Wharfedale Diamond 220 Budget Speaker Review

[richard12511]

P.S. I did read an earlier post almost sarcastic towards UK speaker design. may I please respectfully suggest our rooms aren't like many US built ones either in construction or size and it's almost certainly probably that speakers not liked here for response anomalies may well work fine in our generally near to mid-field environments. having said that, my pals 220's 'sound' great at moderate levels and not hugely well positioned either

While this seems logical(at least to me), Toole's research found that the room has little to no influence on the speakers we prefer. The same speakers are preferred in the same order in all rooms.

Personally, I find this a bit hard to accept, though I have no data to dispute it. In fact, the one blind test I've conducted with the same speakers in two different rooms actually supports Toole's position, as the the speakers involved did land in the same order (Genelec 8030c > Revel M105 > JBL 308p) in both my office and my living room. Different people for each test, though, and small sample size, so who knows. For some reason, I still have doubt here, though perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way.

 

[infinitesymphony]

While this seems logical(at least to me), Toole's research found that the room has little to no influence on the speakers we prefer. The same speakers are preferred in the same order in all rooms.

Personally, I find this a bit hard to accept, though I have no data to dispute it. In fact, the one blind test I've conducted with the same speakers in two different rooms actually supports Toole's position, as the the speakers involved did land in the same order (Genelec 8030c > Revel M105 > JBL 308p) in both my office and my living room. Different people for each test, though, and small sample size, so who knows. For some reason, I still have doubt here, though perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way.

Maybe one takeaway is that speakers with better directivity performance will be less affected by any room because a higher proportion of sound will be direct vs. reflected.

 

[DSJR]

While this seems logical(at least to me), Toole's research found that the room has little to no influence on the speakers we prefer. The same speakers are preferred in the same order in all rooms.

Personally, I find this a bit hard to accept, though I have no data to dispute it. In fact, the one blind test I've conducted with the same speakers in two different rooms actually supports Toole's position, as the the speakers involved did land in the same order (Genelec 8030c > Revel M105 > JBL 308p) in both my office and my living room. Different people for each test, though, and small sample size, so who knows. For some reason, I still have doubt here, though perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way.

I can only say that speakers of middle sizes with some bass (possibly of the loosely ported variety) appear to behave 'boomily' in many UK sized living rooms (those that haven't been knocked in to occupy all the ground floor). Our brick and plaster walls don't absorb bass so well. Said boomy speakers can take an entirely different perceived balance when set up away from boundaries in a larger environment.

Maybe I'm talking about boom (poor group delay at low frequencies?) and I'm still discovering here after years in the industry. In my own case, a speaker I liked a lot in one room with a 'tiuneful' and clear bass, thunders badly in mine and my greater soft furnishing mellows the presence and highs too much! The latest version of my speaker does seem to have a tauter bass and corresponding brighter presence as a result (I maintain not all of this can be measured purely by a response plot - where the dispersion plots really tell I believe). Speakers which tautly roll off below say, 70Hz or so can appear to have an excess in the mid to upper bass, giving a kind of 'tubby' quality you may not hear in a larger room.

Anyway, I'm still enjoying the journey and having old pre-conceived ideas changed by fresh learning and experiences

 

[CyberGhost]

I'm currently using a Marantz 5015 with a pair of Canton Ergo 22 DCs loaned by a friend. I'm considering getting the Diamond 220, but not sure how good of a match will they be for the Marantz.
Any ideas on that?

 

[Ajax]

Hi Cyber,

I have a pair of Diamond 220s hooked up to a Marantz PM 5005 Integrated Amp. It is a budget amp and only puts out 40W into 8 ohms but drives them without issue.

I supplement the bottom end by connecting the Diamonds via a 12" Velodyne subwoofer, which has a 80hz cut off so that obviously helps take pressure off the Diamonds. I also have a second set of outdoor speakers and can play all at the same time.

The source is an Auralic Mini with a built in hard drive (now discontinued) and the overall sound and flexibility of the system suits my needs. I use the Mini's optical out in preference to the Mini's analogue out into the Marantz, i.e. I prefer the clarity of the Marantz's DAC over the Mini's but only just.

Hope this helps.

