SOUND BATTLE - Klipsch RP600M vs Wharfedale EVO 4.2 As Expected?[Sound Comparison] Marantz PM7000N

[@viktor2782]

Great comparison. Small fragments and you have time to hear the difference. and the topics for comparison are well chosen. There is a whole range of frequencies. 👍🏻💥

[@mtiken]

Klipsh sounded like it has been run through a compressor filter. Evo is more open and full body too.

[@jukingeo]

I been doing some more comparison videos with Wharfedale speakers as I never had a pair of these. I know that they are regarded well in hi-end audio and I was looking for a smaller set for my computer. But I did want to hear how the Wharfedales compare to something more familiar. I already own the Klipsch RP-600m's and I do have some mixed feelings about the speaker. The bass is fantastic for a speaker of it's size and the highs are brilliant. However, the speaker has a known problem in the midrange area around 1.5k to 2k. There is a big dip there and it is VERY noticeable. I had mainly bought the speakers to use to a future tube amp purchase (or build), but I quickly realized that Klipsch had bloomed the RP-600m's SPL rating quite a bit. They are claiming 96db at 1w1m, whereas, it is really more like 88 or 89 db. While I do have intentions on fixing the crossover issue, I was turning my attention to my computer system and wanted to hear what people have to say about Wharfedale speakers. I have seen several pulled apart and it looks like a well made speaker and overall, I think they sound fine. But when I clicked on this video, I was VERY shocked to hear the differences and I have to say, the RP-600m beats out the EVO 4.2 by far! Okay, I will give the EVO 4.2 the midrange as that is what is lacking on the RP-600m. On both, the bass is good, but again the Klipsch edges out the Wharfedale. But the big difference is the highs, which are much more vibrant on the RP600m. The soundstage is wider and clearer too. The Wharfedale comes off as muffled to me. Granted, I will admit I am older and my hearing is a bit rolled off on the high end. So this is another reason why the Klipsch sounds more appealing to me. Now, I am not to say that I am totally knocking Wharfedale, because I am not. I have looked at the build quality and heard demos of the Diamond 9.1 speaker, and I do like that one. GR Research had done some extensive testing on that speaker and it has an extremely good vertical off axis sound. Given that I am looking for a good computer speaker and I often lean back in my chair, this is a good sonic point for that speaker. It is priced nicely too at about $350 for the pair. Sadly though, it is out of production. I know there is the 10.1, but I don't know how much different it is constructed in comparison to the 9.1. Great demo btw! And for the curious, yes, I DO currently have a decent sound system on my computer. It is a Cambridge Soundworks system. It is just that I have outgrown it and want something a bit...bigger!

[@scottlowell493]

The 600M2 fixes those midrange issues. The RP500-MII are even better.

[@jukingeo]

@@scottlowell493 Yes, I have heard that, but I didn't learn of the frequency response hole that the original 600m's have until after I had bought them. You see, when the M2's came out, they were being sold for $700 and the original 600m's went all the way down, in price, to $320. So I snatched them up. But in listening to them, I did notice "the hole". I decided to keep them instead of returning them and paying twice as much for the M2's, but I heard that the latter also has reduced highs and I like the high end on the 600m's as they are. The good thing is that there are a good many sites that show ways to fix the crossover problem. It also can be corrected with a narrow Q equalizer, which is what I am looking into as I don't want to void the warranty on my speakers by taking them apart.

[@kaufmanat1]

Klipsch sounds like it's in front of me... Evo sounds like it's in my skull...

[@user-it8ki6hr6d]

Wharfedale EVO 4.2 the best

[@MrSplit57]

Evo 4.2! It would be nice if you could add frequency response graphs!

[@williammiebach1798]

Here is definitely a test where anyone, even with two left ears can hear a big difference. The Klipsh are too lean in the mids and shimmery in the treble. The Evo's are much richer, but I think unaturaly forward in the midrange and comparatively lacking a bit in the treble. With their driver array they should be better, but I don't feel Wharfedale got the balance quite optimal.

