Wharfedale Diamond 12.1 Review (Speaker)

[beagleman]

Another thing I found, was that tweeter height above or below my ears, changes the sound a decent bit.
They seem to have a sweet spot that is fairly small on the vertical height.

Being about 4 inches OVER tweeter sounds different than being right on axis with the tweeter, and if anything, changes the sound maybe more than the EQ changes.

When I listened with ears 4 inches above, even at a fair distance, the sound improved markedly by raising speakers to ear height or even an inch above.
But the sound was not just more neutral, but quite a bit more spacious and almost holographic, and I hate to use flowery words.

Diana Krall was in the room versus singing at the end wall of my living room. At least as far as ambiance and an enveloping sound.
Tweeter height is EXTREMELY important with these speakers, in fact more so than most I have owned.
Erin comments about this on his site, and what made me modify my height to see if I agreed.

Takes the sound to a new level in my opinion, to sit at tweeter level, versus being a bit too high.

 

[beagleman]

I don't have a way to do measurements, but it is crystal clear that the 12.2 have either harmonics or distortion even at simple recordings.
I use them at my desktop so I am at ear level and about 1m from each and listen from low to mid volume most of the time. But the distortion I found is present even at extremely low volumes.

Nothing backs up what you are claiming>?

Did you get a defective set or even contact Wharfedale about your "distortion" issue??

I have the 12.1 with the same exact tweeter, and it is smooth and clean and detailed and has no obvious distortion at all.
Very confused about your numerous posts alluding to this odd distortion and no mention of remedying it under warranty.

 

[dominikz]

I wish someone would do the hard work and import these to spinorama.org as well, but i guess it's just too much hassle.

The EQ profiles are there already - for some speakers there are even multiple versions.

 

[beagleman]

You are touching one of the most important questions.
I really think there is currently no clear answer.
I have zero experience with this Wharfedale model, with previous Wharfedale Diamond models I have tried I felt they were not resolving speakers subjectively.
I recently used both the ELAC DBR62 and the POLK L200. They measured in room almost exactly the same. Granted an in room MMM reading from the listening position only tells you so much about a speaker, that said those speakers did not resolve equally. It wasn't that close. Neither where they equal in Dynamics, not really very close. (I preferred the Polk in everyway, it does also cost over twice as much to be fair)
I had a similar experience with the JBL A130 and the Wharfedale Diamond 225, the JBL was much more resolving and "clean" sounding even with the boosted mid's taken down with PEQ.
Anyway in terms of how to fully measure the Resolution and Dynamics of a speaker (which I find to both be very important), there seems to be a real debate over how to demonstrate it in testing.
Surely low IMD distortion and low compression would be big factors but it seems there is more.

Thought about this some.

I think Attack/Decay times come into play. Like the Spectral Decay, and distortion and frequency response and compression.
But with saying that, I have worked with some pro speakers that excel in dynamics and low distortion and have almost NO compression even at very very high levels and so on, but seem VERY lacking in resolution......

I think it is simply a combination of about 5 measurements that ALL factor in.

 

[beagleman]

@amirm Does there happen to be a Cumulative Spectral Display Graph for this speaker by any chance?

 

[beagleman]

Big and clumsy. Low WAF. Relatively expensive to produce - a lot more expensive coils and caps in a 3-way crossover - which is difficult to sell at an equivalent profit to a 2-way. Small 2-ways + subwoofer(s) are easier to make sound good in typical rooms.

Judging by the popularity of Troels Gravesen's many '3-way classic' designs audiophiles still favour the format, but I have a feeling they are often relegated to 'man-caves' or the recently (or soon to be) divorced ...

My biggest issue with "large" woofer big box speakers, while I do like this type of speaker, seems that most will go loud and do some serious strong bass, but very few unless very high priced, do the truly "Deep bass" even as well as a mid priced decent sub can do.

So you end up with 2 fairly huge boxes, that can hint at 32hz, but are not as good as a decent sub. And I am left feeling you still NEED a sub, so it makes the 10" or 12" or 15" woofer seem redundant and wasteful.

I think the proliferation of good value subs have pushed this type of speaker to the man cave or garage specials.

 

[beagleman]

That is a lot of parametric EQ being applied to the response of this loudspeaker, some of it with relatively high Q values. Considering that the loudspeaker seems to have a wide built-in dip, about 2dB in magnitude centered on 2kHz and covering two octaves, I'd expect that a single parametric EQ filter in that region could suffice to bring up the energy to be relatively flat on axis. Wouldn't many of the other small peaks and dips be caused to a large extent by sound diffraction effects. I am concerned that EQing individual peaks and dips resulting from diffraction effects is not entirely a good idea.

