Wharfedale Denton 80th Anniversary Speaker Review

[Rick Sykora]

The owner could have asked him also to do them at turned to the side, but ASR is thankfully mainly a review and science site and not a personal wish list, otherwise any loudspeaker can be sent to Klippel for around $1000 for a spin.
Also measuring it with the grille on is by far not double the effort for Amir as thanks to the beauty of the NFS he doesn't need to anything than add them still mounted and restart the automatic scan and from the frequency of the ASR loudspeaker measurements it is not the case that the NFS is running 247 and such would delay another review significantly.

As I think I have articulated, Amir makes the call as he does the work....

Btw, double was not a scientific number so expect no further argument from me in that regard! Despite some confusion, I see no problem with his follow-up response versus another round of Klippel testing. I think we agree on the limited value of an obsolete speaker review, so just going to stop here.

 

[ta240]

What??? If you have fever, you think that means nothing to your doctor? What if your blood pressure is sky high? Still nothing? How about you having lost 20 pounds since the last visit? Still nothing? These are very important clues to diagnose what is wrong with you or they would not waste their time performing them. They are baseline measurements that they like to have before even talking to you. Like a detective, the doctor is trying to gather as much evidence as possible before passing on a diagnostic.

And looking at the brand, size, cost, reputation, other reviewers who commented on the speaker, who designed it, in fully sighted listening tests is not??? Why don't you go and scuff at their protocol using the same reasoning?

And no, I wish I could look at the measurements are instantly tell all of that in all cases. I listen precisely because I want to verify audibility of frequency response errors. If I ran with them as gospel, then there would be no reason to listen. Or saying a speaker is great when measurements don't fully back this.

Bottom line, the only fully reliable listening tests are those in double blind, multi-way comparisons which no reviewer performs. Lacking that, I suggest you trust reviewers that listen with knowledge of what they are testing, than literally being blind and thinking they have super human ability.

First off you are not a doctor and nothing with the subjective part of a review is even comparable to being a doctor with a patient. At that point in the review you are literally just giving us your opinion of a speaker. It is absolutely nothing like diagnosing a patient. Basically, if you stood up and just asked the doctor "Do I look healthy" then it would also be cheating for him to look at your chart first.

I do scoff at their protocol too. But the funny thing to me, is yours is just as silly; because it is exactly the same. They don't pretend to be scientific. None of the other reviewers put "Science" in the name of their site. The first reply to any post from anyone else stating that they 'heard' something from a piece of equipment is nearly always "DBT?". So is DBT a requirement or not? If you can 'verify the audibility' of something you have basically been told to look for then why can't other listeners?

 

[ta240]

What a salesman tells you is not remotely what measurements tell me. The former is some made up impression, the latter, hard data backed by decades of research into audibility/preference for speakers. When measurements tell you there is a 5 dB peak with low Q at 1000 Hz, you better pay attention and well. When a salesman says "this speakers images well," you can ignore that with total confidence that it is random comment.

If the customer's brain can make them think they hear the difference that the salesman tells them is there then why isn't your brain capable of making you think you hear what the measurements say is there? How can expectation bias only apply in specific situations?

Admittedly, the above is not a super rigorous protocol so I give you that but is heck of a lot better scheme than someone pontificating "there is a problem around 500 Hz" while claiming to not have seen the measurements first. Importantly, there is no good alternative.

Why not throw in a before listen? The inaudible is continually being chased here and some products that are being said to have issues that are noticeable, may actually not be noticeable.

Whenever someone says they like one amp more than another they get challenged with "DBT????" And yet amps are routinely said to have poor sound quality on here without DBT and after seeing the measurements.

I see a very common pattern that if the subjective opinion fits the mold then it is accepted without additional questioning. If it goes against the common view of the site, then it is challenged with the call for DBT.
If someone says a class A amp didn't sound very good it isn't questioned.
If someone says they didn't like the sound of a class D amp it is strongly challenged.
It doesn't seem like picking and choosing which claims to question is a solid formula for a science based site.

 

[DanTheMan]

Amir seems to be using the last 40-50 years of published DBT research on preference to make assessments of speakers and deriving EQ settings from that. I'm not sure what the issue is? He's never going to get everything in a review that everyone wants, but he makes very useful reviews.

