Wharfedale Diamond 8.3 Floorstanders Review

Overall Rating

None

Sound quality & build quality

I bought these Wharfedale Diamond 8.3 Floorstanders to replace my B&W 601's which would not fit in visually at my new house.After rave reviews in What Hi Fi and other magazines i sent for them from QED. £147 totally wasted,they bare no resemblance to the reviews at all,they sound totally muddled,and have a very boomy type of base,tried out lots of positions, away from wall,close to wall,still sound rubbish.I run them through a Rotel RA972 Mk2 amp,Rotel Cd player,Cable Talk 4.1 cable and Chord Siren Interconnects,maybe i was spoiled with the B&W's,but somehow i don't think so.the moral of this review is listen before buying,don't belive all you read in Hi Fi magazines ( reviewers must have hearing problems)and don't by Diamond 8.3's.

Members' Comments onden's Review

• ssss on 22nd Sep 2003

  The reviewer is bias. He is a B and W fanatic.

• den on 23rd Sep 2003

  For the record,i'm not a B&W fanatic as someone seems to think,if i was i would have kept them. i give my honest views on the Wharfdales and find them total rubbish.they have gone now and i have a pair of proper speakers,nice pair of new Quads.Maybe the person who says i'm biased should tell us what he has then? before he shoots his mouth off

• ssss on 23rd Sep 2003

  More ears are better than one. If the reviewers hear the speakers and sounds good to them then I think they are more accurate than your review. So you couldn't generalized that Wharfedales are bad sounding. The speakers that sounds good to you may sound bad to others. Every individual has its own perception of what sounds good to him.

• den on 23rd Sep 2003

  So whats the point in the Review Centre then.Still don't rate these as good as what the hi fi magazines say.End of the matter as far as i'm concerned.

• ssss on 26th Sep 2003

  den, you're entitled to your own opinion. I have read a lot of reviews of wharfedales by professionals and consumer reviewers, they gave wharfedales higher rating.

• t7mechatro on 14th Oct 2003

  Hi!
  
  I read your discussion with great interest and you both forget one important thing that is also forgotten by almost ALL magazines around the entire world.
  
  -> The music you are listening to.
  
  What music to you hear and and what are your preference? Then, next:
  
  -> The Sound pressure level.
  
  1) ->I listen to Nujazz, d & b, hiphop, deep-jazzyhouse, as well as classic, jazz, pop like sting, u2, then raggea, etc, etc..
  
  2) -> I listen seldom loud and if, i want to have clear bass and no harch trebles and a huge soundstage.
  
  These are the most important points: Music and SPL. Everytime i read online-reviews, magazine-reviews, et al, i feel like i HAVE TO listen to classic AND ONLY to classic to understand the reviewers point of view.
  
  Tell your local "audiophidele"-dealer you're listing to NuJazz, King Britt or Francois K. His eyes will ask you "to hell with this paradise garage freak, i sell only to music-listeners, not drug-dealers"
  
  So to all of you opera and bach fanatics: They were geniouses, i must agree and i still love to listen to Schubert, Brahms or newer classicals, but forgive me, on this planet most people listen to the music from my generation. And why? Because it unleashes emotions that are crucial to escape this world full of war, uncertainty and performance pressure. And why? Because rich, fat, poweradicted politicains or industry-giants destroy our planet however thinking, if they go out to hear the 3 tenors, they are educated or cultured. And because these industry-giants pay the ads in the magazines in EVERY magazine or newspaper they CONTROL the media. Its that simple.
  
  
  I don't go so far to claim that because of that all audiophiles only listen to classic. In one word: I enjoy listening NOT to classic, or dress like a youngster, although i know Victor Hugo, Goethe, Brecht or Noam Chompsky. Am i permitted to buy a Class-A system and listen to popular music or do i have to stuck with Aiwa from now on?
  
  So please on the next reviews, just post something like this:
  
  tnx

• t7mechatro on 14th Oct 2003

  darn it, something must have cut of my last words.. just say -what music you are listening to-. tnx.