[@quananginh9446]

My thoughts as well, neither is impressive.

[@Sp3z]

EVO is super sensitive for speaker placement. If you have your ear on dome height, mids will be too forward, but position yourself just on the top end of the folded ribbon tweeter and it balances out like magic. Quirky speakers, I recently for EVO 4.3s myself. Really enjoying them, but need to work on optimising the positioning still.

[@edmundgil6008]

Well said opinion. I agree with what you’re hearing, and maybe even your expectations! I believe we have different tastes in speakers, but that is cool! I felt in this comparison, the RP600m were quite a bit better than the Evo; and I did not expect this! I agree, the Klipsch were a bit lean… but overall, more suited to my aging, former drummer 🥁 and percussionist Ears 👂🏽! Thank you bro! 🎶❤️🖤🎵

[@williammiebach1798]

@@edmundgil6008 Your welcome, brotha. Thank you. I still think with some adjustments, possibly just some crossover modifications, Wharfedale or even after market modifiers and electronic savvy owners could improve the 4.2s significantly. Some of the most enjoyable speakers I've known have used large dome midrange drivers with great results. The present larger ATC speakers are amazing, (but super pricey) and the old Acoustic Research AR10's I knew growing up are examples. In any case there are a fair amount of choices in the mid price speaker market these days, and some of them strike a more even tonal balance than either of these.

[@thomasb4128]

Normally I don't like V curve speakers like Klipsch. So I expected the Evo to win here, but to my surprise that forward midrange is more fatiguing to me than the elevated treble of the Klipsch. None of them are my first choice.

[@marcusaurelius2988]

I am more worried about the AMTsbeing hars and bright in EVOs.

[@jordansjournal3077]

These comparisons are very good - even though it’s through KZbin. You can still tell the sound signature. One isn’t better than the other. It’s what’s best for you. The Klipsch are far more fatiguing with that crisp and clear top end. Is that coloured or artificial? Depends on what room the music might be performed in, the equipmen the band may be using etc. I would not say “inaccurate”. My preference would be with the Klipsch. Is the lower mid range lost slightly in favour of the higher frequencies? Probably. Does it sound more exciting? To my ears, yes. Would I be able to listen at high volumes for extended periods? Maybe not. But the Klipsch still would be my pick.

[@MalcaratMartinez]

I just did this exact same test today, 1st time using my NAD C315BEE, 2nd time using a Rega Brio. The Rega Brio eats the NAD for breakfast (and them some), just no comparison at all. The Evo has higher treble , you can see the AMT hits really high but has limited freq range, very smooth. The Klipsch has a wider treble response (treble is more present), but the biggest difference is the Evo has actual lows .... The Klipsch has no lows at all. I can imagine using the Evo without subs, it's pretty balanced..... The Klipsch has really nice sheen but it really lacks oomph. It was a bit of a let down actually.......

[@Holyfamily71]

Klipsch sound very good musical feel,.but evo sound like movie feel, personal i like movie feel sound

[@ricardoduquedealmeida1061]

In the first case, the Evo won, the Klipstch's treble predominates over everything else. But for rock the Klipsch is the winner

[@truongnguyentien8251]

Theo cảm nhận của tôi, Evo sân khấu gần,Klipch sân khấu xa.Trung âm Evo tốt hơn thoáng hơn nhưng bass hơi ù có đuôi.Bạn ghép Evo với amply các hãng châu âu có lẽ sẽ khác

[@Randommmmm204]

Positioning is EXTREMELY important for the Wharfedales. Where your ears are compared to the midrange and tweeter can really make or break it. They're very directional. It's a speaker you have to sit down and listen to. I don't see the mics in the video which probably means they were not recorded properly or realistically. The Klipsch have an advantage here because of that big horn which spreads the treble a lot more so the mic/s (which I presume are off to the side or right in the middle below the camera's pov) can pick up a lot more treble. This is basically what the Wharfedales sound like without the AMT. Either that or they weren't broken in yet. Out of the box they sound dreadful. But after 2-3 hours of playtime it's literally night and day. It's actually shocking how much the sound changes and how much better it is.

