Quad S2 or Wharfedale Evo 4.2 Speakers?

[@Tharbamar]

Here is the latest Sound comparison of Evo 4.2 and Quad S2 speakers; kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmnPn4SVqsZ_oZo

[@reserva120]

great job , context matters an you nailed it.. price tech etc , yet a worthy comparisons.. again well done sir. Cheers Allan

[@atoz6552]

You're my favorite speaker reviewer. No nonsense crap or distractions like most reviewers out there. Simple and direct. Thanks man

[@Tharbamar]

I appreciate that!

[@laurentcaron6784]

That S2 tonality is incredible.

[@tg6373]

The Quad S2s sound so beautiful and natural to me. I owned the Evo 4.2s for two months and ended up returning. The Evo's are wonderful speakers for classical and acoustic instruments - pianos sound heavenly. Ultimately though, I couldn't handle the nasally tonality they often produced. But that's just my perception. But wow, the Quads sounds great. Hope they sound this way in my room. Thanks for the video!

[@agentm83]

I appreciate side-by-side comparisons like this, including the side-by-side music sample comparison. Well done.

[@piccolopaulo]

I just love the vocals and detail from the S2. That alone won me over the Evo. Thank you for this wonderful comparison.

[@dynodin81]

Same here

[@mgsee]

I preferred the Quads on the first track - the bass felt more right. But the Wharfedale felt more engaging on the second track. If I had to choose one it would be the Quads, based on this demo, I feel that they have a more refined and even tonal balance.

[@Miguel8131981]

I would go with the Quad S2. Its sound is more balanced. The Evo is nice but its bass seems to be a bit boosted and the highs are bit recessed. Hope you get to review the Dali Rubicon 2 speaker. A fantastic sounding speaker.

[@dc99yt]

Quad S2 highs are better, 4.2 bass is better, I prefer the S2 because I listen to classical + jazz music.

[@supernovaf1]

The Evo's should have been toed in a bit I believe in order to get the best from it's tweeter.

[@tshaolin971]

Evo 4.2 sound a bit darker than the S2 that are very neutral.

[@hotdog9262]

@@dc99yt dynamic transient response is no doubt a tiny bit better on the 4.2, and its slightly more revealing imo.. not quite as warm and comfortable though. both great

[@tbonet859]

It's funny. I've seen people write/report that the Wharfedale Evo 4.2 are.... Bass shy... Too much bass... Midrange and highs are dicey and sibilant ( especially with female vocals)... Midrange and highs are recessed, but smooth and well integrated... Treble is too soft... Treble is too forward... Evo 4.2 can't do Heavy Metal, only good with jazz and mellow acoustic music... Great with Heavy Metal, as well as jazz and acoustic music... Narrow, fragile sweet spot: have to toe them in significantly, dome and ribbon above your ear... No, dome and ribbon at ear level... Don't move your head, whatsoever. Don't move your body, ever. Stay still, look straight ahead. Breathe shallow and slowly. Careful not to blink too furiously...lol

[@johntan4835]

Hi for me, i prefer the 4.2's, the s2's sounds sharp to me , but that's just me anyway thumbs up to you sir

[@net_news]

The Quads have tighter bass and the sound is more articulated and precise... I prefer the Quads.

[@sachininspright]

I found the S2’s sound more organic while the Evo has better body of sound. S2 for me. Thanks for the nice review.

[@stevechapman1060]

I really want the Wharfedales to prevail in this comparison, as I was a Jade series fan (and owner), but the Quads are simply stunning in the top end.

[@chrislynch8914]

Sir, I have owned the Quad s2 for just under a year. I have had the Evo4.2 for less than a week. I believe after the Wharfedales are fully broken in, they will sound BETTER than the Quads. People's ears are like personalities, each individual's are different, thus goes speaker preferences. They are both outstanding ! I trusted your review, and purchased the 4.2's. Thank you! Chris in Cincinnati Oh.

[@Tharbamar]

Thanks for sharing

[@RUMBLEGO1]

Was just listening to the sound clips. Listening with Hifiman Ananda headphones. I prefer the 4.2's for these clips. Feel like i am hearing a little more into the recording room and possibly what actually being there was like. Tharbamar has a more recent clip with the S2's where he is demoing the Xduoo XA-10 DAC. The S2's sound amazing in that sound demo. Well they sound great here too but they sound better there to my ears. This one goes to the 4.2's for me though.

