advertisement


Wharfedale Evo 4.2 - 3-way standmount, AMT tweeter

alanbeeb

alanbeeb

pfm Member
Anyone heard these? A modern-looking 3-way standmount speaker is a relative rarity, especially with an AMT tweeter and at £600. Kef's R3 comes in at £1300... nearest comparison I can find.

https://www.wharfedale.co.uk/evo4-2/

A couple of favourable reviews on the web... but anyone able to share real-world experience with them?
 
Interesting that despite many thread views, no-one has a comment.... is it the case that no-one really cares about mid-market hifi anymore? I totally get that a forum like this has, in response to the exponential escalation of new hifi prices in last 10-15 years, veered more to discussion of classic components like Tannoy DCs, old valve gear etc - but where does that leave "affordable" modern components? Who is the target market for this kind of speaker?

There is a bit of cognitive dissonance in my head when I describe a speaker costing £600 as "affordable".... I think it shows how inured we have become to new hifi components costing many thousands - and many of these things are just the latest reboot of tried and tested designs going back decades. I was shocked when I saw the prices for the current KEF reference range, or B&W 8xx series. I don't know what Harbeth are thinking with their latest price hike for what looks like the same product with extra letters at the end of the name. When I was in my twenties, anything costing more than £200 was beyond aspiration.
 
I cannot offer any comments on the speaker in question but I can say with some confidence that the AMT tweeter is likely to give this speaker a big leg up over anything in the same price range. AMT's offer more resolved treble and their greater efficiency add excitement to their sound, I had them in ADAM speakers for many years.

On paper these look like they could be great speakers, I would try and arrange a demo when normal life returns.
 
I saw the 4.3 and 4.4 advertised for a reasonable price in Australia. and was also wondering what they sound like.
 
The issue here is the history of the company, Wharfdale once was a prestigious brand but they lost there pedigree many decades ago.
 
Sorry but i disagree, regardless of how good the speakers may or may not be, the brand name turned to shit for decades. The recent reintroduction into decent quality kit will not turn back the effects of history - Fact.
 
They may appear to be been in a hifi wilderness for a while - but I have to say some of their stuff looks pretty interesting now. Their range is quite wide, so I guess they have sales outlets working well - perhaps they just do not butter up the standard hifi press!
 
alanbeeb said:
Anyone heard these? A modern-looking 3-way standmount speaker is a relative rarity, especially with an AMT tweeter and at £600. Kef's R3 comes in at £1300... nearest comparison I can find.
Click to expand...
The KEF's are well designed and engineered speakers from a strong consumer brand and this is reflected in the price. Wharfedale are a weaker consumer brand that has tended to concentrate in recent times on high value for money. Half the price is perhaps to be expected. Given the wholly disfunctional home audio press the consumer has no straightforward way to determine the level of competence of a particular product and manufacturers are not held to account enabling less than competent products to be brought to the market and hang around although probably not thrive.

This article looks at some of the issues, the performance and some simple modifications to improve a cheap pair of Wharfedale speakers. It is reasonably likely that much of this type of thing will apply to the speaker you cite but we would need more information to be sure. A few months ago I was speculating along similar lines about the competence of the cheap new coaxial Tannoy speakers and whether there was sufficient competent material for a DIY project to rework into improved speakers. The high price of DIY components and the low price of mass produced Asian consumer goods (although starting to change unfortunately here in the UK) does make this type of product interesting.
 
h.g. said:
This article looks at some of the issues, the performance and some simple modifications to improve a cheap pair of Wharfedale speakers. It is reasonably likely that much of this type of thing will apply to the speaker you cite but we would need more information to be sure. A few months ago I was speculating along similar lines about the competence of the cheap new coaxial Tannoy speakers and whether there was sufficient competent material for a DIY project to rework into improved speakers. The high price of DIY components and the low price of mass produced Asian consumer goods (although starting to change unfortunately here in the UK) does make this type of product interesting.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting article.... I hope QC has improved in last few years. I don't fancy doing DIY on a pair of new speakers.

I am not swayed by the history of the company.... the problem I see is that all the "prestigious" brands that may have maintained their kudos have done so alongside (perhaps because of) an aggressive inflated pricing strategy which have put them beyond reach - for me, and for many others too. As far as I am concerned they might as well disappear up their own backsides now.

