What other brands out there compare when it comes to specifically classic rock and floor standing speakers, for a two speaker stereo music listening configuration, not home theater.

Wharfedale Linton, also available through Crutchfield.

JBL Studio 580, free return shipping from jbl.com so you can hear them at home with zero risk. Only drawback is aesthetic, if looks matter to you. 590 would be better but they're not on sale at the moment, probably will be within a couple weeks.

Klipsch RP-280F, also free return shipping to Amazon.

 

Crutchfield shows JBL Studio 698, I assume 6xx series have replaced JBL 580 generation models?

I understand that looking at new models is important, you know, I own Klipsch RP-8000F now, a more massive version of RP-280F. It is noticeably cone sounding. However, when I directly compared them to a completely non-cone sounding Infinity SM155 from the 1990s, the cone sound was not as noticeable, 2022 Klipsch were of course, better than 1994 Infinity. I was told that technology has so much progressed that it blows away the old stuff, so I am interested in the new models that are out now or are going to be released in the next year or so.

But time passes and it's that Klipsch cone sound that I can't help noticing that is making me look at other brands.

I am assuming we are comparing Wharfedale EVO series to JBL Studio 698 to KEF Q950?
That sounds like a good start. Thank you.

P.S. There's no 'revolutionary technology' or anything major coming out in the next year or two? Is it pretty much relatively small refinement of what we have now, correct?
And that relatively small refinement seems to be priced double in new 2023+ models, that's what it appears as at first look...

 

The Studio 6 are JBL's in-between model line---slightly refined versions of the Studio 5, just put into much more conventional-looking cabinets and therefore costing at least double vs the sale/street pricing of the Studio 5 series, but still only 1/3 or 1/2 of the HDI series which is their top shelf consumer model before you get into their professional lines.

Your use of "cone sound" is a phrasing I've never seen anyone use---does this "cone sound" please or displease your ears? I have the impression it's the latter, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, if you are looking for something that is markedly different from the Klipsch RP sound, that would be the Wharfedale Evo and/or Linton. The Linton is basically a tower in terms of sensitivity and room-filling capacity (headroom & dynamics) just in a huge retro-styled "large bookshelf" box...it's actually 3 db MORE sensitive than the largest Evo tower (4.4) and 2db more than the Revel 226Be.

The JBLs, KEF Q series, and Revels would fall somewhere in the middle of the Wharfedale-Klipsch spectrum. Where exactly, will of course depend on whom you ask.

PS. The notion that certain speakers do certain musical genres better than others is currently a bit out of vogue since about 1/4 to 1/2 of this hobby seems to have fallen under measurist narrative, which maintains that any speaker that measures "well" (i.e. more or less flat/even frequency response and has wide dispersion and low distortion) is likely to have a "neutral" tonality which is claimed to have been "scientifically" proven to be preferred by the large majority of listeners, and that one can use measurements as a litmus test/filter to reduce the number of speakers worth consideration (said narrative often ends up with a "Revel Revel Revel" drumbeat, lol) and such speakers are claimed to do ALL genres of music equally well, AND to do both movies and music equally well. Such speakers might even wipe your backside and make breakfast for you, lol.

This is assuming you care about what's "in vogue" or not.

 

I don't do the Crutch thing...you can look up why that is a problem.

The way it is done now is to look at measurements, works very well if you wish to have accurate speakers. The Klippel robot takes a thousand or two measurements and gives you a huge amount of information. Sure, you have to learn what those measurements are, what they mean and which ones apply to you.

Now if you don't like accurate speakers, you can figure out which inaccurate speakers you enjoy, look at those measurements then select ones that mimic what you like.

I tend towards accurate speakers myself. I am keen on looking at the measurements and pay particular attention to the speaker's ability to accept EQ. You can have the best room correction on the planet but if your speaker won't respond to EQ (design/crossover problems) it won't work accurately. I also go back and re-EQ to taste so having that ability is critical. After all, hearing accuity declines over the age of 30 so a bit of adjustment here and there can be done to counter your natural hearing decline.

Erin's Audio Corner is on Youtube, he shows the speakers, shows the measurements then review what those measurements mean. Audio Science Review does the same thing, they have added some videos to provide training also. I'd do it but 90,000 bucks for a robot not to mention 17,000 bucks for the distortion analyzer (amps, DACs, processors etc.) it is a bit too expensive. I do have a life!

