Short answer: the Polk R200. It ranks #74 of 105 bookshelf speakers by sound quality; the Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 ranks #84.
What the Polk R200 gets right: Two-way design with a 6.5” midwoofer and 1” ring radiator tweeter, giving reasonably tight, well-defined imaging. The tradeoff: A resonance and associated distortion increase around 800Hz-1kHz creates a “tinny,” occasionally glaring quality on certain instruments and vocals, confirmed both by ear and in the frequency-response and distortion measurements.
The case for the Wharfedale Diamond 9.1: The first design was a pretty good sounding speaker, the speaker was then [outsourced to China and lost 1.5kg and was made with cheap parts and sounds much worse]. Watch for: All current new ones sold today are the crap version.
Buy the Polk R200 if sound quality matters more than the price. Buy the Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 if the price matters more than sound quality.
If sound quality matters at all to you, skip the Wharfedale Diamond 9.1. It ranks near the bottom of the 105 bookshelf speakers, so look higher up the list instead.
Specifications Side By Side
| Polk R200 | Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $799.00 | Discontinued |
| Ranked | #74 of 105 in Large Size Bookshelf Speakers | #84 of 105 in Large Size Bookshelf Speakers |
| Bass Extension (-10dB) | 50Hz (measured, Erin’s Audio Corner) | - |
| Bass Extension (-3dB) | 74Hz (measured, Erin’s Audio Corner) | - |
| Impedance | 4 ohms nominal, 3.8 ohms minimum (measured, Erin’s Audio Corner) | 6 ohms |
| Sensitivity | 85dB | 87dB |
| Drivers | 25mm soft dome + 165mm woofer | 6.5" Kevlar cone woofer, 1" soft dome tweeter |
| Weight | 31.3 lbs / 14.2 kg | 12.1 lbs / 5.5 kg (good version), 9.9 lbs / 4.5 kg (bad version) each |
| Dimensions | 14.1"H x 7.5"W x 13.9"D (359.0 x 190.0 x 353.8 mm) | 11.7"H x 7.6"W x 10.9"D (296.0 x 194.0 x 278.0 mm) |
| Woofer Cabinet | ported, rear | ported |
| Discontinued | - | Yes |
Related Speaker Comparisons
More useful head-to-heads from the same speaker class:
- JBL XPL-90 vs Klipsch RP-600M
- KEF Q3 Meta vs Polk Reserve R100
- KEF Q3 Meta vs Revel Performa M22
- KEF Q3 Meta vs Polk R200
- JBL Studio 630 vs Polk R200
The Two Speakers In Full
Polk R200: $799.00 Amazon
Pros: Two-way design with a 6.5” midwoofer and 1” ring radiator tweeter, giving reasonably tight, well-defined imaging. Neutral through most of the midrange (roughly 200Hz-1kHz). On-axis response holds within about 1.5dB up to 10kHz. About 20dB of usable dynamic range (76dB to 96dB) before more significant compression sets in. Reasonably close to a 4-ohm nominal load, giving some flexibility with amplifier choice, though a dedicated 4-ohm-capable amp is still recommended.
Cons: A resonance and associated distortion increase around 800Hz-1kHz creates a “tinny,” occasionally glaring quality on certain instruments and vocals, confirmed both by ear and in the frequency-response and distortion measurements. Above about 10kHz, the ring-radiator tweeter takes on an artificial, “digital-esque” quality, then falls off quickly above 16kHz. F3 of 74Hz and F10 of 50Hz mean there’s essentially no meaningful bass “thump” below about 60Hz - a subwoofer is strongly recommended even just to restore basic kick-drum presence. The ring radiator tweeter’s dispersion narrows sharply above about 8kHz, so the speaker should be aimed close to on-axis (no more than 5-10° of toe-out). Vertical listening position is fairly critical - moving more than a few degrees above or below the tweeter line causes a noticeable timbre shift due to a gap in the crossover region. Multitone distortion spikes substantially (to around 10%) in the 600Hz-1kHz region at higher output levels (around 96dB/1m), meaning the glare gets worse the louder it’s played. At the highest tested output (102dB, 26dB of dynamic range), the woofer shows clear signs of struggling; crossing to a subwoofer around 80-100Hz helps prevent bottoming out but doesn’t fully eliminate the compression.
Full Polk R200 review and specifications →
| Bass Extension (-10dB) | 50Hz (measured, Erin's Audio Corner) |
|---|---|
| Bass Extension (-3dB) | 74Hz (measured, Erin's Audio Corner) |
| Dimensions | 14.1"H x 7.5"W x 13.9"D (359.0 x 190.0 x 353.8 mm) |
| Drivers | 25mm soft dome + 165mm woofer |
| Impedance | 4 ohms nominal, 3.8 ohms minimum (measured, Erin's Audio Corner) |
| Sensitivity | 85dB |
| Weight | 31.3 lbs / 14.2 kg |
| Woofer Cabinet | ported, rear |
As an eBay Partner, we may be compensated if you make a purchase.
- Links
- Reviews, Comparisons and Sound Samples
- Head-to-Head Comparisons
Wharfedale Diamond 9.1: Discontinued
Pros: The first design was a pretty good sounding speaker, the speaker was then outsourced to China and lost 1.5kg and was made with cheap parts and sounds much worse. Slightly rolled off in the treble by about 3dB
Cons: All current new ones sold today are the crap version. Discontinued.
Full Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 review and specifications →
| Dimensions | 11.7"H x 7.6"W x 10.9"D (296.0 x 194.0 x 278.0 mm) |
|---|---|
| Discontinued | Yes |
| Drivers | 6.5" Kevlar cone woofer, 1" soft dome tweeter |
| Impedance | 6 ohms |
| Sensitivity | 87dB |
| Weight | 12.1 lbs / 5.5 kg (good version), 9.9 lbs / 4.5 kg (bad version) each |
| Woofer Cabinet | ported |
As an eBay Partner, we may be compensated if you make a purchase.
- Reviews, Comparisons and Sound Samples
- Head-to-Head Comparisons
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs Klipsch RP-600M
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs Triangle Borea BR03
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs Sonus Faber Lumina II Amator
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs B&W 805S
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs KEF Q350
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs Aperion Audio Verus V8B
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs Triad In-Room Gold LCR
- Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs Sonus Faber Sonetto II G2
- See all 15 comparisons