[@Romulus980]

The most significant difference in sound for me was when played via Klipisch speakers the sound seems to come out of a slight echo chamber and when swithched back to Wharfdale speakers this echo chamber vanishes. I suppose if I heard the speakers live the sound may be completely different....

[@prasheelcheruvari101]

This could be the 'Horn sound' you are hearing

[@tbonet859]

I have the Wharfy Evo 4.2. And I have heard these Klipsch speakers. To be honest, I don't believe this test was effective in representing neither speakers. I enjoy your videos and comparisons. Watch and listen to many of them. Fully aware this type of medium is inherently problematic. However fun to listen. Maybe it's this particular Marantz amp. Don't know. The Evo 4.2 sure sound amazing, with proper placement ( and room size) and high quality components. Considering/adjusting EQing does bring out the best in all of the drivers.

[@dan-qe1tb]

I agree. Plus there was no commentary at the end where he had compared and contrasted them.

[@jfloop77]

Wharfedale sounding more muffled and dull, as usual. Similar style to those mono-sounding crappy Lintons.

[@net_news]

EVOs all the way, more meat on the bone

[@MrSplit57]

Thanks for the nice comparison video! Please, can you do the video of Evo 4.2 with different amps. As I own Evos and pair them with Marantz, I’m courious how they will pair with Cambridge or NAD.

[@salvourzi1641]

badly at NAD, already with the Marantz they have the mids too advanced and the highs a little back (unlike the Klipsch) but if the Klipsch after about 60 hours of running-in become more full-bodied, softer and a little more present in the voices (perfect with the NAD), the evos soften a little and would be tonally not very defined, a little closed

[@eprojectEllie]

thanks, check this out kzbin.info/www/bejne/pajSq6mNaMd0g5I - LS50 vs EVO 4.2 with Cambridge CXA81 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqWndXpuaMiUnZI - LS50 Meta vs EVO 4.2 with Cambridge CXA81

[@БояровАндрей]

Обычно мне не нравятся динамики с V-образным изгибом, такие как Klipsch. Так что я ожидал, что Evo выиграет здесь, но, к моему удивлению, выдвинутые вперед средние частоты меня утомляют больше, чем приподнятые высокие частоты Klipsch. Ни один из них не является моим первым выбором. 1. выдвинутые вперед средние частоты - по АЧХ всё примерно ровно, но купольные СЧ играют очень детально, кажется что они выдвинуты вперёд. Исправляется резистором на минус СЧ , тестируйте 2 или 3 Ом на 20 Вт на ваш слух 2. Владельцы Evo АМТ так записывается ? ВЧ в жизни больше?

[@leoseoyoun8819]

I think that sound of Wharfedale has rich mid range sound and balanced. Sound of Klipsch is less mid-range sound but high seasoned.

[@allansayson5587]

Wharfedale wins here!

[@allenbrixey1122]

You can hear that horn tweeter on the klipsh. There's a reason wharfedale is more expensive. It just sounds more natural with more frequency range. I'm sure that Klipsch on some 80s metal would sound good.

[@Trollberg]

For someone who listens to black metal which one would you suggest Klipsch 600m or wharfedale 12.2

[@apollon755]

@@Trollberg mate go to listen lintons.theyre great.and can listen many hours ..

[@ProfessorPuffyPants]

So the midrange I’ve been complaining about is my speakers. Should’ve got the wharfedales I guess

[@Slick0990]

Klipsch 👍🏻

[@ValNanovsky]

To me the Klipsch speakers sound more open, with clearer highs, and slightly richer bass, while the Wharfedales sound a bit "choked", with fewer dynamics. Obviously, this is highly subjective, and a matter of taste, but considering the price difference, my choice in this case would be the Klipsch.

