On a lighter note, I recently had a chance to compare the Wharfedale Diamond 220 bookshelf speakers (roughly ₱12,000/pair from Toyama, made in China) with old Celestion 100's which if I remember correctly, cost around ₱35,000/pair from Audiophile back in 1992 and are made in England.
CELESTION 100:
(Photo for reference only)WHARFEDALE DIAMOND 220:
(Not me. 
Photo for reference only)Both speakers are on 24-inch metal stands filled with dry sand. The listening room has concrete walls, a hardwood floor, vertical blinds on glass windows and no acoustic treatments. Definitely not ideal, I admit.
The amplifier used was an old Denon AVR-4810 receiver (more than ₱100,000 back in 2010 from Toyama, made in Japan) in "pure direct" mode. In this mode, all video circuitry and DSP are switched off. Even the center+rear amps are switched off, as well as the front display. Only the amplifier channels powering the front speakers are active. Both the Wharfedale and Celestions were bi-amplified, fed by four (4) internal discrete Class-AB amplifiers rated at 140wrms/ch into 8Ω at 0.05% THD. So each speaker could draw upon up to 280wrms. Plenty of power on tap. Speaker wires were 4 meters of 14AWG Audioquest X-2 in equal lengths.
While these components are admittedly "mid-fi," please allow me to give my impressions.
Source material were original CDs of Jennifer Warnes' "The Hunter," Janis Ian's "Breaking Silence" and Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories."
The old Celestions still had the edge in air and detail up until the grills of the Wharfedales were removed. Then they were roughly on par. The Celestions just a bit brighter in the range from 10kHz and up, almost bordering on sibilance but not irritating. Singers pronouncing the letter "S" were more prominent. It could be because of their 32mm aluminum dome tweeters versus the Wharfedale's 25mm fabric domes. Incidentally, both tweeters use big old-school ferrite magnets and not neodymium. On acoustic guitar, piano and cymbals, they were roughly equal in shimmer and sparkle. On horns and electric guitar, the tweeters of the Celestions sounded more "forward." Careful equipment matching is needed with the Celestions, which would benefit from beefy and warm-sounding amplifiers. This is in contrast to the Wharfedales, which works nicely with neutral to bright-sounding amps.
For midrange purity, I'd have to give it to the Celestions which sounded more natural and uncolored. The Wharfedale Diamond 220s sounded like they were up by +2dB in the range from 500Hz to 1kHz. While this did not detract from the overall listening pleasure, singers and instruments in that frequency range sounded like they were physically nearer to me than on the Celestions, which many say are "laid back." A slight forwardness in the midrange can be good depending on the recording, listening chair position and room acoustics. Certainly makes it easier to hear vocals. And no, I did not hear any vibrations from the enclosures intruding upon the music. The Celestion uses a 15mm thick MDF enclosure that is internally braced while the Diamond 220 uses multiple wood laminates.
Here is a cross-sectional cut-out of the Diamond 220, showing its reflex port firing into a small gap between its base and plinth, and its tri-layered (MDF-fiberboard-MDF) cabinetry.
In low-end extension, the Diamond 220s have the edge even if it is a smaller speaker (0.25 cu-ft vs 0.42 cu-ft internal volume) with a smaller woofer cone (130mm Ø vs 165mm Ø). The slot-loaded port of the Wharfedale gave the sound more weight in the region from 60Hz to 80Hz. The Celestions have a slight edge in definition and timing where bass notes start and stop just a bit quicker, giving more detail to plucked upright bass and lower piano notes. Tom-toms and kick drums also sounded ever-so-slightly faster. Perhaps this is because of its sealed enclosure acting as an air spring to dampen unnecessary vibrations of the woofer cone. This is not to say that the Wharfedales produced muddy bass. No, they did not. The pattern on its woven carbon-fiber cone works well to reduce cone resonances. Its just that those critical about midbass detail and transparency will find a bit of room for improvement. It's no LS3/5a, that's for damn sure! On the other hand, rock and hiphop listeners will definitely enjoy, and they will enjoy even more once they place the Diamond 220s nearer to the wall.
Both loudspeakers image very well. In this department, both the Celestion 100 and the Diamond 220 are pretty much equal. Once properly positioned and with the grilles off, they both disappear, leaving only the music in its place. Slight advantage goes to the Celestions as they produce a slightly wider soundstage. Instruments on the far left and far right sound further away compared to the Wharfedale. This could be because of the waveguide affecting the sound from the soft-dome tweeter. The Celestions have no such waveguide, just 2 small bars protecting the aluminum dome from dings and scratches.
Overall, I would still rate the Celestions higher in terms of refinement. They undoubtedly produce a more refined sound, which is expected given its price point, country of manufacture and pedigree. The Diamond 220s, while exciting and dynamic, are like a young wine. Vibrant, flavorful and with just enough finesse to appeal to the general audience. They represent excellent bang-for-the-buck. In fact,
What Hi-Fi? gave it a 5-star review in 2015. Details here:
http://www.whathifi.com/wharfedale/diamond-220/review.
An audition and comparison with similarly-priced and similarly-sized speakers is highly recommended.
Sorry for the long post, guys. I hope this gives a bit of direction to those considering these very practical loudspeakers.
