Advice on Wharfedale Speakers

[vartakavi]

Hi Folks:

We are moving to a new house in a couple of months and I have to decide on the speakers now so that the concealed wiring can the done (has to be completed this week!).

I was originally looking at a HTIB from Yamaha or Denon but as 70% of my usage will be for music I have decided to purchase the speakers separately (may be piece meal if budget does not allow). This will be my first 'real' hifi system. I now use a seven year old Sony Stereo system or listen to music on the Creative speakers and subwoofer attached to my PC.

My wife and I listen to both soft music (Indian and western instrumental) as well as movie songs - both old and new hindi songs. Lots of bhajans and ghazals too! We are huge fans of music shows on TV. We like our music not too loud.

My music is on my Ipod Touch and CDs - I also have a couple of hundred cassettes which I guess I have to junk if I get rid of my existing Sony stereo.

I have narrowed down to the Denon 1611 or 1911 AVR and plan to go for Wharfedale Speakers (based on the advice given by gurus in this forum). My budget for speakers is max 50K.

Thanks a lot in advance for your advice!

I live in Hyderabad, and I visited three shops nearby and listened to 5.1 and well as normal stereo music on Yamaha, Jamo and Wharfedale systems -- but to my inexperienced ears, all these sounded great. I could, however, feel that instrumental and soft vocals seemed to sound better on larger floorstanding speakers.

My TV room is 16 x 12ft and this has a wide opening into a living cum dining area which is 26x14ft. We have done a false ceiling and the wires for the surround speakers will be led through this. The TV ( I plan to buy a 40 or 50 inch LCD) is on one wall opposite which is a window. I plan to put the surrounds on the wall on either side of the window at a height of about 8ft.

The Wharfedale dealer (Vector Punjagutta) advised me to go in for:

Fronts : 9.2 costing about Rs.15,000 per pair
Centre : 9.CS costing about Rs.11,000
Surrounds : 9.DFS costing about Rs.11,000 per pair
Subwoofer: SW150 costing about Rs.18,500
---------
Total Rs.55,500

My questions:

(a) Am I making the right choice? This is a large investment for me and I plan to keep these speakers for a long time. I would appreciate candid comments / suggestions from the gurus in this forum.

(b) The dealer did not have the Wharfedale 10 series and told me that they are not very popular in India. He said the 9 series are proven and he has got very good feedback from his customers. Is that a fact or is he pushing old stock?

(c) I have a TV cabinet built on the wall below the space for TV and I can keep the front bookshelves on either side of the TV. But I see that experts advice putting the 9.2 speakers on stands a little away from the wall - I was told that a pair of stands for the 9.2 speakers costs Rs.10,000!

(d) If the 9.2 + stands cost me Rs.25,000 am I better off buying the floorstanders (9.5) instead? I have no problem of space - can easily accomodate the floorstanders by the side of the TV cabinet.

(e) If I buy the 9.5 Fronts, do I still need a Sub-woofer ? I am wondering whether I can postpone this purchase for later.

(f) The above prices are before negotiation. Can anyone who has purchased these recently guide me as to what prices I should aim for? I plan to buy the AVR at the same time from this dealer. If the advice is for me to go for 9.5 instead of 9.2, please let me know what price I should expect to pay for the 9.5.

 

[Kittu]

Nothing against wharfs but when you are investing that kind of money you can audition different brands and choose which sounds better to your ears. You only auditioned so far Jamo/ Wharfs ...There are plenty available in the market . Even with FS you need a sub and also centre for (vocals). Please go thru this forums speaker section and try audition more brands with your music and choose the right one for you....


Good Luck.
Kittu

 

[murali_n]

Hai vartakavi,

If your interests are mainly music , it is better to invest in a Integrated amplifier, choices could be NAD / Marantz / Cambridge Audio. If you are on a strict budget then NORGE will fit your bill. It will sound much better than an AVR. For speakers there are more choices like Mission, Monitor Audio, Mordaunt short, KEF, Klipsch, PSB etc. Audition as many as possible and decide.