[@nc3419]

First impressions after several hours of burn in and a few critical listening. Among selections were Nick Cave, Kate Wolf, Tom Russell, some piano sonatas, and a Falla symphonic piece. As far as rock and harder stuff, I think it has already been discussed elsewhere the Quads aren't standouts. They are seemingly accurate and break-in included watching several episodes of Taboo season 1 which I found nice. Detailed, dynamic and punchy for a small speaker. It does well with movies at low to moderate volumes. Voices are not laid back like some English speakers. Once I settled into some music listening, I found them to be more or less like Tharbamer described regarding voice and emotion. They are seemingly accurate, perhaps like a studio monitor, render details and provide a smaller stage given they are 5 inch drivers in a relatively small cabinet. In comparison to Focal 807Ws, they shared a few attributes and diverged on others which is to be expected at both their price points and designs. I may have preferred voicing in TV audio via two channel a bit more with the Quads in doing a quick comparison. I guess focus is a bit better, think 20/10 vs 20/20 vision. In playing music CDs, using a Hegel h160 and its' internal dac, I compared the two. I beleive I heard a somewhat more focused, perhaps more accurate presentation from the Quads, with voice and some particular acoustic instruments displaying some nice qualities. In comparison to the Quads, the Focals seemed a bit smoother and evocative in voice rendition vs the more accurate but less emotional playback on the Quads, same with some instruments most of the time. The bigger Focals could sound a bit bigger and yes, I adjusted for sensitivity differences albeit by ear. With Tom Russell, the Quads were just boring while Focals could draw me into the music, more expansive soundstage/presentation, more fun to listen to. Kate Wolf was lovely on the Quads but more sultry on the Focals. The Quads on classical pieces seemed more accurate but further back in the audience and in a dead room while Focals being not as accurate were just more fun to listen to. With Nick Cave, I went back and forth but preferred my Focals. Instrument separation could be a tie in most cases but if I had to give an absolute edge by a hair, then the Quads...I think. I think the expansive and evocative nature of the Focals could have been the culprit because it has beaten every other speaker I've listened to at under a grand in instrument separation and detail. I think the Quads are very detailed as well. The Quad tweeter and midrange are well damped regarding sibilance. The Focals, while smooth, displayed a bit more sibalance when it came to decay and associated artifacts with voice which happened to be picked up with a microphone and mixed to sound a certain way...keep that in mind. What we listen to may not be accurate to begin with. The Quads are well damped. The Focals have deeper and tighter bass as well but the Quads are good in that regard. I did learn one thing about myself, I seem to prefer a more exciting (not bright or shouty) presentation that gives me an emotional response over accuracy. If I can have accuracy fine, but not at the expense of enjoyment. Others speakers I have, the budget ones Triangle Zetas and Definitive SM45s also do this but are nowhere near as accurate and transparent as more expensive designs. But they are fun to listen to. Speakers I have had that were too dry, bland, whatever I returned or sold. For example, Ascend Acoustic CBM-170se were detailed but bland, Paradigm SE-1s could rock but lacked the additional detail I wanted, Monitor Audio Silver 50s too laid back but nice detail and tone, Dali Oberon 1 nice voicing and tone but not too dynamic, etc, etc, etc. Many years ago I paired Paradigms (too rolled off but nice mids) with Polks (screamed like a banchie by themselves but had a nice top end). Together they provided some balance. So let's put ourselves in one of two camps...one favoring accuracy and one favoring personal evocation. The first is probably simpler, accuracy is accuracy. The latter, well, there is no specific target for what we consider evocative as it is very individual. Some will prefer Wharfedales and some will prefer Focals....just as any other speaker brand. If you want a small standmount speaker that is accurate like a studio monitor but adds some hifi qualities, try the quads. If you are looking for the other, the one that brings out your emotions, well that's a harder thing to pinpoint. If you like a warmer presentation but want audiophile qualities, try the Wharfedale Evo series or any other brand that seemingly fits your criteria, whatever that may be. As far as the Quads, I think they are competent for what they are. As to looks, kind of bland in black and still don't standout in Sephele...but that's an opinion that has nothing to do with sound. They are a better speaker than Martin Logan 15s though. Someone else thought they were comparable but the Quads are better. The MLs tweeter gives a more live mic to speaker coffehouse presentation, think of a slightly less damped Quad tweeter but the mids on the Quads are much better. I don't know how that tweeter will behave on the Wharfedales but it is a nice tweeter and closer to the tweeter on the Quads than a typical softdome. Quads will do nicely for jazz, classical and some other types of music, mostly, and not so much for harder stuff. You want a heavy metal speaker...try the discontinued Boston Acoustic M25. Dark as night at low volumes, really awful. But you give it power and hard rock...magic. Like you are at the concert. So for Rock and harder, probably a warmer speaker is needed. Lastly, you really have to hear speakers in your own environment and on your own equipment, otherwise you really can't be sure. The reviews and videos help, but there's nothing like a hands on. So...hopefully this helps.