Ajax

 

[ezra_s]

I have the Wharfedale Diamond 225, larger than the 200, plugged to a marantz NR1608 AVR, they seem to drive them fine too, the Odyssey measurement system that comes with it detects them as Large speakers also, quite the beasts, I also plugged them to my moon 220i which drives 40w at 8ohm and they seemed fine too for my non-expert ears.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Just picked up a pair pre owned. Too dark sounding for the previous owner who only played them om low volumes. Hooked up here in my home to a yamaha ns500 in my home office, and they have to compete with some sony ss cse 1's. 220 is darker sounding indeed. Or the Sony is treble happy? 220's really did not sound great the first hour or so. Had them play some hardrock songs, very loud. Seems to improve now. But I have to say the Sony's keep impressing me. The sound effortless, and create floating in the room voices and instruments. Wharfedales sound is still very attached to the speakers. All what I write here is a measurement of my ears combined with taste and interpretation.

 

[BYRTT]

Just picked up a pair pre owned. Too dark sounding for the previous owner who only played them om low volumes. Hooked up here in my home to a yamaha ns500 in my home office, and they have to compete with some sony ss cse 1's. 220 is darker sounding indeed. Or the Sony is treble happy? 220's really did not sound great the first hour or so. Had them play some hardrock songs, very loud. Seems to improve now. But I have to say the Sony's keep impressing me. The sound effortless, and create floating in the room voices and instruments. Wharfedales sound is still very attached to the speakers. All what I write here is a measurement of my ears combined with taste and interpretation.

Sounds strange they should sound too dark in they begin roll off in lows around 200Hz and also in Amir's test he dialed down the treble area, so suggest check out if tweeter signal is cut in there's a jumber plate on the back that should be mounted and tightened : )

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Yeah right tweeter wasn't firing. My luck I suppose. Still, those microset Sonys have the oomph en pow! Dynamics where one wants it to get the party started. Might be too much treble but old dull recordings sound fresh. Reminds me of B&Ws I used to have only more balanced integrated sound.

 

[johnk]

Yeah right tweeter wasn't firing. My luck I suppose. Still, those microset Sonys have the oomph en pow! Dynamics where one wants it to get the party started. Might be too much treble but old dull recordings sound fresh. Reminds me of B&Ws I used to have only more balanced integrated sound.

Try unscrewing the speaker terminal and checking that the lugs on the back aren't touching each other. On my older Wharfedales I found that if you over-tighten them the lugs shown in the image below can rotate and touch each other which may cause this issue (or worse )

 

[Deleted member 24907]

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?

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Am trying something.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

So up till now I don't really like the sound. I just added a Yamaha mx2 to my setup a couple of weeks ago which makes the difficult Tannoys really pop. More dynamics and punch. But the Wharfedales are very very polite even though they are hooked up to this above average amp. On the yamaha ns500 same story. When I put on short skirt-Cake I am expecting something. The NAD c368 did not deliver on the Tannoys. The yamaha does. Not on the 220's. Is there any reliable measurement or number for dynamics? I can imagine the measured db difference of a standardised track, of which the dB differences is known? Then the speaker measurement can be put in a graph overlying the standardised track. Seems like for me good measurements are not the same a my personal harman curve... or I am missing something here.

 

[richard12511]

So up till now I don't really like the sound. I just added a Yamaha mx2 to my setup a couple of weeks ago which makes the difficult Tannoys really pop. More dynamics and punch. But the Wharfedales are very very polite even though they are hooked up to this above average amp. On the yamaha ns500 same story. When I put on short skirt-Cake I am expecting something. The NAD c368 did not deliver on the Tannoys. The yamaha does. Not on the 220's. Is there any reliable measurement or number for dynamics? I can imagine the measured db difference of a standardised track, of which the dB differences is known? Then the speaker measurement can be put in a graph overlying the standardised track. Seems like for me good measurements are not the same a my personal harman curve... or I am missing something here.

Do you have the ability to measure with REW?

 

[Deleted member 24907]

Do you have the ability to measure with REW?

Nope... just my ears. My neighbour dropped in. To see what condition my speakers were in . He said wharfedale sound warmer sony more treble.

 

[Xulonn]

Nope... just my ears. My neighbour dropped in. To see what condition my speakers were in . He said wharfedale sound warmer sony more treble.