Having now owned these, for a few months, and able to experiment a lot with them, I have found........

While this EQ and the one Amir came up with on the first page of the thread, do create a slightly more neutral and a bit more forward sound, over time, going back and forth, I honestly "Somewhat" prefer that "As-is" sound without any eq added.

Not to say the EQ ruins the sound or anything, but going A/B between EQ to make them "Flat" and the built in dip, I somewhat prefer the dip overall.

I thought the "Dip" would be a flaw in a mostly great speaker, but over time, now find it a bit more listenable with the dip. Either way, the With and Without EQ, is still relatively minor, and may end up simply being "Personal preference", So I can see either way sounding good to some and not to others.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Having now owned these, for a few months, and able to experiment a lot with them, I have found........

While this EQ and the one Amir came up with on the first page of the thread, do create a slightly more neutral and a bit more forward sound, over time, going back and forth, I honestly "Somewhat" prefer that "As-is" sound without any eq added.

Not to say the EQ ruins the sound or anything, but going A/B between EQ to make them "Flat" and the built in dip, I somewhat prefer the dip overall.

I thought the "Dip" would be a flaw in a mostly great speaker, but over time, now find it a bit more listenable with the dip. Either way, the With and Without EQ, is still relatively minor, and may end up simply being "Personal preference", So I can see either way sounding good to some and not to others.

I wonder, have you tried a happy medium?

I'm thinking, instead of Amir's +3.0 dB and +2.0 dB boosts, you halved them to +1.5 dB and +1.0 dB.

Just a thought.

Thanks for the continued feedback.

 

[beagleman]

I wonder, have you tried a happy medium?

I'm thinking, instead of Amir's +3.0 dB and +2.0 dB boosts, you halved them to +1.5 dB and +1.0 dB.

Just a thought.

Thanks for the continued feedback.

Yes for sure, I have tried exactly that!

I did prefer that overall, but I think I could live with the built in dip also!
I found that after listening a few days, the built in dip OR the half boost both appeal to me.

Not to sound wishy washy, but neither setting drastically alters the sound, except I can notice it more on "some" female vocals and on Pink Noise.

Out of the box, the stock sound, with Pink Noise, simply sounded "Right" and one of the smoothest pink noise sounds I have ever heard.

 

[Chaconne]

Having now owned these, for a few months, and able to experiment a lot with them, I have found........

While this EQ and the one Amir came up with on the first page of the thread, do create a slightly more neutral and a bit more forward sound, over time, going back and forth, I honestly "Somewhat" prefer that "As-is" sound without any eq added.

Not to say the EQ ruins the sound or anything, but going A/B between EQ to make them "Flat" and the built in dip, I somewhat prefer the dip overall.

I thought the "Dip" would be a flaw in a mostly great speaker, but over time, now find it a bit more listenable with the dip. Either way, the With and Without EQ, is still relatively minor, and may end up simply being "Personal preference", So I can see either way sounding good to some and not to others.

So maybe Karl-Heinz knows what he's doing!

 

[tw 2022]

So maybe Karl-Heinz knows what he's doing!

i'm out of the loop on WD... is Karl-Heinz the "new guy" or the previous guy , and if he is the new guy ..what other designs in the line up has he worked on...?

 

[Laserjock]

i'm out of the loop on WD... is Karl-Heinz the "new guy" or the previous guy , and if he is the new guy ..what other designs in the line up has he worked on...?

He has his own line of speakers but not sure the Diamond 12. was his only contribution to the Wharfedale or plans for a new one.

Products – Fink Team

www.finkteam.com

 

[Chaconne]

I think the Diamond 12 series is the only one he designed for Wharfedale. He has also designed some models for Q Acoustics. His own Fink Team speakers are well regarded—and quite pricey. (He has contributed to this thread, above, stating that the so-called BBC dip was intentional and done in respect for our hearing, to paraphrase.)

 

[tw 2022]

He has his own line of speakers but not sure the Diamond 12. was his only contribution to the Wharfedale or plans for a new one.