[@nc3419]

Addendum: I tried them with a SoundArtist SA-200IA integrated and it made them more engaging to listen to. Perhaps a really high damping factor doesn't play as nice with small drivers? A less expensive amp did affect the Sound Quality a bit as it didn't sound quite as live sounding but still nice. Maybe a brighter amp brings these speakers to life? Isn't Denon known to accentuate higher mids to upper end?

[@nc3419]

I've had the Quads for a couple weeks and have put some hours on it. Have watched movies as well as listened to music. In comparison, I used Focal 807Ws to determine strengths, weaknesses, preferences using a Hegel h-160, a SoundArtist SA-200IA and an inexpensive but good performing class D amp. In a nutshell I suppose, the strengths of the Quad S-2 using any of the amps with varying degrees of SQ according to each amps capabilities, the Quads depict voice and instrument playback with pinpoint accuracy, think 20/10 vision vs 20/20 or so. The Focals have always been more focused in this regard to other sub $1000 speakers but the Quads seem to have more precision in outlining voice and instruments. Probably instrument separation was close as I didn't notice a big difference. Now the accuracy does come at a price, with the Hegel, the Focals are smooth, forward with some depth and dimensionality and are quite euphonic. All of which I like and qualities which draw me into the music. With the Hegel, the Quads were smooth but presented a drier, flatter soundstage. While perhaps more accurate, the presentation was a bit smaller but that flatness was unappealing to me. Perhaps there are audiophiles that prefer this presentation but not me. A previous review alluded to this as well in comparison to mid tier Wharfedales. Moving to the SoundArtisit, a lower tier class AB amp, the SQ of both speakers were affected to some degree but not enough to prove useless. I would say this amp was not a good match for the Focals as the upper mids and highs stood out more than the bass and lower mids (amp wise) making the Focals too bright and unbalanced (the amp itself should be described this way). I think this particular amp, while refined for the price is too unbalanced across frequencies. However, on the Quads, they added some life, some sparkle they were missing on the Hegel. I wouldn't say they escaped their 2-D soundstage, they just sounded a bit more exciting which they really needed to. I think people may like the Quads a bit better on brighter amps as opposed to darker, but that's my own speculation. Perhaps the Denon accentuates the highs? Also to note, I found the Quads very enjoyable watching movies with the added clarity enhancing speech, non-musical micro details as well as soundtracks. I won't say they were always better than my Focals, just different as both present fine definition. I might like some things better on the Quads as well as some things better on the Focals. But for speech, the Quads do it very well. So the biggest difference is regarding music playback. I would say the Quads are missing something that brings out one's emotions when listening to music. It could be for me at least, they are too dry and analytical as they seem to fail to draw me into the musical experience. With the Focals, I always seem to just stop what I'm doing as they captivate attention and present a very emotional experience for me. The Focals "may" be less accurate, transparent,. etc., in comparison to the Quads but the Quads are just not as enjoyable to listen to. Now, on a cheap little class D, the Focals are still a very nice speaker but dynamics suffer the most. So large differences between micro details and larger sounds aren't as great. Probably similar with the Quads but the Quads still sounded good on class D. You are giving up some dynamics and refinement with a cheaper class D but I did prefer it to the SoundArtist at 8X the price. The SoundArtist went back as it wasn't up to expectations but probably typical for its' price point. Still, on class D, I preferred my Focals to the Quads with music even though the Quads provide more refinement with voice and instruments. The Quads just don't draw me into the music. For strictly movies, either is fine but for music, I think the Quads are sensitive to finding the right amp or may be fine for someone who prefers accuracy while accepting a more 2-D soundstage, less excitement, less emotion perhaps? Also, when I get close, in between my Focals the tweeter/woofer remain very cohesive and it sounds like you are wearing headphones. Some speakers do this, some don't. The Quads don't. It's like there's a bit of a disconnect between drivers. I don't think the Quads would work well in nearfield. Also, the Quads don't disappear int the room as well as the Focals do but they should given they have a smaller woofer...a trait which some say exists. So, there's a perspective you can take with a few grains of salt. I think the Quads are talented in some things but fail to draw me into a musical experience even though I do like the highly defined quality of how voice and instruments are presented. As one who always preferred a more analytical sound, they are just too much so and kind of boring to me. Fine for movies, really fine but lacking with music only. I guess, there's a coloration or presentation I prefer that makes a speaker sound "musical". I've noticed this quality in other speakers as well. I probably would less prefer a studio monitor although I wouldn't place the Quads in this category. With a 5 inch woofer, an amp that really grips with strong bass might not be best either. While expensive amps are overkill for the above speakers used, the Hegel and Focals are a great match. The Hegel may be OK with the Quads but with a set of Triangle Zetas I have, the mids get too muddled. The Triangles and the cheap class D are a nice match. Seems speakers with paper woofers like class D amps. I think the Quads do well with either class D or A/B amps with not to high damping factors. It's just for me, they lack some emotional engagement with music. Lastly, there is no perfect speaker, the Quads are detailed and accurate, a set of Monitor Audios had very nice tonality for piano decay, very natural, the Focals give enough and give up little not being the best in everything but have enough to give me what I need. Can I get "more" of the same with improvements where needed? I think we all try to do that but at some point I guess you accept that what you have is good enough. If the music captivates you, you are on the right track. No perfect speaker, no one way to enjoy music. Happy listening.

