Wharfedale Linton 85th Anniversary speaker review & measurements by Erin's Audio Corner

[ROOSKIE]

so what? how is that even remotely relevant to the point?

Because you said
"imagine (serious, non-humorous) watching cooking shows hosted by people who don't know anything about food and coming up with nonsensical recipes. or car shows where the "reviewers" can't even drive and don't know the difference between the engine and suspension and think top speed is the only relevant metric"

with my response to you I am saying there are many things that involve food that many folks who think they know about food don't know and others do know, yet they all involve food.
Is someone an 'amateur and an idiot' (what adjectives were used that sparked my OG post here) food person if they don't know how to install their new stove, or buy beef cattle, or cook authentic Thai food?

It takes talent to entertain people on YouTube and my point was this is only a problem if you take it to seriously. Not knowing how to make a spinorama or even how to interpret one does not make someone an idiot or an amateur.
Many people grossly overestimate their own level of skill and subject comprehension.
I never said anything close to what you came up with as a parallel.

riiight... so applying the exact same logic, nobody should criticize any loudspeaker unless they provide evidence they can do a better one...

I said nothing about not being constructively critical, I am a huge fan of such efforts. Is clumping Youtubers into a group of amateur's and idiots constructive? Is it even critical or is just condescending? Is there nothing of value in their art if they can not measure stuff like we do? I say lighten up.
My original 2 posts (53 & 61) re: this issue, made it clear what I was saying and was not a shallow thing nor lacking opportunity for you to follow my drift.
You ought to re read them.

so what? how is that even remotely relevant to the point?


it is. it's a textbook example of one

No it is not. Unless it is taken out of the context it is actually written in and then viewed with a lens looking for it to be so and ignoring the rest.

Anyway, my point was never to argue about this or anything. I, like many, want the objectivist crowd (which I am a part of) to lighten up. People are fools and we all have been fooled in life many, many times. Not one of us is that great and smart and awesome to have transcended the human condition which is totally absurd.
I totally enjoy some of the YouTubers and am happy they are promoting the hobby and the experience of great sound. I myself have turned many music loving folks on to a higher fidelity experience.
Very few folks, in fact no one in my 'civilian life', wants to measure anything or read test reports. I am the only one. I think that is typical.

I am grateful ASR,EAC and others point out objective value in say these Wharfedale speakers and the non existent value in say that $1800 coaxial cable just tested. I am also grateful some cats on the Tube, have the gumption to spend time and their days making videos and sharing conversation - even if I don't agree. Plus if they make some cash I am glad for them as long as they are not intentionally shilling bogus stuff. Way better then making money of McDonalds stock and fat kids on meds IMHO.

 

[SlowCar]

This one or Polk L600/R700?

I will come back with this question - any ideas?
Maybe somebody has done subjective comparison?

 

[ROOSKIE]

I will come back with this question - any ideas?
Maybe somebody has done subjective comparison?

All are highly rated speakers.
The Polk has a greater than typical, narrowing of the trebble response that some love and others don't.

The Wharfedale has that bell shaped off axis responce. Some rooms may work better than others and some ears like or dislike that.

Buy both if possible and compare in your space.
Some objective differences and most deff personal preference will be playing a role.

Send one pair back after some solid listening.

Also obviously two very different looking units.

I'd bet for myself the Wharfedale is the pick, but hard to say without trying them.

I'd prolly look at the Revel M106, JBL HDI1600 and the BMR if subs are going to be used. Maybe even the DIY HiVi 3.1a if that sort of thing appeals.

 

[Tangband]

I find it weird that this tests so well with that edge for the grill. Yes/No??

I think its because they are made to listen to with the grill on. In erins review, when he measures without grill, the results are terrible.
A wide baffle, such as this, is also somewhat less/different prone to diffraction - those will be at slightly lower frequensies compared to a narrow baffle, because the distance from the midrange to the box edges is much longer.

Another advantage compared to narrow baffles.

 

[tomtoo]

They are after Danny is done!

He is changing the spectral balance without knowing what the frequency response is below 200 Hz. He added a bunch of expensive damping despite the lack of evidence that it was needed. In another video, Danny ridiculed Amir for doing nearfield measurements. Seems to me, he is stuck in the past and really should not be modifying any existing speaker designs until he learns how to make more representative measurements!

Do you have the same problem like I with bringing his and Erins measurements in concruence?

 

[ROOSKIE]

They are after Danny is done!

He is changing the spectral balance without knowing what the frequency response is below 200 Hz. He added a bunch of expensive damping despite the lack of evidence that it was needed. In another video, Danny ridiculed Amir for doing nearfield measurements. Seems to me, he is stuck in the past and really should not be modifying any existing speaker designs until he learns how to make more representative measurements!

