measurements with CLIO. One have to order the published test to know.
 

beagleman

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
1,203
Likes
1,687
Location
Pittsburgh Pa
The only ”measurement” I found besides Amirs was this low resolution one. I don’t know what it tells though.


View attachment 348736
Well, the red I would assume is the Ports outputs, and the green the Woofer and tweeter.

Sadly is is very limited in resolution and could be an "in room" measurement. If I was using this to discern info about the speaker, I would think response is not "Too bad" and a bit rolled off on the high end, but again the method and resolution is so mediocre, it makes anything a bit dodgy for sure.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,506
Likes
2,544
Location
Sweden
Well, the red I would assume is the Ports outputs, and the green the Woofer and tweeter.

Sadly is is very limited in resolution and could be an "in room" measurement. If I was using this to discern info about the speaker, I would think response is not "Too bad" and a bit rolled off on the high end, but again the method and resolution is so mediocre, it makes anything a bit dodgy for sure.
Found the article. It is from November 2012 so this model has been around for at least 12 years. No additional graphs though.
 

beagleman

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
1,203
Likes
1,687
Location
Pittsburgh Pa
The only ”measurement” I found besides Amirs was this low resolution one. I don’t know what it tells though.


View attachment 348736
Thinking back, this graph, looks a bit more similar to Danny at GR, but not as rolled off in the highs. Where as Amir got a slightly boosted top end, with some peaks.

Overall this one appears the smoothest, but of course it lacks in resolution AND measuring details.
 

Jungstar

Active Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2019
Messages
116
Likes
40
Since Amir cares about science, i wish he would listen to speakers, post his opinions, and later the measurements. Knowing the measurements and listening later puts so much bias into the subjective listening review that it is almost not worth much.
 
D

Deleted member 21219

Guest
Since Amir cares about science, i wish he would listen to speakers, post his opinions, and later the measurements. Knowing the measurements and listening later puts so much bias into the subjective listening review that it is almost not worth much.
The subjective listening part of the review is, at best, not worth much. At its worst, it a useless farce, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Not only that, but let's say that you listened first to the same speaker, posted your impressions, and then measured, as you want Amir to do. Do you honestly believe that your impressions would tally with Amir's? He's a trained listener and you're not. How well would his impressions relate to yours? Not only that, but is your room the same as his? Are your furnishings the same as his? Is your RT60 the same as his? Will your placement be the same as his?

I think that there shouldn't be ANY subjective comment in the reviews, not on electronics and not on speakers. The reason is simple; subjective comments are worthless for passing on meaningful information to other people. Offering subjective impressions leads readers to believe that subjectivity is legitimate, is worthwhile, is useful and has value.

It's not and it doesn't.

The sooner people learn to understand measurements, the better. After all, we had to learn how to walk, how to speak, how to read and write, how to do arithmetic, didn't we? We can learn how to interpret measurements, charts and graphs, too. It'll take some time, but in the end you'll have mastery of a new "language".

And that's worth something, unlike subjective comments.

Jim
 
Last edited by a moderator:

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,379
Likes
1,562
The subjective listening part of the review is, at best, not worth much. At its worst, it a useless farce, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Not only that, but let's say that you listened first to the same speaker, posted your impressions, and then measured, as you want Amir to do. Do you honestly believe that your impressions would tally with Amir's? He's a trained listener and you're not. How well would his impressions relate to yours? Not only that, but is your room the same as his? Are your furnishings the same as his? It your RT60 the same as his? Will your placement be the same as his?

I think that there shouldn't be ANY subjective comment in the reviews, not on electronics and not on speakers. The reason is simple; subjective comments are worthless for passing on meaningful information to other people. Offering subjective impressions leads readers to believe that subjectivity is legitimate, is worthwhile, is useful and has value.

It's not and it doesn't.

The sooner people learn to understand measurements, the better. After all, we had to learn how to walk, how to speak, how to read and write, how to do arithmetic, didn't we? We can learn how to interpret measurements, charts and graphs, too. It'll take some time, but in the end you'll have mastery of a new "language".

And that's worth something, unlike subjective comments.

Jim

So what is the purpose then of measuring the loudspeakers in the first place if most of us will hear them differently anyway? Aren't the measurements supposed to confirm what we hear and not the other way around?

I don't get this idea that no subjective descriptions of how loudspeaker sounds can ever be trusted. I have read a lot of user reviews of speakers which many times have accurately mirrored my experience with the same speakers.
I often find the subjective listening part of a review to be a great supplement to the measurements, a good example of that is Erin’s reviews which always contain a fairly long talk about how he subjectively finds the speakers to sound. Great information.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,531
Likes
25,142
I don't get this idea that no subjective descriptions of how loudspeaker sounds can ever be trusted. I have read a lot of user reviews of speakers which many times have accurately mirrored my experience with the same speakers.
Some people like the sound of Klipsch's "Heritage" loudspeakers (K-horn, Belle, LaScala, Cornwall, Heresy). Some don't. Any given model measures the same, no matter which camp one falls in.