There ya go... Heck, you can get measurements and testing on grass trimmer string (really!) saw blades, battery packs and various tools (Project Farm on Youtube) What? you don't look at test measurements on grass trimmer string?

Enjoy the read and once you master the material...it becomes a no brainer.

 

Well, you've opened my mind to something new.

Bearing in mind that I haven't read that sea of knowledge yet... layman's first question is: how do those measurements account for the fact that I listen to classic rock and heavy rock, meaning, all my life, I thought that there are speakers more suited for different genres: Speaker X is more suited for classical music. Speaker Y is more suited for hard rock. Is that not correct?

Also, I would be grateful if you dropped a few actual speaker model names whose measurements you read were better than others.

 

After a first quick look, I stumble upon your man Erin posting video of his Top 5 Speakers at Any Price. Great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYK77lbgorw

He mentions Wharfedale, he mentions JBL, he mentions KEF but all speakers models from those brands are non floor standing models.
Whereas, he does mention one floor standing model, the Revel F226Be.

So that tells me that at the very least, we already have initial major brands to look at.

 

The Klipsch Cone/Horn sound displeases me.

Thank you for posting. JBL is out then.
Wharfedale EVO4.4 is in. It is under $2K for a pair.
Wharfedale LINTON Heritage is cheaper by half a grand. But you seem to list specs that suggest Linton can compete well with EVO4.4 and even Revel 226e, which costs almost six grand for a pair.

KEF Q950 is priced like Wharfedale EVO4.4.

I understand you are saying that it is completely irrelevant what music genre these are for.


This is going quicker than I imagined it would...
So we have
Wharfedale EVO4.4 vs.
KEF Q950 vs.
Wharfedale LINTON Heritage, and...

Speaking of LINTON competitor, what do you think of KLH Model Five? and....

What else is out there that sounds as warm as Linton and Model 5, vs. a different kind of sound that both EVO4.4 & KEF Q950 offer, I feel that [EVO4.4 & KEF Q950] are one type and [Linton and KHL Model 5], are another type of sound...

 

The Klipsch Cone/Horn sound displeases me.
Thank you for posting. JBL is out then.

I'm afraid you're confusing enclosures with actual high-frequency drivers.

"Horn" = the ENCLOSURE the tweeter is set inside.

Klipsch and JBL both use "horn" enclosures, but Klipsch uses a METAL DOME tweeter, while JBL uses a COMPRESSION DRIVER tweeter.

Two completely different animals, producing two completely different sound signatures. More info & photo:
CD (Compressdion Driver) speakers - which and why

While entry level Klipsch (the Reference series, and much less often the Reference Premiere series) are sometimes criticized as having excessively harsh, forward and unpleasant treble, you almost never hear those terms used to describe a CD.

 

Well heck. I was going to research this for months.

I bought the KLH Model Five.
They were on sale brand new for the exact same price as Wharfedale LINTONs which were also on sale. Same price. $749 per speaker. It was just a no-brainer.
No-brainer for the price vs. quality.

I mean they blow $3,200 Klipsch Heritage Heresy IV out of the water.

Bonus: I don't really know any music released after circa 1989 so their vintage look and sound is perfect for listening to 1970s and 1980s music.

Side thought, for a 25ft x 20ft bedroom, KHL Model Five is better I thought as their size is significantly physically bigger than Wharfedale LINTONs. Not that size is a measurement of quality.


Your man Erin did a direct comparison between them here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jyiBDmESLU

He decided on the Wharfedale Lintons for his personal speakers, he liked them that much.
But his reasons included distance to wall limitations, as I understood it.

Other reviewers opted for KLH, almost justifying their decision with adding how KHL costs a third more, so seeing as KLH price dropped to a historic low at this time, matching Lintons - that made me pull the trigger, in addition to vanity reasons like looks and size.

 

Funny review of KLH Model Five here:

 

Must be new klh I swore the brand went defunct I’m still using a tremor series sub. I’m not sure who owns klh now it’s probably on their website.

Thank you all for posting but most importantly, would you tell me what other hardware I need to get the most out of KLH Model Five for two channel stereo music?