I like watching his videos but he is such a shiller for his products so of course he put No-Rez in. I do understand his income comes from this stuff, so I leave room for some typical I need the money & a man and his money will not parted BS.
He is 'fun' though, what a soap opera.

 

[Darvis]

These and the KEF R3 are going to both sound very good although with a different sound signature.
But fully explaining why is complex. Plus not all of the traits are fully captured in the data. Subjectivity, and personally preferences will also play a strong roll between these 2 speakers.
At this price point why not try both at the same time in your home? It is worth the costs of return shipping and if you buy from certain places that may only be $10 per speaker.
Best way to learn.

For example I wasn't smitten with the R3. Though I try lots of speakers and I could also see why another person may absolutely love them. You have to listen or just pick one and be cool with what you have.



If the size works. Why can't you buy a 3rd Linton for the center.

I don't think I could buy only one, and they're much too big anyway.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Do you have the same problem like I with bringing his and Erins measurements in concruence?

Did not try. When I did for the LGK2, had to lop off the response data below 200 Hz and applied 1/3 octave smoothing. It is key for the smoothing to start at the same frequency. Even then only got similarly shaped curves. I had low expectations for an exact match, so may have tolerated more variance.

 

[tomtoo]

Did not try. When I did for the LGK2, had to lop off the response data below 200 Hz and applied 1/3 octave smoothing. It is key for the smoothing to start at the same frequency. Even then only got similarly shaped curves. I had low expectations for an exact match, so may have tolerated more variance.

I just looked in the video. And...and they are completly different to erins. With bumps and dips i cant find in Erins measurements.

 

[DanielT]

I think its because they are made to listen to with the grill on. In erins review, when he measures without grill, the results are terrible.
A wide baffle, such as this, is also somewhat less/different prone to diffraction - those will be at slightly lower frequensies compared to a narrow baffle, because the distance from the midrange to the box edges is much longer.

Another advantage compared to narrow baffles.

Here's tips, a thread that addresses the topic.

This one looks nice. Wide baffle plus round baffle corners. A sensible starting point for opportunities with to create a speaker with fairly high sensitivity and sensible FR due to round baffle corners. Of course, good speaker drivers are also needed in this case..and everything else needed to make a good speaker, but still.

I do not like narrow/thin.It should be wide. Preferably fat with a decent body and it will be good, I think. But it's a matter of taste.

What are some good example of baffle design to improve diffraction

I am looking for a few baffle designs to improve diffraction. Troels has a few good designs which I posted below. Avalon Acoustic is another good example and looks good too. What are some of baffle designs you have used in your design to improve diffraction? Here is an example from Troels...

www.diyaudio.com

Speaking of broad and fat. I find these interesting:

 

[Tangband]

This Wharfedale Linton seems to sound good because not only the measurements are fine - a lot of listening have been made during the building of this speakers . After listening and owning some of Peter Comeau:s former constructions, I think he is a genious.

As Amirm points out in another thread - about 70% of a loudspeakers sound can be seen in the measurements - the rest ( my thoughts ) is listening and probably comparing with real instruments during the development.

 

[DanielT]

This Wharfedale Linton seems to sound good because not only the measurements are fine - a lot of listening have been made during the building of this speakers . After listening and owning some of Peter Comeau:s former constructions, I think he is a genious.

As Amirm points out in another thread - about 70% of a loudspeakers sound can be seen in the measurements - the rest is listening and probably comparing with real instruments during the development.

View attachment 217044

If I were in need of new passive speakers, I would definitely consider Linton. They would be one of them on my list of candidates. Good price on them too. Affordable.

They are quite common, if you are lucky, or the one who is looking for a pair of new speakers, maybe it is possible to borrow a pair and listen at home?
I suspect that possibility differs greatly between countries. In general, it is probably more difficult than in the past because the number of physical HiFi stores has decreased.

 

[Rick Sykora]

I just looked in the video. And...and they are completely different to erins. With bumps and dips i can't find in Erins measurements.

I tried as well and I concur with you. Since EAC's FR measures are way more accurate, the GR ones are a misrepresentation.

Leads one to conclude that Danny is fixing problems that do not exist and also altering the response where it is otherwise good.

 

[tomtoo]

I tried as well and I concur with you. Since EAC's FR measures are way more accurate, the GR ones are a misrepresentation.

Leads one to conclude that Danny is fixing problems that do not exist and also altering the response where it is otherwise good.

What makes me interestet what he realy does to the xover.

