Btw, the wharfedales blow

J

JuSumPilgrim

New member
Every so often a product comes along that gets hyped on this board. Often the hype is justified like the rnc or rnp or some of the cheap mics and what not. In the case of the wharfedale monitors its really just a bunch of people who are basically inexperienced and used to listening to hifi speakers and really dont know what a good monitor is. Its got to be one of the most flattering 'studio monitor' in production at the moment. Theres a huge scoop from the low mids to 9k or so. The bottom is whooly and you can barely make out tone below 200Hz. Vocals are set back. Everything about it is classic hifi. I cant believe wharfedale calls it a monitor. Nothing about it is useful as a reference. While there is a class of hifi-ish monitors (mackie, event, yorkville, etc) they all manage to make you hear stuff that you dont on typical hifi speakers like polk or klipsch like hi hats that are too prominent or reverbs that need tapering or a low middy guitar line that needs to come through more. There is a tonal clarity even though they are a bit scooped. You dont get that with the wharfedales. Its just straight up hifi.
 
Thanks for the opinion.

I was really interested to know how these sounded. I wasnt in the market but there was such a hype about them i was really interested in them.

Danny
 
What reference monitors are you accustomed to hearing on a regular basis, also where did you hear the Warfs - did you think the room played a part in your comments? Did you A/B them with something...Finally what reference monitors are in your studio? Just curious, you know what are the details !
I guess most folks use their Warfs in the nearfield ?
Thanx
 
I heard them here in my studio. Im listening to them right now as I type this. Im listening to jeff buckley's 'dream brother.' I ordered a pair from zzounds.com.
As a frame of reference. Ive been using a pair of tannoy reveals for the last couple of years on and off. With a sub. Also mackie and yorkville and hafler for a bit. I used a pair of dynaudio BM6s for a bit but found them too flattering overall. I also have a pair of KRK ST6s that I am liking at the moment. In general, monitors need to tell the truth and not flatter. I think the giant scoop on the wharfs disqualifies them. They sound totally hifi which is what their origins are. Im surprised the hype has gotten as far as it has.
 
Thanks JuSumPilgrim - sorry they don't give you the sound you expected. I've never heard them myself but have seen the rave reviews here. :(
 
Why do you have so many monitors? Sounds like your ears are still growing or you have bad room acoustics to go through that amount of monitors.

Compared to the Tannoy reveals the Wharfdales are in a whole different class.
 
In the case of the wharfedale monitors its really just a bunch of people who are basically inexperienced and used to listening to hifi speakers and really dont know what a good monitor is.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't Christmas, I might take offense to that...

As far as semantics are concerned, I can't believe that most of the boxes out there are called "monitors." Back in the day, "monitors" were big ol' nasty boxes that were colorful as hell. You got used to them quickly and did your job. They were basically ALL "HiFi" speakers. I recall (Harvey?) ranting on that very subject not long ago...

IMNSHO, Wharfedale has produced one of the better "real world" listening systems out there. Pleasant to listen to, non-abrasive sounding with imaging that's hard to believe from a box that size (or that inexpensive). I'll take "real" over "sterile" about 90% of the time. When everyone out there installs "studio monitors" in their homes and cars and treats the rooms properly, maybe I'll start using "sterile" again.

Admittedly, they're my "B" system here, but they get quite a bit of use. For quite some time, the 8.2's and a sub were all I was using.

It sounds like the problems you're having might be that they're too close... They're really not meant for the nearfield...

