The 200Hz warble tone sounded more colored than the other bands, and when I played the half-step–spaced tonebursts on Editor's Choice there was audible coloration between 196 and 246Hz. When I listened to the cabinet walls with a stethoscope, this behavior was worse with the right-channel speaker than the left. This behavior, I suspect, was the cause of the Diamond 11.2 having a rather warm tonal balance, which was particularly noticeable with male speaking voices, as in the channel-identification and phasing tracks on Editor's Choice. But with well-recorded classic music, such as Stravinsky's Apollon Musagète, from the Trondheim Soloists' Reflections (24-bit/44.1kHz MQA file unfolded to 24/176.4, 2L 2L-125), the Wharfedales mostly stepped out of the way of the music making. And with purely electronic music—eg, Olof Dreijer's remix of "Me, I'm Not," from Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D (Nothing/Interscope)—the remix version of Nine Inch Nails' Year Zero, the warm lower midrange was not an issue at all.
I mention this track because the four-in-the-bar sampled/synthesized kick drum was reproduced with an excellent balance of attack and weight, especially when, after three minutes or so, it's doubled by a second drum an octave lower in pitch, then joined by low-frequency synth sweeps. Eugene Wright's double bass in "Take Five," from the Dave Brubeck Quartet's Time Out (DSD64 file, Columbia), had reasonably good definition. Its tone did lack a little body, though Joe Morello's kick drum punched through very effectively in his solo.
Brubeck's piano sounded sweeter than I remembered, as did Robert Silverman's instrument on our February 2018 "Recording of the Month," Chopin's Last Waltz (DSD128 file, IsoMike 5606). The midbass region seemed a little lean with this album, even after I'd optimized the speaker positions. When Silverman's left hand thundered down the keyboard at 3:56 in the Fantasie in f, the lowest-pitched notes didn't quite thunder as much as I'd expected. But while there was a touch of midrange congestion in the very loudest passages, overall the piano sounded convincing. I cued up one of my own solo-piano recordings of Robert Silverman, his performance of Liszt's Vallée d'Obermann, from Sonata (16/44.1 ALAC file, Stereophile STPH008-2), which was recorded on a Nagra-D with a Schoeps Sphere as the primary microphone. This recording had more left-hand weight than the Chopin, but again, these inexpensive speakers did a good job of conveying the musical essence.
I ended my auditioning with a recording I hadn't played for quite a while: Mendelssohn's incidental music for A Midsummer Night's Dream, performed by the Montreal Symphony Orchestra conducted by Charles Dutoit (16/44.1 ALAC file, London 430 722-2). I continue to marvel at the fact that the composer was just 17 when he wrote the overture to this work, with its wealth of melody. With the Wharfedales driven by the Audio Research Reference 160M monoblocks ($30,000/pair) that Jason Serinus reviewed in October—a very unlikely pairing, I admit—this 1979 recording sounded rich and warm, with a big sweep of orchestral sound. The violins didn't sound harsh, the lower strings had enough body to be satisfying, and the soundstage was wide, with relatively good depth.
Comparisons
The two minimonitors that have taken up long-term residence in my system are my 1978 Rogers LS5/5a's, and the KEF LS50s I bought after reviewing their Anniversary Edition in December 2012.6 For these comparisons I matched levels with pink noise to within 0.5dB, and found the Diamond 11.2 noticeably more sensitive than either speaker. The LS3/5a's, however, offered stereo soundstaging precision to rival that of the big Tidals—the acoustic of the Albuquerque church on the Stereophile Liszt piano recording was less apparent with the Wharfedales—as well as a more transparent if slightly nasal-sounding midrange. Used farther out in the room than the Wharfedales, the Rogers' admittedly exaggerated upper-bass region was in better balance with the midrange. The LS3/5a also had more energy in-room in the top three octaves than either the Diamond 11.2 or the LS50. The KEFs were placed in the same positions as the Wharfedales. The Diamond 11.2s sounded a little more laid-back than the LS50s, but with a tad more top-octave energy. They also excited the lowest-frequency resonance in my room to a greater extent, adding useful weight to Nine Inch Nails' "Me, I'm Not." The LS50s offered more precise stereo imaging, with greater depth and a more neutral-sounding midrange. The individual orchestral lines in the Mendelssohn overture were more readily apparent through the KEFs, as was the acoustic of the recording venue.
But to put these comparisons in perspective, the KEF costs $1300/pair, and while the British speaker maker Rogers (not to be confused with the US company Rogers High Fidelity) is no more, Falcon Acoustics' current version of the LS3/5a starts at $2195/pair. The Diamond 11.2 costs only $599/pair.
