Good Question: What do you consider to be high end vintage gear?

OK, since I've kind of been elected the resident Wharfedale fanboy, I'll see if I can't narrow it down.

Wharfedale, for decades, was a high-end speaker brand who competed with the likes of Quad and Leak in the UK and AR, University, Bozak, and many others in the US. But there WAS a point back in the day where Wharfedale was, for a time, marketed as a mid-fi and upper-mid-fi brand. This decision by the upper-management at the Rank Group (who owned Wharfedale at the time) was a result of their purchase of Leak from a retiring Harold Leake in 1969. At this point, Rank felt that owning two high-end speaker brands at the same time was a bad idea, so in their infinite wisdom, they decided to make Leak the high-end brand and make Wharfedale a mid-fi & upper-mid-fi entity.

The Wharfedale employees were furious, and it wasn't so great for the Leak employees either, who were forced to relocate because Rank wanted to centralize manufacturing operations for both companies and move the Leak factory to a location near the Wharfedale facilities in Idle (which would have been much too far away for Leak employees to commute). Surprisingly, most of the Leak workers chose to remain with the company and relocate, which says a lot about Harold Leake and the work environment he created there.

For Wharfedale, the changes weren't fully-implemented until the launch of the W*0E series, and if you examine those models and their construction, there are some clear differences. The sand-filled panel construction was gone, and the cabinet trim is just a wee bit less-ornate than it is on the W*0D models. The grills are a little different too. A few mid-fi models did precede the W*0E series, which debuted in 1971, I believe. The "3" series (Dovedale 3, Glendale 3, etc), from what I have read, must have been introduced a solid year earlier, plus there was a Denton bookshelf model that appears to be from that series as well, though the Denton had no 3 as far as I know.

But the thing about Wharfedale's top models at this period (the W*0E series), they still competed with high-end models by AR and others. I have had several people say to me that they PREFER the W60E to the AR3a. And the W70E (known as the Rosedale in Europe and elsewhere) is apparently a real sleeper. Just in the past few days, several people have raved to me about that model. Supposed to be incredibly-rich, uber-smooth, and delightful in the mids. I think it's really a matter of amp/speaker synergy. Match the W70E or W60E with the right gear, and hold onto your hat (metaphorically-speaking). The designers at Wharfedale must have really hunkered down and set their minds to maintaining Wharfedale's fine reputation by designing some truly-great models, despite the step down on the marketing ladder.

Then there were the CLEAR mid-fi models of the 2XP and 3XP series. These were priced below the "3" models and the TOTL (for that period in time) W*0E series models. Thankfully, by 1975, Wharfedale was making high-end gear again, starting with the SP line (Dovedale SP, Airedale SP, etc.). These were excellent models and among the very-finest Wharfedale has ever produced. And even the 2XP/3XP lines are supposed to be really-nice. The Linton 3XP is a good one for low-powered tube gear, and those speakers are a dime a dozen.

One thing about the SP models and the MUCH cheaper 2XP and 3XP lines, there are some obvious signs of borrowed drivers/driver-design. In fact, ALL of the drivers used in every one of those models look to be of Leak design. The differences between them and the W*0E & "3" drivers is huge. They look nothing like one another.

In 1978, they launched the E*0 series, which were also high-end, and after that the TSR line and the original Diamond models of the early '80's, and at that point, Wharfedale was still following Gilbert Briggs' design credo of "warm/inviting, smooth, and natural, with great mids", and even though the Wharfedales of today are COMPLETELY-different, they still share that philosophy.
 
Last edited:
The original Martin-Logan CLS.
Rogers LS3/5a
Apogee
ET LFT speakers
The early Quicksilver amps including the M135.
Marantz tube separates
Altec Barcelona
ESS Eclipse power amp
Paragon Tube preamp
Luxman CL-35 III preamp
 
I like the idea of the resident fanboy dropping in and doing a quick piece on their special topic. Could help all learn about the brands the fanboyz favor.

That's me!
thats%20me.gif


It wasn't quick though. I burned through 25% of my Kindle power typing that up. :D

By the way, did anybody mention MB Quart? They're a German company that's been making high-end gear for a long time. Kind of like a lusher version of Canton. Quart competed with Canton and ADS in both the home AND car audio markets, but they are probably the least-known of the bunch. Very-nice stuff though. I think they were ALWAYS high-end. Excellent quality.
 
Last edited:
Oh, what the heck, I'll be a fan boy.... Speakerlab never were what I'd classify as high end. They were more bang for your buck and embarrass the stuffy audiophiles speakers. The 50's are the closest to high end they got. To this day they will kick the crap out of a lot of so called high end speakers. If you want to step it up a few notches my Infinity IRS Betas would fill the high end of the spectrum just fine. For amplification how about Threshold..... S/500 Stasis or their mono blocks...... Those are 3 that I own and love....
 