 

[DSJR]

He thinks he's a better designer than Peter Comeau and the team(s) he works with. Peter was good and cared about what he was doing forty years or so back FFS and he DID listen too, fine tuning the products by ear after getting them 90% there with theory and measurement!

 

[JohnnyNG]

I've loved the look of these since they were introduced; the stands really complete them.

Wouldn't mind hearing them in my room either given these measurements, but I think it'd take some doing to supplant my current Revel M106.

Since these distortion plots and ASR's scale don't seem (to me!) directly comparable, anyone care to comment on how distortion stacks up between the two?

 

[cavedriver]

He thinks he's a better designer than Peter Comeau and the team(s) he works with. Peter was good and cared about what he was doing forty years or so back FFS and he DID listen too, fine tuning the products by ear after getting them 90% there with theory and measurement!

While I don't trust Danny's measurements worth a scrap, I would also allow that no matter how good Peter is, he probably is under reasonable pressure to design a speaker to a price point. We see the same thing with Andrew Jones and everyone remarks on how much he's able to accomplish for the amounts the speakers cost. Surely it's possible that a new crossover could improve on the stock one, but improve it by 750 dollars worth? Not likely.

As far as Danny's measurements go, he says in another video that he doesn't measure nearfield, so we are likely seeing nothing more than a specific person's in-room response, which of course will be different for everyone. If he provided plans and images of his listening area we could maybe begin to make inferences about what his measurements mean or how they would translate to other rooms, but that's taking us back over 20 years in speaker review usefulness and is honestly rather insulting to the buyer. Add to all this that he's trying to sell a product in combination with said measurement and you have a completely untrustworthy source.

I'm glad Amir has said measurements are only at about 70% of a speakers content. I was thinking we're at around 60%, but I'll take 70. I wish we could talk more about what that other 30% is and how some of it might show up in measurements. You look at raw drivers and manufacturers will sell 3 or 4 different drivers that all measure similarly but have radically different price points (ex- 8" drivers by Scanspeak going from Discovery to Classic to Revelator to Ellipticor to Illuminator). Things like cone material and weight, cone damping, linear accuracy, etc. are discussed and paid attention to by the designers, but there are relatively few measurements for these things, despite I expect we would generally agree that they make some differences in speaker sound. I would expect that cone acceleration times, cone flex amounts, cone vibrations, and so on, all play into how a speaker "sounds" but we have no way of measuring currently. Certainly Danny's third-octave smoothing on his frequency responses is going in the wrong direction, lol

 

[cavedriver]

Here's tips, a thread that addresses the topic.

This one looks nice. Wide baffle plus round baffle corners. A sensible starting point for opportunities with to create a speaker with fairly high sensitivity and sensible FR due to round baffle corners. Of course, good speaker drivers are also needed in this case..and everything else needed to make a good speaker, but still.

I do not like narrow/thin.It should be wide. Preferably fat with a decent body and it will be good, I think. But it's a matter of taste.

What are some good example of baffle design to improve diffraction

I am looking for a few baffle designs to improve diffraction. Troels has a few good designs which I posted below. Avalon Acoustic is another good example and looks good too. What are some of baffle designs you have used in your design to improve diffraction? Here is an example from Troels...

www.diyaudio.com

View attachment 217034
Speaking of broad and fat. I find these interesting:

You want wide baffles?

 

[DSJR]

While I don't trust Danny's measurements worth a scrap, I would also allow that no matter how good Peter is, he probably is under reasonable pressure to design a speaker to a price point. We see the same thing with Andrew Jones and everyone remarks on how much he's able to accomplish for the amounts the speakers cost. Surely it's possible that a new crossover could improve on the stock one, but improve it by 750 dollars worth? Not likely.

I get what you're saying, but its 1960's Linton 2 ancestor which was tweaked slightly over the bare front original, was a two way.

Having said that, when I started out all wet behind the ears, this to me hideous thing had replaced it - midrange 'squawker' equipped - things had started to move on quickly by this time (MA7, IMF original Compact and KEF Chorale are three that come to mind)

What have they to do with it? - Was PC's brief to do a *three way* I wonder, or did the design just turn out that way. I ask this as the budget may have been broadly flexible - and Chinese manufacture seems to save hundreds of dollars at this price point over say, UK manufacture. The crossover in Danny's hands has ONE electrolytic cap (which is large an dmodern enough and should last a few decades reasonably in spec I reckon, the rest being film types unless I'm mistaken which shouldn't drift off. Forget all the other crap about coils and the ubiquitous tube connectors if he suggests them (I refuse to play the video now, sorry).

 

[tomtoo]

You want wide baffles?

Thats a wide baffel AND horns dont show this to @DanielT he cant sleep.