I do wonder, truth be told, whether that that nasty ol' specter of expectation bias colors the objectivist's more quantitatively-minded listener's subjective qualitative experience. It measures bad, so it must sound bad. Even if it doesn't. ;):eek::facepalm:

'tis a puzzlement. :)
1708304265898.jpeg
:eek::facepalm:
 
D

Deleted member 21219

Guest
Aren't the measurements supposed to confirm what we hear and not the other way around?

Measurements stand on their own. Measurements made here today are directly transferable information to someone wanting to know the same information five years from now, half-way across the world. If they do the same tests and measurements, they should get the same results. Therefore, if they know that, they don't even need to do the same tests and measurements ... they can trust the ones that are made here, today.
This is because the reproducibility (ability to be replicated) is part and parcel of the usefulness of scientific investigations. It's one of the pillars of the scientific method.

What we hear, what we see, and what we taste can change ... change with location. with time, with temperament, with age and with circumstances. Sensory input is ephemeral. Not only that, but our opinion of that sensory input is even more ephemeral. What we like today, we hate next hear. What we think is too hot today, we think is comfortable next year. Opinions change, sometimes faster than underwear.
Put those two factors together, and you have an EXTREMELY unreliable anchor or reference, one that cannot be relied upon whatsoever. So the measurements might correlate* to what we hear today, and be way off to us two months from now.

*You are possibly referring to "correlation", which is not quite the same as confirmation. It's useful to say, "The measurements correlate to what we hear." I keep stressing that people should correlate their opinions to measurements, so at least they get the idea that measurements have communicable value. If something is confirmed, that means that it is validated or proven, in the sense that others can use it as reference. As I pointed out, subjectivism lacks that characteristic.

I don't get this idea that no subjective descriptions of how loudspeaker sounds can ever be trusted. I have read a lot of user reviews of speakers which many times have accurately mirrored my experience with the same speakers.

If you saw the review before you heard the speaker, the b.s. reviewer set up a tremendous expectation bias in your mind. If you heard the speakers first and then saw the review, the review represented confirmation bias.
Subjective descriptions are moderately reliable - at least short-term - to the person who has them. Not his buddies, not his parents, not his girlfriend and not the family dog. Just him. If he thinks that a speaker is "bright" today, he will probably think it's "bright" tomorrow.

But his parents may think he's crazy, his girlfriend might think it's not bright, and his buddies might argue because one of them agrees that it's bright and the other one thinks he's nuts.

And to make a point ... if he goes on a trip for six weeks and comes back, he might wonder what's wrong because the speaker isn't "bright" anymore.

There have been many instances where two members of ASR, both level-headed and reasonable, have had diametrically opposite opinions of the sound of a certain speaker. These weren't people who were in love with subjective foofaraw, they were objectivists. They thought they were correct. They thought they were accurate.

Either one or both were wrong.

Who's next?

I often find the subjective listening part of a review to be a great supplement to the measurements, a good example of that is Erin’s reviews which always contain a fairly long talk about how he subjectively finds the speakers to sound.

Correct. He's telling you what his impressions are. Remember the phrase, "Your mileage may vary"?
What you are listening to there is basically entertainment. The reason is that a hundred people could listen to the exact same description that you listen to, then all of you buy the same speakers, and when all of you listen to them there might be blocs of two different opinions, or three, or four or even more. That can happen if you would listen to them in the same location, but would be even more likely to happen if you listened to them each person in their own room.

The BEST thing you can say about subjective descriptions is that if you find a person who you know by experience has a set of opinions that correlate to your listening impressions, then you can consider that person useful .... today. Next year? Maybe, maybe not. In a different room, either more absorptive or less absorptive? Maybe, but probably not. After one of you has a bout with COVID? I seriously doubt it.

And like I said, that's the BEST thing you can say about subjective descriptions.

Truth be told, you can't trust subjective descriptions of sound any more than you can trust subjective descriptions of beauty, tastes of wine or food, odors (of flowers or anything else) or impressions of heat, cold or pain.
Subjective impressions are unique to the person who generates them.

Jim
 
Last edited by a moderator:

valerianf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
710
Likes
462
Location
Los Angeles
@amirn, what you measured is not the real life behavior of this speaker.
As you said the purchaser of this speaker does not want to see it.
Thus the driver membrane will be covered of painting and sealant.
Its weight, flexibility will not be any more the one of the membrane that you measured.

The only way to try to measure this speaker accurately is to mount it on a wall and to measure the room respons.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,939
Likes
17,111
@amirn, what you measured is not the real life behavior of this speaker.
As you said the purchaser of this speaker does not want to see it.
Thus the driver membrane will be covered of painting and sealant.
Its weight, flexibility will not be any more the one of the membrane that you measured.

The only way to try to measure this speaker accurately is to mount it on a wall and to measure the room respons.
I am afraid this is the wrong thread, you want to add this here?
 

valerianf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
710
Likes
462
Location
Los Angeles
Sorry for the wrong thread posting.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,379
Likes
1,562
Measurements stand on their own. Measurements made here today are directly transferable information to someone wanting to know the same information five years from now, half-way across the world. If they do the same tests and measurements, they should get the same results.