And of course, you followed - at least elementary double-blind protocols, so that your ear<>brain interface did not fool you by enabling expectation bias...correct? (Actually, your impressions may be valid, but many of us who understand even basic audio science, are often skeptical, and like to see confirmation by measurement.)

Since you chose to participate at a science-based audio forum, I assume that you are aware that instruments are more sensitive than the best human hearing. Indeed, if there is a gross difference between the speakers, it could easily be measured with REW as another person suggested, which would be of interest to many ASR participants. Scientific instruments - even PC-based audio analyzers, are more reliable and capable than human hearing with respect to precise detection of sonic differences with repeatable results.

I find it curious that you joined an AUDIO SCIENCE website, but seem to have little if any scientific curiosity. The fact that you could not clearly tell that a tweeter was not working makes me suspicious about the validity of your claims to be able to hear far more subtle sonic differences in frequency response and dynamics.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

And of course, you followed - at least elementary double-blind protocols, so that your ear<>brain interface did not fool you by enabling expectation bias...correct? (Actually, your impressions may be valid, but many of us who understand even basic audio science, are often skeptical, and like to see confirmation by measurement.)

Since you chose to participate at a science-based audio forum, I assume that you are aware that instruments are more sensitive than the best human hearing. Indeed, if there is a gross difference between the speakers, it could easily be measured with REW as another person suggested, which would be of interest to many ASR participants. Scientific instruments - even PC-based audio analyzers, are more reliable and capable than human hearing with respect to precise detection of sonic differences with repeatable results.

I find it curious that you joined an AUDIO SCIENCE website, but seem to have little if any scientific curiosity. The fact that you could not clearly tell that a tweeter was not working makes me suspicious about the validity of your claims to be able to hear far more subtle sonic differences in frequency response and dynamics.

I also stated that I think the Sony kinda resembles B&W. If you'd done your homework you'd know that's a non flat frequency response. It's kinda ridiculous to think all thoughts and interpretations about audio are per definition not true because measurements are more reliable. Also I said something about dynamics. Any thoughts on that? Any thoughts on preferred frequency response as accepted in headphones called harman curve? Why is that accepted and are people buying B&W regarded as... I don't know. A lot of people like the sound so what's going on? What is the harman curve for speakers? Will you accept it its not flat?Old recordings sound dull- lack of something in dynamics or frequencies compensated by speaker response? You are on a one way road and are not open to anything not aligned with your believes.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

And of course, you followed - at least elementary double-blind protocols, so that your ear<>brain interface did not fool you by enabling expectation bias...correct? (Actually, your impressions may be valid, but many of us who understand even basic audio science, are often skeptical, and like to see confirmation by measurement.)

Since you chose to participate at a science-based audio forum, I assume that you are aware that instruments are more sensitive than the best human hearing. Indeed, if there is a gross difference between the speakers, it could easily be measured with REW as another person suggested, which would be of interest to many ASR participants. Scientific instruments - even PC-based audio analyzers, are more reliable and capable than human hearing with respect to precise detection of sonic differences with repeatable results.

I find it curious that you joined an AUDIO SCIENCE website, but seem to have little if any scientific curiosity. The fact that you could not clearly tell that a tweeter was not working makes me suspicious about the validity of your claims to be able to hear far more subtle sonic differences in frequency response and dynamics.

And Amrim also posts subjective stuff about speakers. Go pick on him. For fun, read his subjective stuff on the keff and revel m16. Both measure great. Subjective there's a difference.

 

[BYRTT]

Nope... just my ears. My neighbour dropped in. To see what condition my speakers were in . He said wharfedale sound warmer sony more treble.

If you have the feature to EQ unlimited i can support you some settings based on Amir's anechoic analyze, for example in below 2 seconds animation curves toggle between raw verse a EQed farfield suggestion (say 2 meters and up), roll off in lows for the EQed version is dialed in as 4th order Linkwitz Riley @80Hz so should you have EQ possibility and curiousity to try it out please tell what target you want as roll off in lows, else have fun and if you had not run them without grills then suggest try that scenario..

 

[Xulonn]

You are on a one way road and are not open to anything not aligned with your believes [sic].

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.

It's kinda ridiculous to think all thoughts and interpretations about audio are per definition not true because measurements are more reliable.

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

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.