Products – Fink Team

www.finkteam.com

I think the Diamond 12 series is the only one he designed for Wharfedale. He has also designed some models for Q Acoustics. His own Fink Team speakers are well regarded—and quite pricey. (He has contributed to this thread, above, stating that the so-called BBC dip was intentional and done in respect for our hearing, to paraphrase.)

thanks guys, some of this was my understanding, some new (good) info.. consider me more educated....

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

This is interesting. Whether we call it the BBC Dip, or whatever, there's...something here.

Amir is, I believe in saying, a purist. And yet even his comments appear to leave a bit of a caveat:

This made the vocals, especially that of females, to stand out more which I liked. And added a bit of resolution to them as is typical of this type of boost. On some tracks I thought there was a bit extra brightness but overall, I liked it better with EQ than without.

So, implicitly, on some tracks, he liked it without the EQ, and others with the EQ.

Thank goodness we live in a time where the comparison is a click of a mouse away, rather than having to own two sets of speakers.

And thank goodness we actually know that the difference is transparent to us.

And thank goodness we know the theory behind the two options.

These speakers appear to be the perfect match for a WiiM Amp (yes, it has a PEQ stage sy you can toggle between the two yourself).

Maybe add a sub later? Room correction, and more than 4-band PEQ on its way.

Good grief, these are golden times to be in this 'hobby'.

 

[beagleman]

What Hi-Fi? recognises Karl-Heinz Fink as today's most influential speaker engineer

A worthy winner of our Outstanding Contribution Award 2022

www.whathifi.com

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

Having now owned these, for a few months, and able to experiment a lot with them, I have found........

While this EQ and the one Amir came up with on the first page of the thread, do create a slightly more neutral and a bit more forward sound, over time, going back and forth, I honestly "Somewhat" prefer that "As-is" sound without any eq added.

Not to say the EQ ruins the sound or anything, but going A/B between EQ to make them "Flat" and the built in dip, I somewhat prefer the dip overall.

I thought the "Dip" would be a flaw in a mostly great speaker, but over time, now find it a bit more listenable with the dip. Either way, the With and Without EQ, is still relatively minor, and may end up simply being "Personal preference", So I can see either way sounding good to some and not to others.

Hi,


what you noticed is what we do during the development. We listen to the speakers with all sorts of music and tune them so that the maximum number of tracks sounds good (to us). Believe me, it's very easy to make a speaker flat, but they would sound harsh and forward in most cases. We can discuss if that's good or bad, but as long as the music is recorded the way it is, I'll voice speakers the way I do.

Indeed, I only did one Wharfedale range and two Castle models for IAG. The contract ended at the end of last year, so no more models from us.

In a way, it's a pity, as I like doing budget speakers. But there is no brand around, who is interested - obviously, the traditional budget market is dead.

ATB KH

 

[beagleman]

Hi,


what you noticed is what we do during the development. We listen to the speakers with all sorts of music and tune them so that the maximum number of tracks sounds good (to us). Believe me, it's very easy to make a speaker flat, but they would sound harsh and forward in most cases. We can discuss if that's good or bad, but as long as the music is recorded the way it is, I'll voice speakers the way I do.

Indeed, I only did one Wharfedale range and two Castle models for IAG. The contract ended at the end of last year, so no more models from us.

In a way, it's a pity, as I like doing budget speakers. But there is no brand around, who is interested - obviously, the traditional budget market is dead.

ATB KH

Thank you for replying back!
I do find this speaker (12.1) to sound "just right" on most music. A very listenable sound and also a quite accurate sound.

One question, as we only have the 12.1 frequency response here on ASR........

Would your same voicing and overall Frequency response carry onto the larger 12.2 and 12.3 and 12.4 models?
No one seems to have done actual measurements on those models as far as I can find.

 

[Triliza]

Thank you for replying back!
I do find this speaker (12.1) to sound "just right" on most music. A very listenable sound and also a quite accurate sound.

One question, as we only have the 12.1 frequency response here on ASR........

Would your same voicing and overall Frequency response carry onto the larger 12.2 and 12.3 and 12.4 models?
No one seems to have done actual measurements on those models as far as I can find.

He commented about that in an earlier post:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-12-1-review-speaker.26780/page-8#post-952264

I find this conversation about flat vs speakers with a small dip like this one very interesting. Dr Toole's research back then found that most people preferred flat speakers, was that because the music sample they used was well recorded?

 

[Palladium]

Take it with a grain of salt or two because of different listening environments and personal preferences, but from first hand experience I find the recent-era Diamonds sound better than Wharfedale's more expensive offerings like Evo, Denton or even the Linton.