Just my Rs.2/-

N.Murali

 

[diplomat]

try for marantz and wharfedale combi, I have a similar test of music as u have mentioned and sure you cann't go wrong with marantz for music. bookself in combination with sw150 is nice for music and even movies sometimes. take a demo of this combo and give feedback.

 

[iaudio]

None of these budget AVRs will do for you what a stereo set up would do for your music. Right now, even the music through AVR will sound great to you but, believe me, it wont be long before you realise its limitations. Just play the same music through same speakers with a stereo amp and you will know thats where you should have plonked in your money.
You seem to have about 90k INR for avr+ speakers. Thats a good budget. And at that budget, there is a better world beyond Wharfedales!

Look at the wadio itransport a member has for sale here. Or a marantz cd6003 which would play your cds as well as stuff from your iPod. Pick up a used cassette deck along the way for around 5k. Why would you want to junk you fave music cassettes!
Else get a good DAC if you want to use your PC as a source. For your music preferences, you should definitely contact Viren of Lyrita Audio.

As for speakers, you could check out the Audire Callistos, Lyrita Harmony Ones. Or the Usher V series, MA BR/ RX bookshelves. There are a lot of options in 30-50k.

 

[prashanth14485]

Hi there,

I'm not a guru or an audiophile by any stretch of imagination but am trying to learn this concept. Just to give you a background, I bought a Jamo S416 along with a Center, Surround and Sw that complimented this package for about 50K (including a Sherwood AVR).

The package is pretty good for movie viewing (at its price). Over a period of time, I realized that I listen to music more than watching movies and when I auditioned a few Integrated Amps with a pair of good bookshelves, that my system was nowhere near them.

Bottomline, a Home Theatre or 5.1 package with an AVR CANNOT give you true music pleasure unless you invest in brands like Paradigm or B&W's..

From what you've explained, it clearly shows that you and your wife would prefer soothing music which means, you need an amp that would give good stress on the mids.. (which is where the magic lies) and still not make it sound too bright that would cause fatigue in a little while..

I recently auditioned both war diamond 9.2 and 10.2 and personally felt 9.2 is less bright and more soothing versus its successor.. Not famous in India is all crap and 10.2 is not a bad one.. not my kind is what i would say..

but the one i'm planning on buying is Quad 11L.. these speakers are so good and gentle yet powerful.. They can handle power with such amazing ease you have no idea.. audition these but they will be a touch expensive.. my dealer quoted 30K for a pair but I was so impressed with it..

I am thinking of going for these speakers for now and slowly get a Marantz (cd6002) or rotel (1520) cd player along with may be a Rotel or Audiolab amp..

If u go for the quad pair, then forget buying a sw.. u wouldn't need one.. audition and check out its crisp bass.. it is so not hollow and artificial..

Good luck and hope this helps!

Prashanth

 

[vartakavi]

Hi Folks - many many thanks for your advice. I will certainly look at Amps as well as other brands of speakers suggested here and audition them before making a choice.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have the following questions:

(a) As I said, we are avid fans of music shows on TV. Can I improve the quality of music from my TV (Samsung C530 with Tata Sky) using the Amp? Do I just connect the TV's audio out to the Amp?

(b) Going forward, most of my music will be on the Ipod or on my PC. In the brochure, Denon says they use a special software to decompress and improve the quality of compressed music. As digital music is stored in a compressed mode, this looks interesting - do Integrated Amps also do this? Any specific models I should look at?

(c) Can I connect a standard DVD player (Sony, Samsung, Philips) to the Amp and play music stored on CDs and DVDs? I presume the video out from the DVD player can be connected to the TV and the audio out to the Amp - or does this work in some other way?

Thanks once again for all your help.

 

[sivakuru]

Hi Folks - many many thanks for your advice. I will certainly look at Amps as well as other brands of speakers suggested here and audition them before making a choice.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have the following questions:

(a) As I said, we are avid fans of music shows on TV. Can I improve the quality of music from my TV (Samsung C530 with Tata Sky) using the Amp? Do I just connect the TV's audio out to the Amp?

(b) Going forward, most of my music will be on the Ipod or on my PC. In the brochure, Denon says they use a special software to decompress and improve the quality of compressed music. As digital music is stored in a compressed mode, this looks interesting - do Integrated Amps also do this? Any specific models I should look at?

