hey guys forgive me for being a newbie.... recently went to audition some speakers.. JBL, mission, ruark, and wharfedale. the prices were similar due to an on-going sale (+-) 50 bucks. I brought Eva cassidy n a classical linn record test disk for organ to the shop. they were using a marantz sacd player with chord silver cables. felt that wharfedale speakers diamonds are somewhat overrated. lack of clarity, lack of bass even on the 8.3s and the 9.3s is it just me or are they meant for listening to "some other" sort of music.. even the crystal .1 speakers didnt shine in terms of clarity. but they did have a reasonable amount of voicing/spaciousness... can someone elaborate on this issue?
Having only ever given them a brief listen in-store I'm not really in a position to judge (although to me they sounded quite full). Interesting that they either get great reviews OR really, really bad ones!!
The speakers are of good quality, particularly so when you take into account the price point. I found this summary of pros/cons on the net, which summarises one persons experience:
"Wharfedale CONS: The speaker cover is really cheap and flimsy. It is hard to take of and put back on without feeling like you're going to break it. However I don't notice that this has any impact on sonic quality. Also proper placement is essential with the Wharfedales to get good stereo imaging and a broad soundstage; this is true to differing degrees with all speakers, but the B&W CDM9NT's weren't nearly as sensitive to placement for good sound as the Wharfedales turned out to be.
Warfedale PROS: Once you find proper placement for your room, the sound is quite impressive. With the Kimber Kable Hero interconnects, which are known for their neutrality in conveying the source recording, neither my friend or I could tell the difference between the B&W's in blind tests (I switched speakers while he listened, then he switched them while I listened). The $500 pair of Wharfedales actually matched the sound from the $2500 B&W's! We were both completely amazed at this result, and it didn't matter what source material we played (CD, SACD, or DVD-A). With my friends Cardas interconnects, which are known to enhance and seperate vocal frequencies, the B&W's had noticably more crisp and forward high frequencies, but the Wharfedales still sounded great. Our final analysis was that the Wharfedales provide 90-95% of the acoustic performance of the B&W's (after proper placement) for 1/5th the price. That's really hard to argue with."
Totally agree with your findings re the 8 series of diamonds, quite how they managed to become 5 star award winners, product of the year etc, i have no idea.....bland would be my description! Ive just replaced my Mission volare v63s with focal jm lab ,brilliant!out of the ones you demoed, id suggest Ruark, but, as they say, one mans meat................
Hi sorry for the late reply.. been very busy trying to organise my life. :) .. well euler.. I cant justify with u just somehow one shld spend that much for kimber kables to improve the 9's whereas i could use somehow justifying spending the $$$ to buy better speakers all together. just my opinion.... hmm went to audition recently a pair of jbls. tested side by side with the wharfedales(9.3s n 8.3s) were a new unbroken pair of xti 40s i think it was. old discontinued model clearing off a a cheap price but their sound was very different... with the same setup. was not surprised at the results. in terms of clarity, bass levels n spaciousness, the wharfdales guess wasnt my kinda meat. :p the one good speaker i guess was really impressive in my books were the 9 centre speaker. pretty dominating speaker I say in HT. Yes n icehockeyboy the ruarks i demoed convinced me to buy one pair at less than 150 quids at a sale.... heh heh.... one day i will own some linn stuff sigh.... everyone's meat?????