He could throw in a 'before' listen, but does that mean really anything more than anyone else's opinion? Imagine if he made a mistake as massive as the Danny Richie X-Voce error (I almost wrote Encore there for instance) or any one of these subjective reviewers. He'd be the laughing stock of any knowledgeable audiophile. His reviews and review format are of a high value to say the least as are Erin's. I just enjoy what I gather from the site. If I needed more or was gung ho on a particular product, I'd just do it myself the old fashioned way.

Is there a Speaker and then a DAC/Amp and Amp Review Complaint Thread like we have for headphones? If not, maybe it's time?

 

[Petevid]

First off you are not a doctor and nothing with the subjective part of a review is even comparable to being a doctor with a patient. At that point in the review you are literally just giving us your opinion of a speaker. It is absolutely nothing like diagnosing a patient. Basically, if you stood up and just asked the doctor "Do I look healthy" then it would also be cheating for him to look at your chart first.

I do scoff at their protocol too. But the funny thing to me, is yours is just as silly; because it is exactly the same. They don't pretend to be scientific. None of the other reviewers put "Science" in the name of their site. The first reply to any post from anyone else stating that they 'heard' something from a piece of equipment is nearly always "DBT?". So is DBT a requirement or not? If you can 'verify the audibility' of something you have basically been told to look for then why can't other listeners?

He never said he was a Doctor, you brought up the Doctor analogy in your original post, not Amir. Then you continue gaslighting him with your same analogy.

 

[goat76]

As I think I have articulated, Amir makes the call as he does the work....

Btw, double was not a scientific number so expect no further argument from me in that regard! Despite some confusion, I see no problem with his follow-up response versus another round of Klippel testing. I think we agree on the limited value of an obsolete speaker review, so just going to stop here.

Unfortunately, there’s not much value in comparing the two in-room responses. What we can see is that the changes are rather drastic with the room reflections included in the equation, but we still can't be sure that mirrors the changes in the direct sound of the loudspeakers. We simply need to see the anechoic data for that.

 

[amirm]

Why not throw in a before listen?

I showed you research that says it is useless. And I believe that fully. No way I am going throw stuff out there that I can't defend.

The inaudible is continually being chased here and some products that are being said to have issues that are noticeable, may actually not be noticeable.

Whenever someone says they like one amp more than another they get challenged with "DBT????" And yet amps are routinely said to have poor sound quality on here without DBT and after seeing the measurements.

I see a very common pattern that if the subjective opinion fits the mold then it is accepted without additional questioning. If it goes against the common view of the site, then it is challenged with the call for DBT.
If someone says a class A amp didn't sound very good it isn't questioned.
If someone says they didn't like the sound of a class D amp it is strongly challenged.
It doesn't seem like picking and choosing which claims to question is a solid formula for a science based site.

I don't know what this word salad argument means. We are discussing transducers which are in completely different category than electronics. The engineering is different. The research is different. Each requires specific instrumentation and analysis. I have developed tests for both considering their differences. There is not a person here would would question two speakers sound different. But we will question if two DACs sound different. To not understand this distinction means you are lost in the weeds and there is nothing I can tell you to get you out.

 

[amirm]

If the customer's brain can make them think they hear the difference that the salesman tells them is there then why isn't your brain capable of making you think you hear what the measurements say is there?

And how is a normal reviewer doing sighted listening tests of a single speaker immune from sources of bias as to give you anything useful? Remember, when tested blind, these reviewers can't even give you consistent answers let alone correct ones:

You see how the salesman was actually was more consistent than reviewers? Use your own logic and disown any subjective listening tests.

How can expectation bias only apply in specific situations?

Sigh. I explained and have explained dozens of times, that my listening test is in the service of measurements. If measurements show errors, I develop EQ and test each individual correction. I can do this blind or sighted. Once I have developed all the filters, then I do another EQ vs not, again blind if needed. I then provide my impression of this. Members are free then to apply my filters and do their own evaluation and verification. No one can do the same with some random reviewer's subjective assessment.

I have explained all of this including research in a video I published a while back. Start at this point:

Any follow ups should go to master complaint thread.

 

[amirm]

Yes, the product manual should have stated that the grille is meant to stay on, and they clearly fixed that with the Linton.