(c) Can I connect a standard DVD player (Sony, Samsung, Philips) to the Amp and play music stored on CDs and DVDs? I presume the video out from the DVD player can be connected to the TV and the audio out to the Amp - or does this work in some other way?

Thanks once again for all your help.

DISCLAIMER: I am no expert but merely trying to help.

a) most stereo amplifiers would have one or two inputs. so you can connect
audio out from TV to AMP. This should in general give you a better/clearer
sound. That said, why do you want to connect to TV and then connect
from TV out. You might as well connect directly from STB to AMP. This
should be better than connecting to TV and then from TV out to AMP.

b) I dont know about the software that Denon uses. So cant comment.
Since you say ipod, the Audio Engine A5 comes to my mind. See if this
would suit your requirement.

c) Same as a). You can connect the audio out from DVDp to AMP and then
enjoy your music.

 

[iaudio]

Hi Folks - many many thanks for your advice. I will certainly look at Amps as well as other brands of speakers suggested here and audition them before making a choice.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have the following questions:

(a) As I said, we are avid fans of music shows on TV. Can I improve the quality of music from my TV (Samsung C530 with Tata Sky) using the Amp? Do I just connect the TV's audio out to the Amp?

(b) Going forward, most of my music will be on the Ipod or on my PC. In the brochure, Denon says they use a special software to decompress and improve the quality of compressed music. As digital music is stored in a compressed mode, this looks interesting - do Integrated Amps also do this? Any specific models I should look at?

(c) Can I connect a standard DVD player (Sony, Samsung, Philips) to the Amp and play music stored on CDs and DVDs? I presume the video out from the DVD player can be connected to the TV and the audio out to the Amp - or does this work in some other way?

Thanks once again for all your help.

Vartakavi, that is a load of bull! No AVR has magic powers to recreate what has been lost. My Onkyo's manual makes similar claims but I know from first hand experience that a stereo amps whips the formers behind. So please dont get carried away by their marketing claims.
Best way to do this, go listen to same speakers with an avr and a stereo amp. Then you will know for sure.

Edit:
a) yes you can connect your tv's sound output or stb direct to your integrated stereo amp.
c) You can connect dvd player audio to Stereo amp and video to TV.

 

[venkatcr]

There is something that has been bothering me in the last few weeks.

The conundrum that the Op is facing seems to have become very common amongst all HFV new members. To Buy Or Not To Buy an AVR for music.

Are we all justified in blandly replying to such queries with a 'if you like music then DON'T buy an AVR'? Is the compromise that one has to make with a two channel amplifier in terms of connectivity, usage and other issues justified in terms of 'better music'? More important would such people be able to hear the better music in terms of having the keen ear to do so? Would they be able to identify and enjoy the subtle nuances in music that a good system can deliver? Are we justified in thinking that such people would understand music the way we do and hence take the steps that we would take?

Even more important, do such people have the inclination and time to spend a few hours a day listening to music in isolation? In my mind only when that is done, is the advice of a 2 channel system justified.

I would rather look at a via media - such as an good AVR with slightly better speakers that can narrow the gap between the AVR and a 2 channel amp. Again remember, very few people will have the patience and money to have both a HT system and a dedicated music system. What about space?

So would an AVR with speakers like Usher, Audire, or Lyritas narrow the gap? Would an AVR with a entry level CDP and such speakers narrow the gap even further?

These are points to ponder and look at a more justifiable advice that we dole out in the future.

Cheers

 

[marsilians]

Its misleading to say all AVRs are bad for music. Harmon Kardon, Marantz, Arcam, NAD, Pio Elite series and some newer or top of line Yamaha, Denon and Onkyo are good as well.

However, multi channel setup is very hard if you want it to sound good. A majority of setups that I have seen and been part of do nto sound optimal with AVR alone due to component mismatch (impedance, sensitivity), placement, etc. Movies are passable but music is just not good to listen to.

What I suggest people is to setup a 2.0 or 2.1 music system and watch movies through that. Not much will be missed compared to 5.1 or 7.1 setup (about 10 - 15%) of reproduction at the most.