I have these two receivers, both are 90W [per channel at 8Ω]:
2023 Onkyo TX-NR6050 driving my home theater

TX-NR6050 7.2 Channel AV Receiver | Onkyo

The Onkyo TX-NR6050 7.2 Channel AV Receiver delivers uncompressed sound and audio to deliver unparalleled movie, music, and gaming to your living room. Shop Now!

www.onkyousa.com

2009 Yamaha RX-V565 which will be driving the KLH Model Five before I buy a new receiver.

Products - Yamaha - Other European Countries & Regions

europe.yamaha.com

I see reviewers talking about additional equipment like amplifiers and such?
Which specific additional equipment should I get in addition to the receivers I have, or should I get a new receiver?

=================



Come on friend, you're old enough like me to know a Classic Rock station or two. Technically they play everything from Pink Floyd to Metallica. But you know when that guitar in AC/DC's Shoot to Thrill comes on? And you stop what you're doing - you put your beer down - and you say "wait" - and you turn up the volume real high, and there's an air guitar in your hands?
Classic Rock, man.

In response to "I understand you are saying that it is completely irrelevant what music genre these are for."



So which speakers are better for Classic Rock?

The and KEF Q950 and Wharfedale EVO4.4 type?
or the Wharfedale LINTON and KLH Model Five?

View attachment 3490557


or


View attachment 3490558



Which models not mentioned here are better for Classic Rock?
I know most professionals want to go with the "it depends" answer, but guys, put your name on some model recommendations for Classic Rock, because people reading this need to decide which actual models to spend money on in 2023, in addition to just reading info on theory of sound. Thank you for your advice.

There is no best all 4 would be amazing, I go towers personally but classical 3 ways might be more refined. Which ever you like more? Check spec sheets and reviews I’m not sure which is best I’d go wharfadale or kef, but those two bottom speakers are classics might be better for rock.

 

When I ran the Crutchfeild version, I used expensive Beyerdynamic headphones to listen and compare

Aside from the question of whether Crutchfield's app is useful, the sound you get over headphones cannot predict how a set of speakers will interact with the size and sound absorption/reflectivity of your listening room.

 

the speaker's ability to accept EQ. You can have the best room correction on the planet but if your speaker won't respond to EQ (design/crossover problems) it won't work accurately.

Serious question here. What makes a speaker not able to respond to EQ?

 

Well, there are a few factors--I'll touch on a few

Back in the day when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and the audio shoppe at the mall was just past Sears (who's Sears? ) Us poor souls had to go by a measuring mic and a test CD. Yes, I was one of "those people" that brought in test equipment--the salesmen hated me!

The first thing that can't be EQ'd out is when a speaker has resonable on axis but not off axis. Looks smooth with them pointing at you but goes all sorts of choppy going off axis. You'll see dips 30 degrees off axis at certain frequencies then it goes back up as the woofers/mids/tweets take over. Since off axis sound mixes with on axis sound, that makes a mess of things. You can EQ the off axis dips but the on axis then goes wild. Not a big deal if you are the only person listening but that response gets really bad for say 4 people (or 250 people at a club)

High frequency treble naturally narrows its dispersion as it goes up. You can't stop that, physics won't allow. So, any time you measure off axis you want the response to gently roll off naturally going off axis. If you see wild swings, that is errors from the crossover function, beaming of the drivers, ringing of the drivers themselves etc. I was a chump with a meter and a CD, but that trick worked well when testing car audio drivers on a wall in a treated room. Sure, there is no way a car speaker sitting too low in a door improperly aimed, the person sitting too close to one side than the other while the glass is reflecting everything will ever sound like it does in a store. Not going to happen, so I wiped away my tears and just did a measurement. What other options did I have?

The other thing that can't be EQ'd out is when multiple drivers interact with each other--say the MTM horizontal errors. This creates huge peaks/nulls at narrow bands and the dispersion also narrows radiacally off axis. You can't EQ that out--not going to happen... Dirac won't save you. You can't boost nulls when drivers are canceling each other. If your speaker throws out too wide of dispersion, it bounces off the walls, ceilings, floors and so on and reflecting sound can't be EQ'd out. If the dispersion is too narrow and the crew on the end of the row can't hear the sounds, you can't EQ that out either.

So, after I parked my dinosaur at the mall and picked up my free battery of the month at Radio Shack...I'd have to roll back to the cave and grab some speakers for a gig at the club. New venue, different music...live and recordings at breaks. Take everything and let my ears decide? Nooo...don't have a moving van, not enough time and the audience don't care what I want, it is what they want.

But that is old school stuff from before Y2K was a thing. Sounds like I was a moronic simpleton with a meter, test CD and roaming around speakers in mono but cut me a break! Sure, the cool kids can now have robots do it, they remove the room, give you all the data points so you know if EQ works, show distortion charts, power compression charts, polar charts etc... leave the geezer alone and get off my lawn!