• Naval phile on 18th Nov 2003

  I understand that you didn't like how your pair of wharfedales sounded. Assuming that you are being truthful and that your hearing is not impaired in any way I can only suggest one thing. You got a pair of wharfedales that was not functioning properly in some way. Perhaps they were dropped in transit or even at the factory between production and boxing. I work in the audio-video field and make it a point to listen to as many sound systems as possible. I have heard B&W, KEF, Totem Accoustics (award winning canadian speakers hand made in Montreal) and many speakers from various "high end" manufacturers. Having also heard the Diamond 8.3s I can speak to the quality of the sound they produce in a relatively informed manner. The thing that strikes me about your review of these speakers is that the things you found lacking in your speakers are those things which I have found the 8.3s to excel in. The clarity of sound I have encountered in any of the diamond series speakers is exceptional for the price: matching speakers costing far more. If anything could be improved in these speakers it is that the base extention from them is less then one might hope. With a sub-woofer this problem is solved and for the money these speakers are an excellent value in my opinion. In short I whole-heartedly agree with the What Hi-fi experts who rated a typical pair of diamond 8.3s against other similar speakers. You are of course correct that you should always hear a pair of speakers before you (sometimes foolishly) buy them sight unseen. If you had done this I believe (again unless you suffer from an inability to correctly appreciate sound quality) that you would have found that the pair of speakers you recieved did not sound as good as those at the store and you would not have spent more on what may in fact be an inferior pair of loudspeakers.

• paulmtasker86 on 28th Nov 2003

  Not sure bout the 8.3's but I've got the smaller 8.1's which are similar only with a smaller bass/mid unit, and I have to say that they sound sensational. Stereo image superb, as is detailing, they do a good attempt of sounding bigger than they are. The icing on the cake is the sheer punch of the sound, its guaranteed to bring a smile to your face and get your foot tapping.

• den on 28th Nov 2003

  Maybe i should have bought the smaller versions,anyway it's too late now,as they have been dumped.im much happier with my new Quads,ok they cost more,but the Diamonds are no were near them at all.i really have forgot all about themnow,just put it down to a big mistake.If anyone else does see fit to pass comment i will not be answering as i feel all has been said now.

• technomachine on 4th Dec 2003

  hello, den forgot to mention his last name is bethoven .I have bought and sold many a speaker and these speakers can hang with speakers 3 times the freight .these are a steal .the person who said a defective speaker is i think speaking the truth .
  50, 000 people cannot be wrong !!

• toonking on 15th Dec 2003

  i read all the stuff all you guys wrote about 8.3 and went and bought them a year back. Runs on HK AVR, and Marantz CD player. The Wharfedale sounds very sharp and sweet at low to decent volumes. The moment i crank up my amp to mid way, the speakers start sounding like a whale thrashing to death. the bass completely gives up on life, and music is practically unlistenable. and there is no damages to my 8.3's. If you dont believe me, play shaggy on HK amp, and put it on surround function. You will see the speaker's oinstroke on bass being damped by the next outstroke. My advice.Dont buy these.Also try shaggy cd to check any speaker. Unless you only listen to Norah Jones. I agree with Dan.

• Naval phile on 17th Dec 2003

  I don't know what to say to that last review. I do home theater installation for a store that happens to sell both HK and Wharfedale. I have cranked (And I do mean to 100% volume) the hk and have not noticed ANY distortion. I have tried with all sorts of music including the food for woofers cd (a true test for bass and midrange) and Wycleff Jean -ecleftic. I just can't seem to find the problems you guys are complaining about (I have never seen or heard a whale flop but I assume it sounds bad based on your review). Whatever though, if it doesn't work on your system then so be it, get another set of speakers. For you Mr. Bassey I would suggest some Cerwin Vega's, they aren't as accurate as the Wharfedales but they are good enough for Shaggy certainly and they can be beaten like a rented mule without having any problems. And for the 99% of you out there whose systems these speakers may compliment very well: go and listen to them at the volumes you want to hear them at and with the music you listen to. If you like the sound buy them, if not don't, but don't let a couple of unexplainable reviews steer you away from giving them a listen. They just might be the best priced speaker available for anywhere near the cost.

• toonking on 21st Dec 2003

  finally! i got so naffed off with the wharfedales , went and bough infinity studio monitor 205's this weekend for $ 300. i think it is an old model since they dont make studio monitors anymore. But it is from a new-only shop, hence unused. what a difference. The highs are high, lows are low and music is pure. it is unrestrained , and really sounds like music should. i am really impressed. I connected both wharfedales and infinity at same time to my HK 51 and put it on contour function. in fact the infinity is so sharp i have to cut the bass and treble on my amp, whereas i find the wharfedale bringing down the quality of music when played alongwith infinity. so i am not using the wharfedale 8.3's anymore, though i was planning to use both. i think i will give it off to one of its many admirers. I really do not see why people cant feel the difference.