(sorry blu ray owners, thats just my observation/opinion, you are welcome to have others)

re: listening, I disagree with you. Whether one listens in a dedicated fashion or as background music when doing something else which does not take them away completely off mentally, it is worthwhile to have a good music system. Atleast it allows for longer, non fatiguing auditions.

My advice, aim for a good music system (and use it for HT) than an average multi channel system for HT and music, keeping everything such as budget etc. the same.

There is something that has been bothering me in the last few weeks.

The conundrum that the Op is facing seems to have become very common amongst all HFV new members. To Buy Or Not To Buy an AVR for music.

Are we all justified in blandly replying to such queries with a 'if you like music then DON'T buy an AVR'? Is the compromise that one has to make with a two channel amplifier in terms of connectivity, usage and other issues justified in terms of 'better music'? More important would such people be able to hear the better music in terms of having the keen ear to do so? Would they be able to identify and enjoy the subtle nuances in music that a good system can deliver? Are we justified in thinking that such people would understand music the way we do and hence take the steps that we would take?

Even more important, do such people have the inclination and time to spend a few hours a day listening to music in isolation? In my mind only when that is done, is the advice of a 2 channel system justified.

I would rather look at a via media - such as an good AVR with slightly better speakers that can narrow the gap between the AVR and a 2 channel amp. Again remember, very few people will have the patience and money to have both a HT system and a dedicated music system. What about space?

So would an AVR with speakers like Usher, Audire, or Lyritas narrow the gap? Would an AVR with a entry level CDP and such speakers narrow the gap even further?

These are points to ponder and look at a more justifiable advice that we dole out in the future.

Cheers

 

[iaudio]

There is something that has been bothering me in the last few weeks.

The conundrum that the Op is facing seems to have become very common amongst all HFV new members. To Buy Or Not To Buy an AVR for music.

Are we all justified in blandly replying to such queries with a 'if you like music then DON'T buy an AVR'? Is the compromise that one has to make with a two channel amplifier in terms of connectivity, usage and other issues justified in terms of 'better music'? More important would such people be able to hear the better music in terms of having the keen ear to do so? Would they be able to identify and enjoy the subtle nuances in music that a good system can deliver? Are we justified in thinking that such people would understand music the way we do and hence take the steps that we would take?

Even more important, do such people have the inclination and time to spend a few hours a day listening to music in isolation? In my mind only when that is done, is the advice of a 2 channel system justified.

I would rather look at a via media - such as an good AVR with slightly better speakers that can narrow the gap between the AVR and a 2 channel amp. Again remember, very few people will have the patience and money to have both a HT system and a dedicated music system. What about space?

So would an AVR with speakers like Usher, Audire, or Lyritas narrow the gap? Would an AVR with a entry level CDP and such speakers narrow the gap even further?

These are points to ponder and look at a more justifiable advice that we dole out in the future.

Cheers

Venkat, You are right in saying that there are some AVRs which are good for music. However not in the budget category except for maybe something like the marantz nr1501.

But that doesnt mean that the OP should be mislead by claims by AVR manufacturers of 'restoring' compressed music.
As for quality and catching the finer nuances, you develop an ear for it as you get exposed to good sound quality. My first purchase was an AVR, it sounded great to me, as I hadnt heard better. But as I got exposed to better two channel systems I realised that my AVR couldnt deliver some of the things I liked in the former systems.
It is for this reason, that I suggest listening to same speakers with an AVR and a Stereo amp. Then again, someone who is new to all this, may not immediately know what to look for. For example, we will look for clarity only in the beginning, but body, imaging, depth of soundstage etc are things we will start looking for once we are further along on the path.
Personally my AVR sees very little use nowadays compared to my stereo set up because my first priority is good music! I love my movies too and with all due respect to Marsilians I do believe 5.1 is much more better experience for movies. However it is not always that I have media with proper 5.1 or more importantly 150 minutes to watch a movie. What I have is around an hour a day to listen to some good music.

 

[venkatcr]

Marsillians and Iaudio, I think both of you are missing my main point.