As far as what speakers sound good with classic rock? Define "classic rock". Normally, that could be figured as music from 1964 to 1979 technically....tends to be heavy on the 70's with guitar rock which demands interesting EQ. Back then, they made recordings with natural roll off on the bass end because deep bass will cause records to skip. Since the recording was done for the majority of people that payed the bills (people from 12 to 22 in age was the target) The all-in-one box with speakers was the majority so they rolled off the bass to that spec. You skip a record player with too deep of bass, that is "defective" even if it played with no problem on a good quality record player. The kids are paying the bills so they EQ'd those recordings to make sure the Barbie dream record player did not skip.

I noticed this from the "analog era" so the CDs that had "original masters" on them also tended to have weak bass response. No problem, pull out that EQ magic and boost the very low end to counter that. Had to be careful though, the remastered recordings commonly removed that limitation so paying attention was key. Led Zeppelin remastered theirs and the bass response was returned sooo... yeah. CDs starting in the mid-80's did not castrate the low end because they were not bass limited.

This is just what I noticed when doing "classic rock" gigs... typically, I'd bump up the bass missing in the recordings and also add a bit of "sizzle" (over 8KHz) as cassettes and FM radio tended to roll that off. Also, speakers back in those days tended to be "boom and sizzle" so would be the "classic rock sound" you could say. Just a pondering, but a lot of very popular speakers in the 70's had a bit of boom and sizzle to them.

Too many unknowns though, depends on the recording, what that recording source was and so on. So, I'm lazy and go for accurate then EQ to taste. I did note a huge variation of recording quality in the analog era so EQ would be used to adjust the recording.

Now throwing out a speaker that works with classic rock in any room, any recording, any set of ears? Ethically I can't do that with any hope of being remotely close to the truth. Sure, bump up that bass, maybe a bit more sizzle works for records and FM radio recordings but it has been 45 to 60 years and many of those recordings have been cleaned up, remastered and so on. Hard to believe but some of those remasterings made them worse so even the record companies made a mess of things.

So I developed my own test for what type of classic rocker I'm dealing with. Cue the remasted by Led Zep tune "Kashmir" and watch the person. Put it at a reasonable sound level to start. Normally they would say either "turn it up" or "crank it". Hmmm. OK, they would either sit there...but oddly enough, something weird would happen. You'd either get the "air drummer" or "air guitarist" but either way they usually wanted it loud...not with safe and sound suburban loud...nasty, blow off the roof, in your face, chest thumping loud! The air drummers demanded the chest thumping, very accurate mid-bass loud while the air guitarists demanded very clean mid/lower treble loud. The air drummers really liked the remastered efforts cuz...more bass, lower bass...turn it up...this is the good part.

Can you get that with a pair of 6" bookshelves? Well... as they said in Jaws...gonna need a bigger boat! The air drummers will need a much, much larger boat while the air guitarists can pull it off with a smaller footprint. After all, in the 70's "bookshelf" speakers had a 10 to 12 inch woofer in them...the big coffins were very efficient so had very high peak SPLs even at 25 to 50 watts.

I'd love it if a pair of 6" KEFs could do that but even with unlimited power, unlimited EQ and processors... not going to happen. They don't use those huge systems at concerts as a prop so...if you are an air drummer, consider the size of a kick drum...to move the air a kick drum moves means the woofers will need to move that amount of air. A bunch of subs could do the low end but the actual woofers from your mains also are in the mix.

To give you an idea of what the woofers can do, look at the measurements not only for frequency response but critically, distortion at specific SPL levels. Since voice coils get hot, you then lose output over time so power compression charts are key there. Time is not on your side so it might sound good at Best Buy but over time things can fall apart. The last time I was there, they didn't let me measure power compression cuz.. well... blowing out the store for 30 minutes with my devil music upsets the soccer moms at the i counter.

Here is Kashmir...if you discover you are an air drummer--accept it and pay for that. At the end of the day, you are paying the bills so it is what you want. Big difference if you listen to background music, live in a NYC apartment or a retirement condo though. Me? Well, I cover all the air instruments in the band with the HT. Not loud enough? Amble out to the garage, spark up those arrays, subs, all the fun toys and the meter tells me 116dB/C peaks at the 12 foot listening distance. That suits the demands of most people...well, most of them.