[@joecharpentier6636]

Wow I must have been meant to read this. I was deciding between the Quads or the 807W special edition NOS. You made up my mind. Thank you.

[@nc3419]

@@joecharpentier6636 The Quads were fun with movies because you heard everything but awful for me with music, no emotional connection. Sent back alot of speakers, some I wouldn't have if I hadn't compared them to the Focals. Just to reiterate, only selling because I am on a small form factor kick. Check out the frequency curve online. All the other small speakers getting rave reviews have really bad curves, don't know what to think or what they're hearing. Just want smaller. Your going to like the 807W. If you don't mind the size and red gloss, they're an end game. Easy to drive too. Freakin new speakers, alot of them need power and louder SPLs. Had some of those in the past to, but I like my hearing to stay intact as I age. For now, my little Dalis and Triangles are manageable while I plan. Still have to hook up that Van Alstine.

[@elise10lies84]

Listening with ‘final’ in ears, the bass of the quad is much ‘rounder’ and less boomy. The quad sounds superb by it’s size!

[@stoinge]

Been collecting music for years but have never had good speakers. Thank you for making my mind up on the Evo 4.2's. My first real step up .Got so much beautiful music to play through them, i'm excited like a kid again

[@181075]

There's maybe a tad more air in the quads sound signature and surely a bit more sparkle when it comes to female vocals, the Evo coats them with a buttery layer giving it a luscious guttural quality, it comes down to personal preference and more importantly to how well each of those speakers compliment your system

[@jdekong3945]

thanks Tharbamar, the Quads caught my eye some time ago, nice to see a balanced review

[@ChicagoRob2]

Best audio reviewer on the web

[@LuisCardoso-bo8yx]

Quad S2 for sure. More balanced, refined and life like tone.

[@davidnewboult6887]

What a difficult decision to make, I could easily live with either of these speakers, but if yo force me to make a decision listening through headphones I'll go with the Quads. Great demonstration again.

[@therealchickentender]

I picked up the Evos this week. They were incredibly tight for the first day or two but are *really* opening up and i'm constantly astounded by the smooth detail and crazy wonderful imaging they can pull off so far. One of those "let's listen to everything we can think of in our collection" sorts of speakers.

[@bluerev]

I preferred the Quad by quite a margin - in the first instrumental sample, the Evo 4.2 sounded boomy, and less focused (the bass is too overpowering). The Quads are much more balanced and transparent, and as you said, the vocals sound awesome on them. But... I imagine the Wharfedales would perform better with rock and metal.

[@rsolsjo]

Found the Evo 4.2's for about $500, an absolute steal from the look of things! Also interesting to hear that treble rolloff, it's very subtle but almost makes it sound as though they're plucking the strings a tad more gently. Really fascinating stuff, but you could easily correct for that with DSP.

[@Firebottleman]

These little Quads are hard to beat! They've got a realness to them especially for stringed instruments. They remind me of the Carver Amazing Silvers I owned in the early 90s. Thanks for the review and comparo Tharbamar.

[@beslemeto]

That's why quad discontinued them!They were way too cheap!

[@claudedarveau6445]

Thank you Tharbamar, this comparison was much awaited. Two excellent speakers for two types of audiophile. Personally, I listen to a lot of jazz & classical music. The open and airy sound of the S-2 impressed me a lot, as well as the lower midrange and tight bass. The vocals and strings are sublime! And what dynamics! For all these reasons my choice goes to the S2.

[@Tharbamar]

Great Choice!

[@piotrk.7073]

@@Tharbamar do You mind If I ask will You be able to compare evos 4.1 with quad S2 ? Thanks And whats about dynaudio Emit M20 🤔🤭😀

[@ichigobankai2343]

I prefer the Evo's with a smoother better midrange. The quads sound too sibilant with vocals.

[@arturb5152]

Big plus + well i'm amazed how by simple words You can describe what do You hear from every speaker ... greatings from Poland

[@jaytorr6701]

A great comparison would be between the Denton 85 and the Evo 4.2. They are both similarly priced, good to know how they differ.

[@Alex55555]

The Quads sound so natural. The Wharfedales also sound good, but more coloured.

[@Ensignpeak]

To my ears the S2 is the winner. Gorgeous beautiful reproduced sound

[@JosephEllis3]

The Quads are the best (overall) bookshelf speakers you have shown on your channel; they have very clean, balanced sound with great tone. Not the most lively, but excellent all around. My absolute favorites are still the Ascend towers though.