[@tofudeliverygt86]

In this thest the EVOs sound too rolled off on highs. It would be interesting to hear a clap or something at the beginning of the test just to hear what the room sounds. Any chance the mic didn't pick up the highs at all? Maybe they they ahve a super narrow sweet spot?

[@flrn6233]

They both sound good in their own. The Klipsh is more "V" shape sound EQ, with more predominat sound in bass and highs, and the Evo's gives you a more full range EQ, and you can hear the guitars with those solos right in your face. For my taste I would pick the Evos, and If I want a scooped mid sound, I just EQ the sound.

[@dizazone]

Marantz PM7000N not for Wharfedale EVO 4.2

[@davidsimon1642]

¿Que amplificador recomiendas? Me gustan los evo 4.2 pero no se Con que moverlos. Actualmente tengo un Marantz Nr1608

[@Nelly41288]

Evos are warm the klipsch are musical

[@DougMen1]

I still think the EVO tweeter is too bright, but it's not as bad as the Klipsch. It might be better with an amp with a tamer treble response. You've really spoiled me with the LS50 Meta. It's a hard act to follow by any speaker

[@ads3453]

You realise that when this channel compared the LS50 Meta and the Evo's the Evos sounded better right ?

[@marcusaurelius2988]

@@ads3453 LS50 is too harsh to me. Evo has the AMTs and with the Klipsch you have the huge bright tweeters..go figure...tough one...

[@boogeyratt]

It's not surprise that the Klipsch sounds warmer, but at times the detail on the Wharfedales sounded almost recessed because the Klipsch is almost *too* detailed. If the Klipsch had a little more in the mids I would grab them in a heartbeat. Alas, the hunt continues.

[@TheTeddyboy46]

Bi wire them. and revels the midrange.

[@N3woise]

@@TheTeddyboy46 bi wire does not fix it. possible to use center and/or sub

[@salvourzi1641]

la klipsch è un po' arretrata sul medio ma la evo è più avanzata del normale, la Klipsch è più ricca e dinamica e costa molto meno....dopo il rodaggio si ammorbidira' e supererà la evo

[@floshi6519]

Da possessore da oramai 3 anni posso confermarti il contrario.

[@salvourzi1641]

@@floshi6519 cioè? che nel video non è leggermente arretrata sul medio e che dopo il rodaggio si ammorbidirà divenendo più equilibrata e corposa pur mantenendo quel maggior effetto live rispetto alla concorrenza di pari prezzo?

[@floshi6519]

@@salvourzi1641 cioè sono comunque un pò carenti sui medi sopperendo tramite alti.

[@TheTeddyboy46]

at more than 2x the price of the Klipsch 600M s . I will stick with my 600Ms

[@allenbrixey1122]

I'm sure the evo soundstage seems bigger and not as Brite. The klipsh needs to test against $500 dollar speakers not $1200. KEF 350, Q acoustic 3030i.

[@marcodesantis7237]

Hi, thank you for your very comprehensive videos! What are the names of the supports where you placed the speakers for this test?

[@ДавидГоцман-м9о]

Klipsch in rock!!!

[@echnaton2274]

Thank you!

[@robertjira7365]

..to me Klipsch, will buy new 600m ii and will see home 😉

[@34332]

It suprises me that many reviewers are so lyrical over de RP's. Big difference indeed, none to my liking.

[@nathaneldogo]

Klipsh 💯👍

[@HarithAhmadDaud]

How about try those on the Yamaha amp? This Marantz sounds hectic.

[@rebelhd7518]

EVO 4.2 !!!!

[@379taurus]

Эво звучат правильнее, по крайней мере, по передаче голоса(средниих частот больше), но утомляют быстрее, действительно.

[@ИванВладимиров-ю8х]

IMHO Evo souns like trough a huge pipe.