• ssss on 22nd Dec 2003

  Is the studio monitor your refering to are of the same type, say a floor stander? If not, there's no reason to compare different kinds or type of speakers. If it happens to be a book shelf type, compare it with the Wharf 8.1. This speakers has a quality of its own. Midfrequency response is so sweet and natural, spacious and defined. Too bright sound are unrealistic and sounds unnatural. Hi-fidelity means the sound is close to the original source being recorded.

• toonking on 23rd Dec 2003

  Yes I agree. Both are tower floor speakers, at same price range and wattage. Wharfedale is diamond 8.3 at 250 dollars with 2 drivers, at 125 watts. Infinity is SM 205 at 290 dollars at 15o watts, with 3 driver, 32 inches tall. I also agree,music should sound as natural as possible, and this Infinity Studio Monitor series( 155, 215 etc) is a revelation. It will make you forget all this bass reflex stuff and want to make you believe in conventional box speakers. Pity Infinity swopped it. Buy it if you find them.

• dwe on 22nd Feb 2004

  Still think there overrated

• martinus on 23rd Feb 2004

  I come very late to this discussion but would like to point out that the sound of any component should not be subject to 'opinions', it should be subject only to whether it sounds realistic at the volume you wish to listen.
  
  I happen to listen mainly to classical music and know very well what live music sounds like. I have chosen my system on this basis only. Given that I regard that as the only sensible way of assessing 'High Fidelity' I am often astounded at the views of some reviewers. They can never have compared 'live' with 'reproduced'. How they are making their assessments is a mystery - perhaps brown envelopes come into the equasion.
  
  One last point about the need to listen for yourselves - don't spend a fortune, you simply don't have to. For example Linn and Naim speaker cables are just about the cheapest you can buy and they sound better than anything I have ever tried. Just use your ears and not your wallet.

• tbcass on 14th May 2004

  Accuracy and sounding like a live performance can be an ellusive goal. I'm a musician (Blues/Jazz/Rock) and one thing I learned over the years is a band can sound completely different from one venue to the next using the same instruments and equipment. Another thing I learned is the most "accurate" and "cleanest" sounding speakers often sound the least like a live performance, especially if close mike techniques are used in the recording (prevalent in popular music). That said I can fully understand how one person could find a speaker unacceptable while another could think it's great.

• helen highwater on 26th May 2004

  I bought some 8.3's a year ago, having seen the 4 star plus ratings in What HiFi. I've lived with them yet never been happy. The mid and treble are fine and very detailed. But listen to an orchestra or to a cello and what's missing? The answer is the wonderful low notes that add depth to this sort of music. The 8.3's just don't deliver unless they are driven by a thumping bass line. So, last night I went up to the loft and brought down my 1972 Kef Cadenzas and hooked them up to my year-old CD player and amp. Oh Joy! The orchestra sounded like an orchestra - the cello's wonderful depth returned - and without any loss of treble or midrange. In fact the treble was a lot sweeter. Oh, and by the way they run on 5 amp mains cable not the special thick copper cable I was advised to use on the Warfedale's. OK, I agree it's a matter of taste but I'm seriously wondering about some of the so-called independent reviews.

• martinus on 18th Jun 2004

  OK tbcass, I understand your point but I didn't say 'accurate' or 'clean'. I wont bore you with the details but I use a valve amp + transmission line speakers, neither of which are accurate, and still it sounds like live music (with a good recording) because... the balance is right and the sound is unforced, un-compressed and natural. I think that is what Helen has just found with her 1972 KEFs. They were the bees knees back then but would now be described as coloured and under-damped. As Helen says though, they sound natural. Interesting that she identifies the cello in particular because the KEFs are almost bound to sound fairly 'woody' which may actually be a good thing with a cello.
  
  As to venues, Hi Fi will also sound very different in different rooms. Modern houses with plasterboard walls tend to be awful. Just one of the reasons you must use your ears and have a home demo. AE1s, the most accurate speaker I know, sound wonderful in the right place but dreadful in my lounge. Listen before wasting money is all I am saying.

• namron99 on 21st Sep 2004

  I just bought some 8.1's I've run them in, Now I'm going to run them over. I'd rather listen to the original ones from twenty years ago than this tripe. One of the worst audio products I ever bought. Piercingly shrill treble, blousy bass and quite the most weird and un-natural tonal balance. I've got 20 years experience in audio, a well set up sound room with rf shielding and clean mains. These were bought as a stop gap while I wait for new atc 35 speakers to arrive. Wharfedales are on ebay. YEEEUCH! I'd rather have an enema from a moose than listen to these again.