If anyone happens to have heard them, I'm also very interested in Wharfedale's Linton Heritage speaker.
 
I’ve heard them, alongside the Linton and the Evo 4.4.

I found the Linton just a little bit boxy. I enjoyed them but every so often I’d hear something on a recording I knew well which just wasn’t right, a slight cardboardyness to certain low mid notes which put me off them.

The 4.2 have a lighter balance, more modern but in no way stinging in the treble. They’re nicely integrated for a 3 way and the treble unit is sweet. The cloth dome of the Linton is nice but there’s a difference in presentation that’s unmistakable with this type of unit. In fairness the speakers were brand spanking new so hadn’t loosened up but they didn’t have the weight of bass of the Linton and I don’t think they ever will. It was a very natural bass though with absolutely no port chuffing and they had good scale for their size. Unbelievable value. I like the Kef R3s too but they can be a little heavy or thick in the bass. I think the Wharfedale’s are better integrated between bass and mids.

The 4.4s are really good, genuinely good for the money. They have the weight of the Linton and then some. The drive units are even better integrated than the 4.2s. Such an enjoyable speaker, no fatigue yet very engaging. No mean feat to pull off at any price.

The fit and finish on all three Wharfedales are very good but you can tell the veneers and components aren’t quite top drawer like a Proac for example but they’re about a third of the price and I personally prefer them to the Proacs.
 
Cereal Killer said:
Sorry but i disagree, regardless of how good the speakers may or may not be, the brand name turned to shit for decades. The recent reintroduction into decent quality kit will not turn back the effects of history - Fact.
Click to expand...

it may not for some
 
alanbeeb said:
That is an interesting article.... I hope QC has improved in last few years. I don't fancy doing DIY on a pair of new speakers.
Click to expand...
A low level of QC is part of the low price. Better quality control means higher price. The Evo range is above the Diamonds but by how much in terms of engineering, quality control, materials and such is uncertain. It is still a range aimed more at general consumers rather than enthusiastic audiophiles and where keeping costs down will be a heavily weighted objective. The Elysian range is priced where it is reasonable to assume solid engineering, quality control,... from a large established manufacturer. The Evo's I am not so sure. It may be OK but how to know without someone with reasonable technical knowledge of speakers examining one?
 
mondie said:
I cannot offer any comments on the speaker in question but I can say with some confidence that the AMT tweeter is likely to give this speaker a big leg up over anything in the same price range. AMT's offer more resolved treble and their greater efficiency add excitement to their sound, I had them in ADAM speakers for many years.
Click to expand...

Though the Adam X-ART Air Motion Tweeter as used in their own loudspeakers extend to 50KHz. Built in Berlin.
I use them as supertweeters on my Quad 989 ESL's. :)

The Wharfedale 4.2 is quoted as 'only' reaching 22KHz.
not all AMT's are the same. More to hi-fi than just a naim.

Drivers for Wharfedale, Quad and Castle speakers are made here in Shenzhen
Click to expand...
https://www.whathifi.com/news/china-behind-scenes-iag
 
No doubt MrDog, it is all about the implementation but the use of a driver employing the AMT principle will always get my interest. if you want something to be better you first have to start by doing something different.
 
I think they look great. Have no clue how they sound, but;

The designer of the LInton's, if I"m not mistaken, is Mr. Peter Comeau. He also designed the wonderful Heybrook HB3 so many years ago. He clearly has a knack and a love of 3-way standmounts. Throughout the 90's, 3 way standmounts fell out of favor and tall, slim MTM arrangements and other tall slim floorstanders became de rigueur design. While there's nothing wrong with the tall n' slims, there is something addictive about a large standmount. I once started a thread here about it and it received a few explanations as to why a wide-baffle standmount has benefits, but the notes were written by others who are far more technically knowledgeable than I.

While I don't have any evidence for it, I believe that Mr. Comeau is involved in the Elysian and this model too. It can't be coincidence. He really is a designer as capable as Andrew Jones perhaps with a bit less rockstar status.

Anyway what I really am salivating for is a slightly beefier version of the Lintons, something that might be perhaps 2/3 the price of the Elysian but maybe just a bit "fatter" in the bottom end, perhaps while sacrificing some grace and poise. BUt I think such a model would be wonderful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top