[@bella3008]

Which Ascend towers?

[@TH-lo8mq]

@@bella3008 The RAAL, I assume. They are the best speaker I've heard to date, and they are nearly 10 years old.

[@skyengeh]

I thought they sounded similar until I heard the actual voice singing, The Evo's brought Grace Maya into the room, I heard real fidelity and warmth.

[@RKSidd]

The Quad S2 is very compelling for those who are limited with speaker size but still require great sound.

[@samidanger3666]

"require" 🤓👌

[@tango_gru]

Thank you so much for the video...... your voice alone has a calming effect on me.

[@allangoodwin1971]

I adore my S2 speakers. I don't really think these are 2 comparable models. But your hifi reviews and knowledge is the best

[@wiebl5266]

The music is simpler thank you to compare. But more contemporary music is more realistic for assessment. I'm interested in the quad S2. Thank you.

[@wiebl5266]

What I'm saying is, more contemporary means with more instruments, electronics, drums etc. Audiophile music has lesser distinctions. I think COVER songs of popular 80s would be great. Thabarma, you are really an angel in this community... because the amount of work involved in doing the video and testing and recording and editing... thank YOU x 10.

[@Greg.Siucrazyforaudio2016]

love your recording ,it really tells the sound quality the speakers performed ,really enjoying it Thank you so much ,awesome again.

[@nicholasrigg8999]

They're both really impressive. The Evo is too big for me. I wonder how the Evo 4.1 would compare, maybe up against the Quad S1

[@DaydeSIANG]

Evo 4.2 seems to have more body in sound, the strings seems more natural, maybe a-bit more ‘romantic’ sounding. Quad sound is more exciting and energetic.

[@moto-rambler]

Thanks for the review. Would love to see the S2 vs the Wharfedale 4.1. Much closer in size to the S2 and like the S2 it only has 2 drivers.

[@darpanbhuyan1909]

Had been waiting for this one!!!

[@mikepaul2372]

Another vote for the Quad but this was pretty close. Would consider both of these!

[@arcforceworld]

I liked how clear the Quad sounded, but them Wharfedales sounded more entertaining for some reason. Evo 4.2 or the rp600M's is the question for me.

[@сашаалекс-р9ы]

Quads sound more natural and sophisticated to me, but warfs give more weight to the sound. In principle, both sound worthy here, everything is in the preference of taste.

[@drorgangtool]

Usually in speaker shootouts, I can pick my preference pretty quickly but these two were extremely well-matched, which is really impressive given the fact that the Evo 4.2s have an extra driver. It took me a number of listens before I could pick which ones I liked better. One of the biggest single factors that I usually look at is the crispness of the attack on the instruments, and in that regard, I believe the S2s do that a bit better (the plucking of the guitar strings sounds crisper on the S2s). However, I also really like mids that are warm and detailed, and I think the Evo 4.2s do that just a bit better, likely due to the fact that they have a dedicated driver for mids. You can hear this, as Tharbamar points out, in the fuller tone of the body of the guitar. With all of that said, I think I prefer the Evo 4.2s overall, even though they lack just a bit of treble detail compared to the S2s. With that said, if Wharfedale put the S2's ribbon driver in the Evo 4.2, I'd probably be tempted to give them whatever is in my bank account. Also, can anyone comment on the how well both sets of speakers perform with sound dispersion? I know ribbon-based tweeters can lack vertical dispersion and I even notice a lack of horizontal dispersion with some ribbons as well.

[@somaticHuman]

Is it worth considering Wharfedale Denton 85th Anniversary along with these? Or are these better? Did you have a chance to compare?

[@marantz7783]

have the s2's and the s1's== both incredible

[@mbvx7]

wow, what a hard choice this would be. both are fantastic

[@Arslanbey701]

Quad s-2 great speakers Thanks to you, I got to know them better and bought a pair. I made a few demos on my channel, I highly recommend it. I wish you a day full of music with my love.

[@cybergod77]

It's tough choice between the two. S2 sounds tighter, slightly brighter & airier but the Evo wins in terms of a bigger sound and bass and sub-bass

[@anniethin5412]

Jesus, the vocal came from Quad is amazing, better than Who 4.2. But I still buy Evo.4.2 it's value for money.

[@colinbenfield326]

Price of these speakers is amazing. Specially for ribbon tweeters with such nice cabinets. Even the links on the quads dual posts are nice, not the normal cheap brass. Great review thanks.