[@angelrubentorresgonzalez2465]

Evo 4.2 💪

[@Greg.Siucrazyforaudio2016]

The amplifier isn't a good match, also placement can be incorrect for the evo 4.2 , I owned them they sound best in $1500 price range speakers except rock music , set 2m apart and 800+cm height and seat back and enjoy , fatigue is wrong amp match also placement plays an important role for sweet spot , mids are phenomenal with evo 4.2 no question about it , it needs a lot of free space around them , no regret buying the. If you have the space otherwise take 4.1 instead cheers everyone.

[@আবুবকর-ন১ধ]

the different is like be in the air and deep water

[@lr5081]

I don’t think this amp doesn’t do any of these speakers justice,imo.

[@AbsoluteFidelity]

The Klipsch's midrange is totally non-existent next to the Evo 4.2... lol!

[@DougMen1]

They design them for people that like that smiley face V curve, with boosted bass and treble, and sucked out mids. B&W does it too. Some people like it, but I hate it

[@AbsoluteFidelity]

@@DougMen1 Klipsch doing it I totally understand, B&W being a high end company following suit, I cant brain. Might as well just get a neutral speaker to begin with and just boost the shit out of the bass and treble knobs

[@DougMen1]

@@AbsoluteFidelity I know, right? That's why I love KEF and Wharfedale. The only thing about that is that many amps don't have tone controls anymore, because the audio snobs poo-poo them. Nevermind that two of the best sounding amp lines on the planet, Luxman and McIntosh have tone controls, as do Marantz, Denon, Cambridge, Rotel, and many other well regarded amps. But, in super high end ones, not many have them anymore

[@AbsoluteFidelity]

@@DougMen1 put the damn tone controls and put a Pure Direct (bypass) button there as well. Problem solved. That is why I tend to stick to AVRs even for music, they have tone controls, high pass filter and other modes to choose from. Tone controls will be very helpful for playing something from an inferior source i.e youtube. Not everything is in 32 bit 384 khz.

[@diosubescu]

Rp600M is the best here ...

[@mietekkowalski935]

🤔🎶🎶🎶Evo✌🏻👍👍👍👍👍👍✌🏻🙂🇵🇱

[@pedecia]

The huge difference I heard is that the EVO 4.2 are all mids forward... Super infantized... Love the sound of the klipsch. The Evo sound like they are under water... The highs are so recessed.... muffled.... not existent.

[@donjaun540]

Warfedale all the way. Made my TV sound good.😊🔊

[@fubarnow8907]

As a Klipsch fan, Warfedales sounded Better

[@micharogalewicz6249]

Uf, Evo crashing klipsch here.

[@barrydevane7969]

Klipsch sounds better

[@BluEight_R8]

Ciao mi sono iscritto al canale, per me il klipisch oltre a suonare più naturale sembra riprodurre più particolari, ad esempio nel primo brano musicale il riverbero della voce della ragazza che canta nella riproduzione audio con il wharfedale sembra quasi sparire, mentre con klipisch si continua a sentire chiaro e nitido, inoltre nel wharfedale la voce è innnaturale, sembra risuonare sulla membrana dell'altoparlante come se risuonasse su della plastica che vibra o su un pezzo di cartone rigido, non sò spiegarlo ma in qualche modo sento delle risonanze che in qualche modo accentuano alcune frequenze medie; tuttavia i bassi sono migliori nel wharfedale. Una cosa che non mi piace della klipish è il caricamento a Troba del tweeter, che è sì dinamico e sensibile ma è anche troppo direttivo! Ciao un saluto dall'Italia :)

[@СергейКешин-о4т]

Кипш по-моему лучше

[@matiasmov1]

Neither of the two....

[@fremont66]

I own both, Marantz AV7005, Yamaha M85, and the EVO tromps that cheap flubby metallic sounding klipsch, not a very good comparison, you should have gone with the Sony SS compared to the klipsch that would have been a more even battle.Jeez.......

[@dogsbodyish8403]

Klipsch are vastly overrated (and overpriced outside the US) - the Wharfedales are better, much easier on the ear, and cheaper.