advertisement


wharfedale diamonds

going to pick the mk2 diamonds up in the morning no expecting miracles but at 12 quid and they look to be in immaculate condition besides some screw holes on the back where they have been on wall stands its got to be worth the risk as i always wanted a pair when they were new ,
 
got the diamonds home yesterday the cabinets look like they are brand new not a mark anywhere, but the covers do have a small tear on one corner , no worries they look better without them anyway , they do have some screw holes on back where they have been wall mounted but through a pair of 135 they sound loverly best 12 quid i have spent in ages , so much so i am now looking for another pair of active ones to use through my pc can anyone tell me will these work through a pc or is it a no no
 
I remember going to a hi-fi show in the mid 80's that had a load of different gear, and the most impressive (in a musical way) room was the one with a pair of active Diamonds on the end of a Rega Planar 3, not sure what the preamp was. Mind you I am a sucker for active systems, in my view they are so superior it isn't funny. (Oh, and I think the Diamonds were red)

Cheers
 
The "Active Diamonds" are indeed very impressive. However they're not really active speakers. They use a passive crossover after a chipamp in one speaker and a speaker cable from one box to a perfectly normal speaker on the other side (I'll take mine apart and document this on the website).

Many of the much repeated "advantages" of active vs. passive operation expressed on this forum are of course complete nonsense made up to sell things. Active speakers can be designed to measure better and they can be more efficient than a non-active speaker. They also have the advantage in PA situations of being less likely to destroy tweeters. However, they don't have to be better (with lower distortion etc.) or more efficient. These things depend on far more than one aspect of the design of a speaker.

David.
 
David,

Perhaps the Diamonds are a bad example, but from first hand experience I can say that converting a pair of Kan II's from passive to active made an absolutely massive improvement, keeping a the rest of the system the same (except of course adding two more amps and the XO.

Perhaps one can get the same from a good passive XO, everyone to their own experience / opinions.

PS - Was the original Active Diamons using a chipamp?
 
MartinC said:
Perhaps the Diamonds are a bad example, but from first hand experience I can say that converting a pair of Kan II's from passive to active made an absolutely massive improvement, keeping a the rest of the system the same (except of course adding two more amps and the XO.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as you admit you have then added "two more amps, and the crossover" has changed. That's almost certainly going to make a difference - and it ought to be an improvement given the cost.

It doesn't, however, indicate that active is always better than passive.
PS - Was the original Active Diamons using a chipamp?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure. I'll take mine apart in the next few days and take some photos to point to from here.
 
I have a pair of active diamonds in my loft. If anyone wants any pics, i'll get my crampons on and clamber up and retrieve them.
 
I got my old pair of 3s out of the loft the other day to use as test speakers while fixing up an amp. Was pleasantly surprised at how good they sound after all these years. Filled my small room with very pleasant noises!
 
David, I enjoyed your write up, thanks. In fact, I've enjoyed your whole website.

Am I right to understand that your Active Diamond Plus is an active Diamond III, which was the first model with an improved tweeter?
 
Durmbo said:
David, I enjoyed your write up, thanks. In fact, I've enjoyed your whole website.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot.

Am I right to understand that your Active Diamond Plus is an active Diamond III, which was the first model with an improved tweeter?
Click to expand...

You may well be right. Thanks for pointing out when the new tweeter arrived. Do you happen to know if the Diamond III had the same woofer as mine have. i.e. paper instead of plastic ? I've always wondered if that was different from Active Diamonds than non active ones, and even if was a cost saving measure for "Ferguson" active diamonds.
 
davidhembrow said:
Do you happen to know if the Diamond III had the same woofer as mine have. i.e. paper instead of plastic ? I've always wondered if that was different from Active Diamonds than non active ones, and even if was a cost saving measure for "Ferguson" active diamonds.
Click to expand...

I don't know, sorry, but James Evans who has a pair will know.

It'd be interesting to compare the two woofers, as some people feel paper cones sound best.
 
davidhembrow said:
Do you happen to know if the Diamond III had the same woofer as mine have. i.e. paper instead of plastic ? I've always wondered if that was different from Active Diamonds than non active ones, and even if was a cost saving measure for "Ferguson" active diamonds.
Click to expand...

Just taken a peek at my IIIs and they have the plastic woofer. Tweeters look very similar if not the same as the active ones. The passive xovers are different - I have 3 caps per xover in my IIIs
 
James Evans said:
Just taken a peek at my IIIs and they have the plastic woofer. Tweeters look very similar if not the same as the active ones. The passive xovers are different - I have 3 caps per xover in my IIIs
Click to expand...

Then the mystery continues. According to the hifi world link, the crossovers in the first diamonds were like mine - just a cap and resistor (for level) to the tweeter and an inductor for the woofer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top