Kenwood/Trio Supreme,Accuphase,and Naim to name but three.
BTW,the Garrard 301 and 401 TT's weren't that expensive back in the day... certainly not high-end!
 
Oh, what the heck, I'll be a fan boy.... Speakerlab never were what I'd classify as high end. They were more bang for your buck and embarrass the stuffy audiophiles speakers. The 50's are the closest to high end they got. To this day they will kick the crap out of a lot of so called high end speakers. If you want to step it up a few notches my Infinity IRS Betas would fill the high end of the spectrum just fine. For amplification how about Threshold..... S/500 Stasis or their mono blocks...... Those are 3 that I own and love....

What about the 7? I have heard all kinds of raves about that, and I guess I always assumed it was their TOTL. The 50 came much later, didn't it?
 
What about the 7? I have heard all kinds of raves about that, and I guess I always assumed it was their TOTL. The 50 came much later, didn't it?

The 7's were designed to be kick ass rock and roll speakers. I own a pair of first gen Super 7's . They sound great but the 50's are just better sounding. The 50's came out in 1980 and only lasted two years. Mile Nestrovic left and took his woofer patent with him. I love them both ....:yes:
 
The 7's were designed to be kick ass rock and roll speakers. I own a pair of first gen Super 7's . They sound great but the 50's are just better sounding. The 50's came out in 1980 and only lasted two years. Mile Nestrovic left and took his woofer patent with him. I love them both ....:yes:

Yeah, I had heard them described that way back when I first started hearing about Speakerlab on AK, but as I looked at the 7's more and more, they seemed to be extremely-well-built. But I'm on the east coast and I'm a cone or dome kind of guy, so I never went after a pair. But I never went after a lot of great speakers. Everybody's got their thing, you know?

30 more posts 'til the big 15-triple-0.
 
Pic of one of my 50's . Foster leaf, 1 1/2 dome, 6 1/2 Speakerlab built poly midbass and Speakerlab built 10" and 12" in the nestorovic system .....
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 34
Pic of one of my 50's . Foster leaf, 1 1/2 dome, 6 1/2 Speakerlab built poly midbass and Speakerlab built 10" and 12" in the nestorovic system .....

That is sweet. What did you mean by "Foster leaf"? That ribbon-looking tweeter up top?
 
not much mention of early german made Braun gear,but they produced absolutely totl audiophile gear in there early days.
My 1965 Braun L-1000 speakers were built at a time when money was no object and sound stunning with tube amplification{especially with my Fisher 50a mono's}.Braun also produced the LE-1 electrostatic speakers which are a somewhat rare highly reviewed,not to mention their early 60's tube amps

hunter
 
I don't believe the Teac machines are high end. They might have one or two, but I don't know which one they would be.

The tandberg and revox machines are sonically so much better than the teacs that I leave teac off the list. This comes from personal experience of listening to the Tandberg vs. Teac from outside the sound room and being able to tell the difference.

But that is my opinion and it can be on the list cause others must think it belongs.

I don't know, but my little 1710W seems to get some high praise for it's tube-driven sound, which is why I plan to integrate it into my main system. Obviously, Studer and Revox were the creme de la creme of record/playback decks in the recording industry, but I have still been told by many a tube aficionado that Akai made some damn-nice reel.

Tube + tube + tube for the win.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I guess my perspective may be similar to many, and different to many. I've never heard of many of the exotics names I've heard.

I owned 2 Kenwood supremes but never the TOTL 700, I've owned many of the Celestion Ditton line-up, and actually had the Ditton 66's but never heard them in my own place on a good enough system (it is actually what got me going down this spirally road), and my personal experience with McIntosh, which I think a lot of their gear was and still is high end, but I don't consider my MA6200 to be high end, and my MC2205 I do consider high end, but it was never the TOTL. I do consider my C26 to be high end, and it was TOTL for a short time. And I consider my Bose 1801 and 4401 to be high end, and, it was Only Of The Line!

So when you get down to it, it is all actually pretty confusing!

I definitely missed Yamaha, and I do consider my PX-3 to be high end, but not TOTL.

And many others. No slight intended, but it's hot these days and combine that with a few nice beers and the brain slows down a little. I'm still intending to redo the list. That is also becoming a big job.

I'll get back to that list, but not from my iPad. You would be interested in noting that the iPad really wants to change McIntosh to Macintosh interestingly enough when I try to correct something just in front of McIntosh. It will let me type it, but as soon as I try to change anything immediately in front or behind it, it tries to change it to Macintosh. Too funny!
 
Back
Top Bottom