Air drummers still keep asking for more bass... throw them the keys to my sons car and tell them to have at it. Air drummers are the death of me.

 

Best Buy still has the button-push demo thing, I did it only this week between a Samsung similar to mine & a Denon. I think they're on par with one another. At first I liked the Denon more, until I adjusted up the volume in the Samsung to match.

 

Serious question here. What makes a speaker not able to respond to EQ?

One of the most common reasons is distortion. If a speaker is already showing distortion in its native un-EQd state, either out of the box or starting at some volume level, then increasing energy at those frequencies will signficiantly increase the distortion and/or make it set in at lower volumes.

This won't apply to frequency cuts of course, but EQ flexibility should go both ways.

 

“Now if you don't like accurate speakers, you can figure out which inaccurate speakers you enjoy”. Always love & appreciate little jabs like these from purists who turn their noses up at those who don‘t prefer a dead neutral sound. I keep forgetting that all of our ears/hearing are exactly the same and behave in exactly the same manner. Many of us prefer a balanced sound over flat…. and not every neutral speaker sounds alike I might add.

I‘ve purchased & demoed speakers that were darlings of the purist community bc of “scientific testing” that either bored me to death or sounded too clinical [would not allow themselves to disappear in the room]. I’ve also heard a few that I really liked (Revel M106) but didn’t enjoy as much as a different bookshelf that had better bass output and was complimented by slightly more vibrant highs to balance the sound.

EQ’ing a speaker to boost the highs & lows is not the same as a speaker that has better bass performance in its natural state and a tweeter design that was engineered & built to provide more brilliance. You don’t know what sort of harshness, sibilance, or whatnot you’re introducing when buying a neutral speaker with the intention of tweaking it to taste.

 

EQ’ing a speaker to boost the highs & lows is not the same as a speaker that has better bass performance in its natural state and a tweeter design that was engineered & built to provide more brilliance. You don’t know what sort of harshness, sibilance, or whatnot you’re introducing when buying a neutral speaker with the intention of tweaking it to taste.

Great point I had not considered

 

This thread is going places heh.

For the OP, measurement availability is unfortunately limited. It tends to skew towards bookshelves vs floorstanders because those are cheaper and lighter to move. Remember that most people reviewing using measurements are relying on others loaning their equipment to them. Further, they are usually moving the speakers on top the measurement device themselves. A lot easier to ship and move smaller speakers like bookshelves.

Once you've done some reading to learn how to interpret the results, check out spinorama.org. Most all of the available speaker measurements have been collected there.

 

Personally, I would devote part of my budget to going to stores and listening to speakers. Even if you have to visit another town or go to an audio show. I don't have a problem making a decision about a DAC or AVR via specs, but I think the only valid tool for deciding on speakers is your ears in an actual room. I've been pleasantly and negatively surprised many, many times by highly regarded and reviewed speakers over the years.

 

Great starting point to figure out what sound signature most appeals to you. Then narrow it down from there.

 

I used this to connect a single speaker of each series for comparison:

I compared my newly arrived KHL Model Five

to Klipsch RP-8000F - the flagship of the Klipsch Premiere line I already had that was gifted to me, which I wouldn't have otherwise bought:

vs. my old 1994 Infinity SM-155

First thing that gets me is, how much 'louder" the Klipsch and Infinity are, so I have to adjust volume for comparison.

Then I kind of immerse myself to see through the illusion of sheer volume to fully see how "tinny" Klipsch sound is. I mean it's all right without a direct comparison, but as soon as you have a worthy comparison speaker next to it, you hear that tin/horn/cone sound Klipsch has. Definitely would not get the Klipsch brand. Just simply not worth it. There is better out there.

1994 infinity sounds like cardboard, but then I realize there's no way to compare 1994 to 2023 tech. But the base comes through so much on Infinity SM-155. The base is muted on KLH Five in comparison. Is it because Infinity is soo much larger?


What to do with KLH Model Five?

I don't know, it has that sound of a physically smaller speaker, I don't have comparison experience so I don't know if I made a mistake for not ordering the Wharfedale Lintons, (gawd the Lintons are sooo ugly, I know sound and vision are separate, but I would have to look at those ugly little monsters that Lintons are every day). Just no.

Wharfedale Dovedale address the look problem, but at seven grand MSRP - they will never be reasonably priced even when on sale.