Beyond the manual, the marketing material needs to make this very clear as well. They better not show pictures like this from company website without a major disclaimer that speaker must not be used this way:

 

[Thomas_A]

So what is the conclusion of this speaker? Without grille we have the whole spin and it looks pretty bad with diffraction problems giving +/- 8 dB (edit: should be +/- 4 dB or within 8 dB p-p). on axis. Listening window is smoother something like +/- 2 dB. Grille on turns on axis response more like listening window at +/- 2 dB, improving the baffle diffraction. Directivity and listening window with grille is unkown. Other than that it is a small speaker with SPL limitation.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Unfortunately, there’s not much value in comparing the two in-room responses. What we can see is that the changes are rather drastic with the room reflections included in the equation, but we still can't be sure that mirrors the changes in the direct sound of the loudspeakers. We simply need to see the anechoic data for that.

Good point, but did not initially consider the follow-up measurements to be in-room. In PMs with others, we thought the orange trace was the grille off case (as the legend suggests). So rather than in-room, maybe quasi-anechoic. Now am not sure, so up to @amirm to clarify the measurement conditions.

 

[Palladium]

The point will always remain that we mock people when the salesman tells them what they are about to hear and then they 'hear' it, yet you are doing the exact same thing.
And how can the phrase 'blind if need be' even be used when people are literally shouted down on here that state they heard a difference in a non-double blind test?

I forgot where I saw this paper, but it contained an elaborate hoax where they made a CD player to physically resemble a LP player and yet it still fooled the test subjects to believe it was actually a LP they listened to.

 

[goat76]

Good point, but did not initially consider the follow-up measurements to be in-room. In PMs with others, we thought the orange trace was the grille off case (as the legend suggests). So rather than in-room, maybe quasi-anechoic. Now am not sure, so up to @amirm to clarify the measurement conditions.

Amir said in his initial post that he "ran a non-anechoic test of without and with grill (added to the review)".

 

[Beave]

So what is the conclusion of this speaker? Without grille we have the whole spin and it looks pretty bad with diffraction problems giving +/- 8 dB on axis. Listening window is smoother something like +/- 2 dB. Grille on turns on axis response more like listening window at +/- 2 dB, improving the baffle diffraction. Directivity and listening window with grille is unkown. Other than that it is a small speaker with SPL limitation.

8dB peak to peak, not +/- 8dB.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Amir said in his initial post that he "ran a non-anechoic test of without and with grill (added to the review)".

In hindsight, non-anechoic may very well be in-room. As I mentioned, Amir needs to clarify (and rationalize). At this point with all the confusion, agree with @thewas that another Klippel (full spin) run would have been simpler.

 

[Thomas_A]

8dB peak to peak, not +/- 8dB.

Yes my bad. I will edit

 

[vert]

This is getting heated... worthlessly vindicative, venomous.
It is saddening. Our host has built such a beautiful space, he certainly doesn't deserve this.

 

[goat76]

In hindsight, non-anechoic may very well be in-room. As I mentioned, Amir needs to clarify (and rationalize). At this point with all the confusion, agree with @thewas that another Klippel (full spin) run would have been simpler.

The problem is that Amir seems to have decided he doesn't want to do another full spin with the grills on, so we will probably never see the result of such measurements for this particular speaker.

Hopefully, some member who owns these speakers can make a quick gated measurement with and without the grill and share the result. It's not that hard to do, just put the loudspeaker and the microphone as far from the walls as possible, make the measurements at the height of the acoustic axis of the speaker at a 1-2 meter distance, and gate the measurement in REW and share the result in this thread.

 

[thewas]

Hopefully, some member who owns these speakers can make a quick gated measurement with and without the grill and share the result. It's not that hard to do, just put the loudspeaker and the microphone as far from the walls as possible, make the measurements at the height of the acoustic axis of the speaker at a 1-2 meter distance, and gate the measurement in REW and share the result in this thread.

To get the gate longer often a ground plane measurement can also be performed, ideally also for 15° and 30° off-axis, it is really just a few minutes job.

 

[Svet Angelov]

I just don't understand the large discrepancies between the design and execution of different Wharfedale ranges.

-The old Jade flagship measured flatter than the current Elysians.
-This 80th anniversary edition somehow measures better than the 85th anniversary edition, if the measurements by Danny are anything to go by (even if they are smoothed to $hit)
-The EVO range measures and (to me) sounds worse than the supposedly lower Diamond 12.x range.
-The new Auras, which while not cheap by any means, measure fantastic in all metrics.
-Lintons are pound-for-pound the best standalone (i.e. not necessarily needing a sub) speakers I've ever heard. I reckon the Dovedales would be a couple steps above those, but the fact that they're assembled in the UK makes them too expensive.

Still, these discrepancies will not stop me from being a huge Wharfedale fan.