That is also true for an accurate listening report. Both the measurements and the listening reports can be of good or bad quality, you choose who you trust in both cases. To me, Amir and Erin make trustworthy measurements. I also find listening reports from reviewers and regular users that mirror my own experience to be trustworthy.

Therefore, if they know that, they don't even need to do the same tests and measurements ... they can trust the ones that are made here, today.
This is because the reproducibility (ability to be replicated) is part and parcel of the usefulness of scientific investigations. It's one of the pillars of the scientific method.

I don't trust all random measurements I see, in the same way, I don't trust every single review I see. If a certain reviewer has a proven track record that mirrors my own experience with the reviewed gear, I trust that reviewer equally much as I trust the measurements done by people I believe doing a great job measuring things.

What we hear, what we see, and what we taste can change ... change with location. with time, with temperament, with age and with circumstances. Sensory input is ephemeral. Not only that, but our opinion of that sensory input is even more ephemeral. What we like today, we hate next hear. What we think is too hot today, we think is comfortable next year. Opinions change, sometimes faster than underwear.
Put those two factors together, and you have an EXTREMELY unreliable anchor or reference, one that cannot be relied upon whatsoever. So the measurements might correlate* to what we hear today, and be way off to us two months from now.

I have never changed my preferences when it comes to sound, my goal and what I prioritize when it comes to sound reproduction have always been the same, and I expect them to be the same as long as my hearing is not severely damaged. I know when I hear the qualities I seek, and I can often pinpoint those qualities when reading other people's listening reports. With measurements, I can make out that the loudspeakers may have some problems, problems that may affect the sound in a way that I don't like, but with the complement of subjective listening reports, I will have an even better idea if that may be the case.

*You are possibly referring to "correlation", which is not quite the same as confirmation. It's useful to say, "The measurements correlate to what we hear." I keep stressing that people should correlate their opinions to measurements, so at least they get the idea that measurements have communicable value. If something is confirmed, that means that it is validated or proven, in the sense that others can use it as reference. As I pointed out, subjectivism lacks that characteristic.

Even if I understand most measurements, I can't say I would know how the loudspeakers sound just based on them. As I said, they are great for finding possible problems but I will certainly need more than that to get an idea of how they sound. That's when a (for me) trusted reviewer or a whole bunch of users' subjective listening impressions can put more light on the matter.

If you saw the review before you heard the speaker, the b.s. reviewer set up a tremendous expectation bias in your mind. If you heard the speakers first and then saw the review, the review represented confirmation bias.

If you saw the measurements before you heard the speaker, it could easily set up a tremendous expectation bias in your mind. If you heard the speakers first and then saw the measurements, the measurements represented confirmation bias.

Subjective descriptions are moderately reliable - at least short-term - to the person who has them. Not his buddies, not his parents, not his girlfriend and not the family dog. Just him. If he thinks that a speaker is "bright" today, he will probably think it's "bright" tomorrow.

But his parents may think he's crazy, his girlfriend might think it's not bright, and his buddies might argue because one of them agrees that it's bright and the other one thinks he's nuts.

And to make a point ... if he goes on a trip for six weeks and comes back, he might wonder what's wrong because the speaker isn't "bright" anymore.

With the limited description above, I would have no idea what those people normally like. But if I knew their taste in sound and one of them happened to share a similar taste as me, I would trust that person's view on the matter about equally much as seeing the measurements.

There have been many instances where two members of ASR, both level-headed and reasonable, have had diametrically opposite opinions of the sound of a certain speaker. These weren't people who were in love with subjective foofaraw, they were objectivists. They thought they were correct. They thought they were accurate.

Either one or both were wrong.

Who's next?

Can you please share a link to those examples, by your limited description it's impossible for me to know if their descriptions were detailed enough to determine if what they heard was truly diametrically opposite to each other, or if their taste in sound was diametrically opposite to each other.

Correct. He's telling you what his impressions are. Remember the phrase, "Your mileage may vary"?
What you are listening to there is basically entertainment. The reason is that a hundred people could listen to the exact same description that you listen to, then all of you buy the same speakers, and when all of you listen to them there might be blocs of two different opinions, or three, or four or even more. That can happen if you would listen to them in the same location, but would be even more likely to happen if you listened to them each person in their own room.

I know he's telling us what his impressions are, then it's up to every single viewer if they can relate to those impressions and how his taste in sound correlates to theirs. That's up to them to find out similarly as it's up to them to figure out if the measurements correlate to their taste in sound.

It's also up to every single person to learn that an empty untreated room will probably sound way brighter than an acoustically treated room. He will probably not know much more about that part by looking at the speaker measurements.

When I'm interested in buying something HiFi related, I look for every single piece of information I can find over a fairly long time. I would never buy anything expensive just based on measurements, a single review, or a couple of user impressions. I read everything I can find and have never bought anything that has surprised me negatively, the overall impressions have always been accurate and geared towards my sound preferences.


That's probably all I have to say about this. :)
 
Top Bottom