So I am left wondering how Wharfedale EVO4.4 would compare to KLH Fives and what the difference the Diamond line of Wharfedales would make vs. KLH 5.

The just released KLH Model Seven is significantly larger than Five, I feel like they would address what I think is missing - but the same problem haunts us with them - these @$#%ing manufacturers overcharging us nowadays... Four grand for KLH 7 vs. under $1,500 for KLH 5.

How about No.
I mean that's $2,500 extra. Extra. It's just unjustifiable.
So writing all this, I suppose it helped me reach the answer to what my realistic question is, which is would Wharfedale EVO4.4 be a better sound for Rock? Or their Diamond line maybe?

 

would Wharfedale EVO4.4 be a better sound for Rock? Or their Diamond line maybe?

Ok, so from what you've posted, it appears you would indeed prefer the lush/warm, "thick" sound of Wharfedale. In which case, yes the Evo 4.4 would be a good bet, esp. if looks are important to you.

If you are willing to take a chance with a vendor who does not offer the heavily subsidized return shipping that Crutchfield does, these might save you a ton of money (1/3 the cost of the Evo 4.4) and make you equally if not more happy---same speaker designer (Peter Comeaux) just different tweeter and more/bigger woofers:

Wharfedale - Diamond 240 Floor-Standing Speakers (Pair)

The world's largest online retailer of high-end audio, audiophile music, and accessories. We specialize in vinyl records and turntables.

www.musicdirect.com

 

Thank you.
What is the difference between the EVO and Diamond lines, generally speaking, thank you very much for posting.

Although we know the price is no indicator, the Diamond 240 is almost a thousand dollars less than KLH 5.

 

Evo is one level above the Diamond series. Wharfedale's top shelf model line is the Elysian, and the Evos have a lot of its tech mainly the AMT tweeters.

The Diamonds are Wharfedale's best selling "budget" line but not its cheapest line.

 

Aha. I am reading carefully what you are saying.
So it's a different tweeter on Diamond 240 but more/bigger woofers? [What do you mean by 'more' woofers?]

And it's a 2016 model. But for $600 instead of two grand.
Just out of curiosity, what current model is Diamond 240?

 

Oops, I was mistaken...same number & size of woofers, it's just that the larger midrange woofer on the 240 gave me that wrong impression.

The current Wharfedale Diamond 12 series does not have an equivalent to the 240...the closest they come is the Diamond 12.4 which is a 2.5 way design lacking the dedicated midrange, and it's designed by Karl Heinz Fink who designed the Q Acoustics speakers, not Peter Comieux who did the Elysian, Evo, and previous Diamond series (11, 10, etc.)

 

This is gold.
Is there a web site listing models released since Diamond 240? It would be nice to see the models made by Peter Comieux that came after Diamond 240. This would be so informative.

Did Wharfedale have a press release every year or two or three - listing models?

 

You should contact Wharfedale directly to get more info. Their website probably has info about non-current models.

The last Peter Comieux designed Diamonds series were the 11.

 

Okay, apparently there are Wharfedale Diamond 230, 240 and 250 models.
Apparently Diamond 11 followed them, here

DIAMOND 11 Series

Wharfedale

www.wharfedale.co.uk

However, apparently, Diamond 10, etc. are older than Diamond 230, 240 and 250, so it appears the answer to the question is that the only Peter Comieux product that followed Diamond 240 from 2016 is Diamond 11, in 2017.

So naturally the next question is what is worthy of note, what do Diamond 11.4 and 11.5 do better vs. Diamond 240 and 250?

Though no one is selling Diamond 11 series even though they came out after Diamond 240.
And no one is selling Diamond 250 either.

 

And the reason i am researching further is that I feel +/- $2K is the upper limit for a pair, anything approaching $3K is not reasonable, for me.
So I $600 is very much under that budget, which is great but the room is 25ft x 20ft by the way so I feel big is good.

So any other suggestions for classic rock would be appreciated for that budget.

 

Thank you all for posting. There is fine advice to be read here.


It was difficult to pass on the Wharfedale - Diamond 240 speakers brand new for $599 a pair, so I just ordered them.

Though I find Wharfedale EVO4.3 much more pleasing to the eye, I am genuinely curious how they are better than Wharfedale - Diamond 240 to justify twice the price. Is the difference really on the negligible side?


I happen to live near MartinLogan headquarters.
They apparently just released this - should I even bother comparing Wharfedale - Diamond 240 to MartinLogan Foundation F1?