But of course, everyone's MMV -

DISCLAIMER: I'm using original, passive Diamond 8.2's in the mid-field in a fairly well-tuned room. I would think that the added mass of the actives would change the tonality of the active "Pro" series and have yet to put them head-to-head. Back when they were in development, I was contacted by Wharfedale to "beta test" the new ones. I had to turn them down - Busy time of year. However, they told me they went through a lot of trouble to make the "Pro" series sound just like the original Diamonds. I know of an awful lot of people that have these things... This is only the second complaint that I know of. ANOTHER DISCLAIMER: I have a tendency to not care for active speakers in general, especially if there is a passive model available. For example, I think the Event 20/20 bas (active) sounds absolutely horrible. However, the 20/20 passive with a nice amp is quite acceptable. Active Yorkies, Mackies, Yamahas... Throw 'em all in a pile with some lighter fluid. When you get into Genelec and ADAM, I get pretty happy, but I'm sure the amplifiers they're using are "a bit" nicer than the former. Again, YMMV, yada, yada...

Geez, that's a helluva disclaimer!
 
Wait a minute,

You say they are less accurate and more flattering than Tannoy Reveals? You say Dynaudio BM6s are flattering? Guess that changes my mind about your opinion. I guess if your looking for that kind of style, but ive found it totally the opposite. I mixed on Tannoy Reveals for probably close to 3 years. Not bad but i wouldnt say accurate in the least. Ultimately my mixes never translated even close on those. They seemed to make everything sound good. I got used to them though but i would never put them in the same league of accuracy as Dynaudio BM6s. Maybe close to the Mackie HR824s.

So im guessing the Wharfs would be close to what i would be looking for if i was in the market.

Danny
 
In honsety, I can only compare them to what I was monitoring with before (Yamaha NS-10's) and I find my 8.2 actives are a great sounding pair of monitors. A friend of mine was so impressed with them that he's going to get a pair for his Avid system. To say that the Wharfedales suck is just ridiculous. Your post reeks of troll.
 
anxious to try the Wharfes

Yikes! I just orederd some Wharfedales (my X-mas present to myself) based on all of the generous comments that I have seen here.

Anyway, I am anxious to see how these speakers will contribute to my home recordings. I assume that it will take some time to "break in" my new wharfedales and learn where to tweak my mixes so that they will translate to various sound systems. My sense is that there are few perfect listening rooms (when it comes to Home recording) and there is no perfectly flat speaker, so the trick is in learning to overcome the weaknesses in those (and other) links in your recording setup to produce a product that sounds acceptable on a boombox, in the car, and in the fmaliy room hifi system.

I have ordered the 8.2 passives--actually I was kind of nervous because everyone was talking up the active speakers, but I am pleased that Massive specifically endorses the passives (over the active boxes). My question is this: Massive said that he uses these speakers at mid-field range. What is the difference beteween nearfield and mid-field? Can someone break this down for me in feet and inches? I understand the basic triangle theory of monitor placement, but how far would the speakers be placed from my ears for proper mid-field monitoring?

Also, without being too much of a brown-noser, I would like to say thanks to all of the professionals and experienced contributors for another year of wonderful and cheap advice! Happy Holidays!
 
schult - im sure you will be fine with them. I still would think that for the price, they are still great monitors. Even if they arnt accurate.

As far as listening rooms go. Your absolutely right about there arnt very many perfectly tuned rooms out there. If thats even possible at all. But its not just in homerecording. Im amazed to see how top of the line studios out there, doing great work have basic simple rooms. They are controlled but nothing outragious. Alot just appear to have 703' in the corners covered with fabric. Nothin too fancy. Some have small control rooms, some have big control rooms. What it all comes down to is working with what you have and try not to worry whether or not you have the greatest or not. When you can upgrade do it. But until you can actually do the upgrade, dont sit there and sob to yourself with the "what if" in your head. Just use what you have.


I didnt feel this thread was completely useless. it was an opinion and that was it. I dont feel it was a bad thing because it really might help a few people. Instead of someone just going out and buying these monitors just because everyone else is getting them. Once they see this thread they will double check their sources and make sure it really is the right one for them. Because they honestly might not be. And with the added thread explaining his situation and how he came up with the opinion tells me a few different things about the monitors. It gave me an idea of what he liked and why he didnt like the Wharfedales. Knowing the characteristics of alot of the monitors he listed above gave me a pretty good picture in my mind in general how they would sound if i went and picked some up today.