We tend to pass judgement on equipment based upon our own preferences. Our commitment to enjoying music will enable us to patiently wait for years to have an ideal system. We choose our players, amplifiers, and speakers after a lot of sweat and worrying about a lot of small small stuff.

I think we are all a small minority. Mars, for example, you are saying a 2.0 will compromise only 10-15% against a 7.1. A die hard movie buff will disagree with you completely. You might think having two subs is an overkill, but I have seen people install two subs routinely and crave for more base.

In general, I have seen a number of people who walk away when they don't see a sub activity even for music. There have been discussion even here in HFV, where I have tried to argue in vain that music is only 2.0.

What do you say to a guy who talks about decoding, sound codecs and all that and then say his budget is 10,000? What do you say to a guy who makes a composite connection and then complains his AVR is not decoding Dolby? Literally every thread starts excitingly and then becomes a damp squib after the 4th or 5th post.

I think many (most people) people will compromise on our standards of listening to music, rather than compromising on the connectivity, decoding, and other features that are available with an AVR.

The question is, do we stick to our stand and become Neanderthals, or do we smarten up and go with the tide? Believe me, we are the ones in danger of becoming extinct here.

Cheers

 

[redd]

well said venkatcr.what you said is exactly true and it holds good to me.

 

[marsilians]

Everyone's suggestion is primarily driven out of their observations, emotions and empirical standards. Just because a majority of people think its best to play and listen to music on AVR, does not make it better. Period! However, its a completely different conversation when the same set of folks ask for "good" A/V reproduction for 10K. As for any product, there is a correlation between quality and price upto certain point.

A reasonable system (Amp, speakers, cable and paraphernalia) should cost about 80K or thereabouts in general terms at current prices. If anyone is expecting a similar experience for 20K, its is just impossible and that should be our messaging. If the individual still goes ahead with the purchase at 20K, then it is driven either by prestige or trying to fit in with the hi-fi crowd.

I too have noticed a number of price related threads that are just not conducive to having a good experience. In these cases, I have seen suggestions for systems that fit into that budget. If the person/family are satisfied then they have reached nirvana. However even against such a situation, our messaging or conviction should not change.

If this puts us in a minority role, thats still fine as atleast our suggestion is an honest one through it all!

Re: the 10-15% output from surround, here is something for those who disagree.

60-70% of all sound comes through the centre channel according to DOlby - lets say 60 to be safe.
All musical effects and sound tracks come through the L/R speakers (say 20)
LFE through sub (say 5)
That leaves 15 for the surrounds. Their primary role is as ambient speakers.

Marsillians and Iaudio, I think both of you are missing my main point.

We tend to pass judgement on equipment based upon our own preferences. Our commitment to enjoying music will enable us to patiently wait for years to have an ideal system. We choose our players, amplifiers, and speakers after a lot of sweat and worrying about a lot of small small stuff.

I think we are all a small minority. Mars, for example, you are saying a 2.0 will compromise only 10-15% against a 7.1. A die hard movie buff will disagree with you completely. You might think having two subs is an overkill, but I have seen people install two subs routinely and crave for more base.

In general, I have seen a number of people who walk away when they don't see a sub activity even for music. There have been discussion even here in HFV, where I have tried to argue in vain that music is only 2.0.

What do you say to a guy who talks about decoding, sound codecs and all that and then say his budget is 10,000? What do you say to a guy who makes a composite connection and then complains his AVR is not decoding Dolby? Literally every thread starts excitingly and then becomes a damp squib after the 4th or 5th post.

I think many (most people) people will compromise on our standards of listening to music, rather than compromising on the connectivity, decoding, and other features that are available with an AVR.

The question is, do we stick to our stand and become Neanderthals, or do we smarten up and go with the tide? Believe me, we are the ones in danger of becoming extinct here.

Cheers

 

[venkatcr]

Re: the 10-15% output from surround, here is something for those who disagree. 60-70% of all sound comes through the centre channel according to DOlby - lets say 60 to be safe. All musical effects and sound tracks come through the L/R speakers (say 20) LFE through sub (say 5) That leaves 15 for the surrounds. Their primary role is as ambient speakers.