[@RennieAsh]

I have found that sometimes you have to listen to gentler speakers for a longer period of time to find out if they do have the details and naturalness, or if you will always feel they are "dull". The more forward, exciting speaker will always impress at first, but will it get tiring after a while? I used to have a pair of Quad l77 I think it was, they were nice on lots of things but also got a little tiring after a time. Didn't use a ribbon tweeter but I suspect the tonal balance is similar. On the other hand I found some older Wharfedales just didn't sound right to my ears. Perhaps the newer speakers are better to listen to :)

[@haroldbriones8529]

Same thoughts here..I got a pair/combination of warmer sound setup but from time to time I still listen my other setup that has a brighter presentation. Sometimes you just feel that its dull n boring and kind of need something that has some nice grit on it

[@kenm116]

The Quads are tighter and more transparent, but I definitely prefer the Evo's. I really enjoy your video's, because we get a great impression of the speakers. I can't wait until you start reviewing some speakers in the higher price range. Personally I'm very interested in the Klipsch Heresy 4s, but for this price could you get some of the top bookshelf speakers. Thank you for the effort!

[@therealchickentender]

I'm not sure the quads are actually more transparent... I think they have an excellent tonality that comes across as more naturally pleasing which seems like transparency. But when I really listen, particularly to the guitar and Grace's vox, the vox especially sound more like what would have been mic'd with the Evos, while the Quads make it seem as if there was no mic. This could be good and bad. Or rather, "good" and "bad". I think there are great arguments for either case. :)

[@Romulus980]

Most interesting review, both speakers in different ways very musical, the Quad 2 seems to have more tuneful bass while EVo 4.2 has more fuller bass but not so tuneful....

[@victorsaw3750]

Listen to both the wharfedale 4.2 and Quad S2. The vocals on the Quad is simply so natural and the attack is amazing. Was a bit disappointed with the Evo 4.2. Found the bass slow and muddy. Wanted to get the Evo4.2 but now having second thoughts. Headache.

[@blueskymusica]

Another good shoot out! Great channel, look forward to seeing more. Would love to see you get your hands on some Ophidian speakers

[@Fond0fBlondes]

For the Mona Lisa track, I prefer the Quad S2. The detail of the guitar and her voice is far more defined than the EVO 4.2s. it just sounds more realistic like the clapping at the end. On a second item, could you please make your other recordings at 8 feet rather than at 14 feet. I think at 8 feet all the details come through better. I can even tell the difference using my TV speakers on this recording. Thank you for your great work.

[@mikedinno8413]

I hope the Ascend Sierra will be compared.

[@panda93940]

Hi Tharbamar. Good review👍. I have to say both speakers sound very good. Anyone has any of them should be very happy but I am prefer the quad s2, I think is look more classy.

[@Tharbamar]

Good choice

[@helmutgroen4129]

Tharbamar,from the Netherlands I wish you a great 2021 and Yes your a nice guy and so relaxed.I for myself after they steal my audio set I buy the almost same back nl the German T&A STRATOS 22(THEY STILL GREAT ,LOOKS LIKE THE HARBETH?)& THEN ONE OF THE LATEST KENWOOD only the older cd player 5030 I couldn't get,so I took a 5050 modern but not that good as the 30 series ,man the sounded so beautiful ❤️.So do well in 2021,I will listen to your cable advice!!!

[@wkb8409]

I will choose S2 .

[@piotrk.7073]

I knew it that evos 4.2 will not give up the first place! 👏😀 Maybe perception of sound or the psychological attitude is of great importance here I am not sure... Anyway I am reallly impressed by the Evos 4.1 and the way how they are reproducing the sound and how they reproducing the sound of electronic, ambient , chillout music.(jazz, soft ballads music sound very good almost on every speakers for example dali spektor 2 organic , warm sound , beautiful but when I switched to hip hop, electronic what the fu..is going on..so bright.. ) All that mean: smooth! Everything right! When I used to play dali spektor 2 or mission lx2 there were always something wrong with some kind of repertuar eh. On the other side Kef q150 more balanced , less agressive , safe I think one of the best but Evos 4.1 still better hehe. Regards

[@mykeldg]

evos sound veiled compared to the quads. you can clearly hear it on the sound demos. same on my setup, its nice & warm but have this weird compression and extra decay in the mids compared to all speakers i have tried, making it sound lush at the cost of clarity. They do sound more holographic though!

[@Tharbamar]

It's depends on the room and height of the speakers. The room I demoed is a bit too small for Evo 4.2, you will hear them differently in different room in my next video, thanks

[@mykeldg]

@@Tharbamar that's true. my room was very small 10 SQM and probably did not give it the room (and amplification) it deserves. I heard sound demos where the evos sounded great with larger space.

[@FlowithdaGo]

The only problem with the Evo is their size and looks. Big standmounts rarely looks good, the Evo is no exception. With the cost for the stands, which are 'required' for best sound, you could as well buy the floorstanding model 4.4 and get that bass we all want as a part of hifi music reproduction.