Danny
 
the reason behind nearfield monitoring is to cut out on room sound. It still comes into the equation but not nearly as much as a large monitoring system
 
I have a pair of the 8.2 passives and I thought they were pretty nice - so did my son (who has pretty damn good ears). We found them a little too rich in the 400 to 800Hz region and a little bright, but not by too much. The imaging was excellent and the bass went down a lot lower than I expected for a box this size and price. I could probably do a whole mix on these if I had to and get pretty close - far better than I could on a pair of NS-10's.

As far as a "lack of experience", I don't think that would apply in our case, or in Massive Master's case - we all have a few years under our belts. I use to design speakers for a living (JBL, IMC, Cerwin Vega, Yamaha, etc.), so I think I'm fairly qualified to make a sonic judgment about these speakers.

They were sitting atop our MCI JH-556D console in our Studio A, George Augspurger designed control room for about 3 days, but my son grabbed them and they now rest on his SSL 4048EG+ console in his Augspurger designed mixing room, not exactly cheap listening environments. I'm probably gonna grab a few more sets for our two control rooms, since it doesn't look like I'm getting these back from my son anytime soon.
 
It just goes to show ya', if there was one "perfect sounding" monitor, there'd still be some people who wouldn't like it. Different strokes for different folks and what not.

I get my share of flame for my views on NS-10's and 824's and the like.

Can't we all just get along?
 
Im not trying to start a war. I respect Harvey's opinion and have bought mics on his recommendation. Just trying to counterbalance alot of hype. FWIW, I didnt hear anything on the wharfs that I havent heard elsewhere. One test of a monitor is whether youre noticing new aspects of a snare or guitar or a vocal that was previously buried on another speaker. The wahrfs offer nothing you dont hear on a consumer system. Like I said, there are other speakers that come from the hifi school that somehow allow you to hear into the mix and hear aspects you dont hear on typical hifi speakers. As a 3rd or 4th reference the wharfs are fine. As a main monitor they dont work. For the price theyre nice living room speakers. They go down pretty low, though the bottom is hyped and the imaging is nice but there is a huge scoop and everything is flattering.

Darnold, I didnt say the reveals were accurate. They are basically a smoother ns10 with better imaging. Getting them to translate means being aware of their very present mids and low mids and somewhat set back upper mids and top. Which makes them not flattering. Theyre not an easy speaker to learn or mix on but they reveal flaws pretty quickly that other speakers dont. As far as the BM6s, theyre very nice speakers, very clear and natural sounding but its hard to make a mix sound bad on them. The top is silky, the bottom focused and the mids are just clear but not hyped. Its hard to know if your mix is muddy or not.
 
Last edited:
Could it be that the old passive 8.2's that you hear a lot of pro's talking good about, and are mostly considered hi fi speakers may sound different then the new active wharfdales that are being called studio monitors, and which you hear a lot of (what seems to be amateurs) talking good about?

I have no idea, it's just a theory.

Or do any of you old pro's have exeprience with the new ones?
 
the bass response in the Active 8.2 is definitly ass if your doing hip hop, reggae, r&b generally anything with alot going on 100hz and under.

But I definitly don't find them flattering compared to my old Yorkvilles. Doesn't sound as hi fi to me vs the York passives. My mixes would always be dark on those things.
 
That being my "real world" set, I'm just using a Sony 10" something or other sub in parallel - The signal isn't going through the sub to the Wharf's, so there's no disjointed weirdness from the sub's crossover.
 
Which model did you use JuSum? Since you didn't specify which model you used (maybe you have elsewhere, but I didn't see it mentioned here), I just wanted to eliminate the possibility that you were using the hifi version of their monitors... I believe they have the yellow speaker cones. Also, did you use the actives or passives?

But for the price it doesn't sound like they can be beat so I'm definitely set on getting a pair (hopefully sometime soon), until I can save up for a pair of ADAMs.... In about 25 years or so! :D

-tkr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top