Technically, what you say is correct. But that 15-40% does make a tremendous impact on your psyche and experience when watching a movie. I watch movies and listen to music on a regular basis, and the twain shall never meet. To a large extent, I think the mixture currently available in 5.1/7.1 is a limitation of the space available for audio as well as compression and other techniques involved. As we move to HD Audio, I am sure such experiences will only improve as editors have more leeway to play around with information on various tracks. Blu-Ray will replace DVD in the near future, and this trend will only continue.

As much as we insist that a 2.0 is best for music, it will be incorrect to say that a 2.0 is enough for movies. Watching a movie where you can hear artists speak form behind you, or hear the rumble of a truck from behind you as it starts to overtake you is not something a 2.0 can ever deliver.

Anyhow this is moving away from the topic.

Cheers

 

[captrajesh]

AFAICS, Venkat belongs to Video camp and Marsilians belongs to Music camp.

The twain shall never meet. Ideally one who enjoys music and video must have separate systems. However, this may not be possible to a vast majority due to budgetary / space constraints.:sad:

If a person's preferences is predominantly music, (70% and above, his system should be music centric) Anything less, he is better off moving over to the Video camp.

My 2 cents please.

 

[venkatcr]

I belong to both camps. I firmly believe in using a 2.0 for music and a full blown 7.1 for movies.

What I have be discussing here is what you have so easily converted in black and white - 70% music to be 2.0 and the rest to be 5.1/7.1.

Can we not, as good members, not frighten away new members from listening to music at all UNLESS they use a 2.0 system? I believe most of these people who ask for advice belong to a camp of people who are growing from a two-in-one system. For them the kind of music they can get from a reasonably priced AVR attached to good speakers and a good source would be a huge step froward from what they are listening to now.

Some time ago I used to see people at least discuss one AVR brand against another in terms of musicality. I don't see that happening now. That is my worry now.

I only want to encourage new members to go for a system that is the best possible within their budget and space constraints.

Cheers

 

[denom]

I belong to both camps. I firmly believe in using a 2.0 for music and a full blown 7.1 for movies.

What I have be discussing here is what you have so easily converted in black and white - 70% music to be 2.0 and the rest to be 5.1/7.1.

Can we not, as good members, not frighten away new members from listening to music at all UNLESS they use a 2.0 system? I believe most of these people who ask for advice belong to a camp of people who are growing from a two-in-one system. For them the kind of music they can get from a reasonably priced AVR attached to good speakers and a good source would be a huge step froward from what they are listening to now.

Some time ago I used to see people at least discuss one AVR brand against another in terms of musicality. I don't see that happening now. That is my worry now.

I only want to encourage new members to go for a system that is the best possible within their budget and space constraints.

Cheers

Totally makes sense:clapping: But for that to happen, we must have folks who have some experience in differentiating the quality of musical deliverance of the various AVR's available in the market @ their price points, what say guys?

May these gentlemen please come forward & impart their gyaan on this vexing issue.

Regards

 

[marsilians]

AFAICS, Venkat belongs to Video camp and Marsilians belongs to Music camp.

The twain shall never meet. Ideally one who enjoys music and video must have separate systems. However, this may not be possible to a vast majority due to budgetary / space constraints.:sad:

If a person's preferences is predominantly music, (70% and above, his system should be music centric) Anything less, he is better off moving over to the Video camp.

My 2 cents please.

True Capt., I am more of a music guy than movies. However, I do enjoy surround sound (I have both a 2.0 & 5.1 setup).

...

Can we not, as good members, not frighten away new members from listening to music at all UNLESS they use a 2.0 system? I believe most of these people who ask for advice belong to a camp of people who are growing from a two-in-one system. For them the kind of music they can get from a reasonably priced AVR attached to good speakers and a good source would be a huge step froward from what they are listening to now.

Some time ago I used to see people at least discuss one AVR brand against another in terms of musicality. I don't see that happening now. That is my worry now.

I only want to encourage new members to go for a system that is the best possible within their budget and space constraints.

Cheers

I see your point Venkat though i give precedence to quality over quantity with the AVR as the hub of the setup (OK 2.0 is better than crappy 5.1)