[@rotorfix]

You can get the 4.4 along with significant cabinet resonance.

[@mmil]

@@rotorfix Where did you see any measurements that show "significant resonance"?

[@FlowithdaGo]

rotorfix It will not be much more than the standmount. The stands also has it's own resonance and problems. Music is sound that fills all frequencies. You're missing out a big part of music by using small speakers that lack any real deep bass below 50 Hz.

[@mmil]

@@FlowithdaGo Actually with my EVO 4.4 I can clearly hear 30Hz test tones so I have removed the subwoofer from my setup. Another thing about the bass in these speakers is that you can clearly hear the bass instruments and their texture instead of just bass. But to have the perfect sound you also need to insulate them from any hard floor, otherwise your floor will become the subwoofer. As far a resonances, rotofix seems to be either dreaming or have bad experiences from his installations of various speakers, the EVOs are solid.

[@therealchickentender]

Many folks already have stands.

[@palapalamala]

Your presentaions are very good and have been useful, thank you very much! I have the feeling that the Wharfes are more relaxed, comfortable, but in a good way. It's true that the S2 have a more refined tone for the voice, more informative, a litle bit more rich. BTW, nice way of recording. Otherwise it wuldn't be possible to discern.

[@kjbiz]

Thanks very much for the detailed and informed comparison once again. Really like you reviews

[@RasheedKhan-he6xx]

The singer's S sounds are like ice daggers stabbing my ears. The Evo made it bearable. But everywhere else the Quad was slightly more in control. Tough choice, so close it could tip either way depending on pairing. I see you are using a Denon amp. For me that's definitely a robust sound, maybe too robust for the Evo. On the other hand a more clinical amp might make the Quad sound thin?

[@andrewwebb4635]

I just think the EVOs are nicer to listen to with headphones from an iPad at 1080p. The Quads just seem to accentuate the high notes to me though I admit they’re very clear given that limitation. If they sound like that in real life, you’d definitely need a sub with them so by the time you’ve costed in that and the stands you’re really talking about £1,000 speakers - a class above.

[@gg0297]

The Quads are in another league, honestly. By comparison, the EVOs sound closed, almost muffled, bassy, with subdued mids and highs. But it's understandable, the Quads price being double of the EVOs, in my country.

[@steventsimtsos4029]

Greetings Tharbamar, would you choose the Quad S2 or the CSS Criton's you put together for your all around performer ? Thank you .

[@Tharbamar]

CSS 1TDX will be my easy choice, which I still have not the other, thanks

[@volkerhufnagel222]

Great test. Thank you! Have you ever tested the EVO 4.3 in comparison to other speakers or to the 4.2?

[@chunkonglau]

多謝你嘅用心比較分析~

[@jjm5982]

I appreciate your channel and what you do, but it would help to hear about on and off axis sound walking around the room. Would also like to see tekton lore , enzo or pendragon... Thank you for the sound demos at the end. Keep up the great work I am learning a lot from you !

[@nãomedigafrivolidade]

evo has 'body' and more mid range and quad is smooth and a delicious treble. both great

[@mickwebs]

Another great comparison thanks

[@Aerodyna-Mart]

Hi! I like your videos, and I listen to you attentively in each comparaison 👍 Cheers from France

[@WhiteWaterG]

Thank you for this very useful review. Am I right in thinking that you are using the B&W Stav 24 s2 stands? Are they OK for the job (they look a bit wide)? Or would you recommend other stands for the Quads?

[@krasimirenchev2674]

Based on these reviews bought myself Evo 4.2 year ago, magical speakers with few crossover tweaks on mids and highs and few tweaks on the down firing port. Listening these reviews sold them to a friend, he really liked their sound and bought Quad S2. This was the biggest mistake I've done. I've been listening to many speakers in my life as I'm a musician and I also worked in HIFI shop for years. Never get a chance to listen Quad speakers though. I'm 47 now. I'll be short. When you listen to Quad S2 half of the music is missing, what ever is there is brilliant but half of the music is not there. Going back to magical Evos. If you have Evo 4.2 keep them.

[@Tharbamar]

Great choices, thanks for sharing.

[@zogzog1063]

Bigger is better. Like with car engines "there is no substitute for cubic inches". Actually there is but my quote is a generality - a good one nevertheless. My thinking is that the Wharfedale is the obvious choice - but if you have a good subwoofer - then the world is your octopus.

[@saltyolive_]

Mr Tharbamar, I have the same Grace Mahya SACD and i too have the Quad S2, Pairing it with a MF A3.5 Amp. I do find that recording abit too bright do you agree? For some reasons they sound quite okay on my SET tube amp with an older MA speakers.