Conclusions
After two months of living with the Tidal Akiras, I was pleasantly surprised by what the Wharfedale Diamond 11.2s gave me at 1/359 the price. The small Wharfedales couldn't go anywhere near as loud as the massive Tidals, nor did they have anything like their authority in the low frequencies. The Akiras were soundstaging champs; the Diamond 11.2s' stereo imaging was good rather than great. The Wharfedale's soft-dome tweeter was not as superbly transparent or as sophisticated-sounding as the Tidal's diamond-diaphragm tweeter. And the Diamond 11.2's warm lower midrange won't always be optimal, depending on what kind of music its owner prefers. But when I wasn't in critical listening mode and was simply playing music for pleasure, none of that mattered much—the Diamond 11.2s gave me enough of what I needed. Couple these Wharfedales with something like PS Audio's Sprout100 integrated amplifier, which Herb Reichert reviewed in November and which also costs $599, and you have the basis of a good-sounding system for $2 short of $1200.
Brubeck's piano sounded sweeter than I remembered, as did Robert Silverman's instrument on our February 2018 "Recording of the Month," Chopin's Last Waltz (DSD128 file, IsoMike 5606). The midbass region seemed a little lean with this album, even after I'd optimized the speaker positions. When Silverman's left hand thundered down the keyboard at 3:56 in the Fantasie in f, the lowest-pitched notes didn't quite thunder as much as I'd expected. But while there was a touch of midrange congestion in the very loudest passages, overall the piano sounded convincing. I cued up one of my own solo-piano recordings of Robert Silverman, his performance of Liszt's Vallée d'Obermann, from Sonata (16/44.1 ALAC file, Stereophile STPH008-2), which was recorded on a Nagra-D with a Schoeps Sphere as the primary microphone. This recording had more left-hand weight than the Chopin, but again, these inexpensive speakers did a good job of conveying the musical essence.
The two minimonitors that have taken up long-term residence in my system are my 1978 Rogers LS5/5a's, and the KEF LS50s I bought after reviewing their Anniversary Edition in December 2012.6 For these comparisons I matched levels with pink noise to within 0.5dB, and found the Diamond 11.2 noticeably more sensitive than either speaker. The LS3/5a's, however, offered stereo soundstaging precision to rival that of the big Tidals—the acoustic of the Albuquerque church on the Stereophile Liszt piano recording was less apparent with the Wharfedales—as well as a more transparent if slightly nasal-sounding midrange. Used farther out in the room than the Wharfedales, the Rogers' admittedly exaggerated upper-bass region was in better balance with the midrange. The LS3/5a also had more energy in-room in the top three octaves than either the Diamond 11.2 or the LS50. The KEFs were placed in the same positions as the Wharfedales. The Diamond 11.2s sounded a little more laid-back than the LS50s, but with a tad more top-octave energy. They also excited the lowest-frequency resonance in my room to a greater extent, adding useful weight to Nine Inch Nails' "Me, I'm Not." The LS50s offered more precise stereo imaging, with greater depth and a more neutral-sounding midrange. The individual orchestral lines in the Mendelssohn overture were more readily apparent through the KEFs, as was the acoustic of the recording venue.
But to put these comparisons in perspective, the KEF costs $1300/pair, and while the British speaker maker Rogers (not to be confused with the US company Rogers High Fidelity) is no more, Falcon Acoustics' current version of the LS3/5a starts at $2195/pair. The Diamond 11.2 costs only $599/pair.
ConclusionsAfter two months of living with the Tidal Akiras, I was pleasantly surprised by what the Wharfedale Diamond 11.2s gave me at 1/359 the price. The small Wharfedales couldn't go anywhere near as loud as the massive Tidals, nor did they have anything like their authority in the low frequencies. The Akiras were soundstaging champs; the Diamond 11.2s' stereo imaging was good rather than great. The Wharfedale's soft-dome tweeter was not as superbly transparent or as sophisticated-sounding as the Tidal's diamond-diaphragm tweeter. And the Diamond 11.2's warm lower midrange won't always be optimal, depending on what kind of music its owner prefers. But when I wasn't in critical listening mode and was simply playing music for pleasure, none of that mattered much—the Diamond 11.2s gave me enough of what I needed. Couple these Wharfedales with something like PS Audio's Sprout100 integrated amplifier, which Herb Reichert reviewed in November and which also costs $599, and you have the basis of a good-sounding system for $2 short of $1200.