 

should I even bother comparing Wharfedale - Diamond 240 to Martin Logan Foundation F1?

No, the closest equivalent to the F1 would be the Evo 4.4

Depending on your personal tastes you might find the 240s to be beautifully "warm" or (if you prefer strong treble) "too dark/veiled" in comparison.

Be sure to post your impressions once the 240s arrive.

 

Absolutely!

Thank you for posting that, because I really prefer the looks of EVO4.4, but I understood that it may not match my personal preference in SOUND as much as 240. Plus it's 3-4 times more expensive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like if I take my Wharfedale Diamond 240 to Martin Logan and run it side by side with their 2023 model F1, it might also give me some idea of what Evo 4.4 might sound like in comparison to 240?


But first - I can't wait to compare KLH Model Five to Wharfedale - Diamond 240.
Nowhere on the internet did that comparison ever came up that I could find.

 

Great idea.
Absolutely worth exploring, but that brings me to the old point of not understanding how people can possibly hear a speaker - remember its sound - go to another place - hear another speaker - then somehow compare that sound with the sound from their memory of what the other speaker sounded like before.
Really!?

I have no explanation on how people can do that.
I mean the only thing that works for me is having a switch connected to the same receiver, and then you press a button to switch between speakers.
Direct instantaneous comparison. That's how I will compare these.


But yes, it's worth the trip to NFM to sere if they have a show room for comparisons. Thank you for the idea.

 

Absolutely worth exploring, but that brings me to the old point of not understanding how people can possibly hear a speaker - remember its sound - go to another place - hear another speaker - then somehow compare that sound with the sound from their memory of what the other speaker sounded like before.

According to the audiologist medical folks--you can't. Once time takes it's toll be it seconds to minutes, that information goes away.
It does have a little bit of use, not for direct comparisons of course but overall--did you like the sound?

Now comparing speakers over months or years in different rooms in different moods by memory is a bad idea. This is why pictures inside caves were painted, language and writing came to be and eventually some nut recorded sound.

Now comparing speakers with a switch box also creates errors. It can be done correctly only when each speaker is corrected to it's own amplifier and calibrated to be the same loudness level. Louder sounds better--more bass sounds better and so on. I did happen upon an audio store that had a calibrated system with a switch box, subwoofers and curtains in front of the speakers. That way the most efficient ones did not have an advantage by being louder, the speakers that did not have huge bass capability could be even by using subs on all speakers and so on.

Really cool place, you would book a session for 45 minutes and the volume knob was limited to a specific SPL. They had a note pad so you could narrow it down then you'd get to see the winner. My winner was not what I thought it would be so I learned something that day.

These days you can find a speaker you really like then look at the robot measurements to give you a visual of what you like. That way you can compare speakers with those measurements and select the ones that are equal or better. Sure, you have to be fluent in measurements but that is the world we live.

I remember those old switch boxes at the big box stores. They would have some music playing through very small, very inefficient speakers then you'd hit the Cerwin Vega D9 switch....they loved that! I was a teenager and didn't know any better--but I did.

I went with the Dominators....

 

Educational video.

So across the forums, I noticed that comparisons are met with explanations about how it's all relative and how different things appeal to different people. Leaving questionable any claims about how one speaker is "better than" another. And it all usually just ends there. Readers are often left with uncertainty. I know I am after reading the majority of posts and threads.


So let's adjust things.
So I have a switch box, I have two actually.

So in order to do an instantaneous direct comparison, what's needed? Two receivers on which each of the two speakers being compared are separately calibrated?


When comparing two speakers earlier in the thread, I DID notice the discrepancy in the volume, and very much so the discrepancy in base.
But I mean, volume I can adjust, I kind of switch to one speaker and adjust volume, I actually do immerse myself and actually do notice the differences in general sound.

You know what my side conclusion is, the differences IN NO WAY justify the massive differences in cost, but let's not digress to that, all things being equal, I don't have an alternative to hooking up two speakers to the same exact source and switching between them with a button.

I actually can quickly account for the volume difference, but help me with suggestions on what else to adjust, I am not a professional, I don't really know how to calibrate professionally, but to the best of my abilities, I can do whatever you suggest to make the comparison more accurate.

 

So in order to do an instantaneous direct comparison, what's needed? Two receivers on which each of the two speakers being compared are separately calibrated?

No, one receiver but a $30 SPL meter: Looking to upgrade TV sound, looking for best option for...