[@Tharbamar]

It would be depends on your SACD player and associated components. In my system I did find it bright, thanks

[@townofdudleysixth]

What do you think about the Evo 4.S? How do these compare to the Evo 4.2, just looking at options for a small room.

[@Tharbamar]

No opinion at this time, thanks

[@thetruth3651]

What speaker wires do you have tharbamar?

[@Tharbamar]

I'm using custom made Canare 4S11 base speaker wires.

[@thetruth3651]

@@Tharbamar thank you!

[@Sup3riorr]

im listening on hd800 and let me tell u this the evos win in every aspect... they are far more airy and more holographic between the instruments but the most important factor was that the evos sounded alot more open. Quads play like someone was strangeling the soundstage

[@davelaidlaw3795]

Nice comparison. You really should try the Quad Z2 it really is a step up from the S2

[@Tharbamar]

Thanks these are samples.

[@Audioloon]

Thanks again for your excellent reviews. Any chance of also reviewing Amphion Helium 410 and/or Triangle Titus EZ loudspeakers? The Helium and Titus loudspeakers are close in price to the Quad S2 and Wharfedale Evo 4.2 Thanks for your insights and contributions to this hobby :)

[@richieb1125]

The S2's seem too "sharp" sounding to me, prefer the Evo however there certainly is something about the S2 i really enjoyed.

[@MadLadsAnonymous]

Incredible sound from the S2! How would you rate the S2 compared to Diamond 225 (after mods) or even Diamond 12.2?

[@Tharbamar]

S2 is in different class. Thanks

[@accordgt]

the evo 4.2 speakers seem really amazing, but would you think it's overkill if I use them as 2.1 for TV 80% of the time?

[@akramhossain1931]

For me... Quad S2.

[@markd4292]

I wonder how the EVO is at low volume. What makes a speaker good at low volume? If your speaker isn't good at low volume can it be corrected with a better amp, maybe a class D or something with lots of capacitor power? Advice.

[@Tharbamar]

Low level sound quality really relies on quality of the components and design but yes Amp power can be great help but there is always going to be some drawbacks by limitation of the actual components in the speaker.

[@olivrrrr]

Vocal mids on the Evo are darker than the Quads. Quads is the winner overall! I hope you'll be able to try the Sierra 2EX.

[@Tharbamar]

I did reviewed once and it was a good speaker but driver integration is not good, many $1k speakers have better stereo image and driver integration than Sierra 2EX, they even try to sue me for sharing my experience with it.

[@olivrrrr]

@@Tharbamar I saw that you did review the Sierra 2 vs LS50, but not the 2EX. Kef would definitely have an advantage with driver integration since its coaxial.

[@Tharbamar]

@@olivrrrr I have written review on my website.

[@martinjee5993]

Interested in Evo Series. I'm thinking to buy Evo4.1. Do you think going for Evo4.1 instead of Evo4.2 is a good idea in terms of cost-benefits and musicality? Or I cannot have Evo4.2, then I should look at other speakers such as Quad S2,etc? I have space issue in my room, so I cannot put Evo4.2. Any comment much appreciated.

[@Tharbamar]

Yes, 4.1 or Quad S2 will work the best in smaller rooms, thanks

[@martinjee5993]

Tharbamar/ Thank you. Sorry one more question. Evo4.1 vs S-1. Both are small speakers, but Evo4.1 is larger. In terms of naturalness and sound stage which one is bettet? I know both are small speakers so sound stage cannot be big, but which one is better in terms of sound stage as well. Tha place of use is small room.

[@mikereyes1660]

Hope you can consider getting a Dali Rubicon 2 or The flagship Dali Epicon 2 in the future.😊

[@antonyalumkal1526]

Quad claims that its true ribbons have limited vertical dispersion (prevents sound bouncing off the floor and ceiling). Is the same true of the Evo AMT? And just how narrow of a band are we talking? :)

[@antonyalumkal1526]

@Birdy Flying Thanks for the info. I recently picked up a pair of Quad Z2 speakers. I set the tweeters at ear height and they sound fine.

[@alcidioqueiroga3177]

Using with an denon pma1600, for pop and rock wich would be better? The warf isnt too dull for that kind of music? Thanks

[@Tharbamar]

I would suggest you to check out this out. JBL Studio 630 Speaker Review, Affordable High End Sound kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmrQdHaNar2kY6M

[@alcidioqueiroga3177]

@@Tharbamar thanks!

[@robertm8518]

Any plans to compare the EVO 4.2 to the Elysian 2?

[@bhupendraparekh6225]

Quads are the better speakers, their electrostats are world class.

[@chesterbenn6808]

Hello Tharbamar! How do they sound with orchestral music? I listened to one of the tracks from Pirates of the Caribbean with the Kef R3 and the instruments were all confused. I can't find a pair of speakers with balanced sound and good detail. I hope you can help me!