The New E? Wharfedale Sapphire 89

The Wharfedale E –series was supposed to be the antithesis of “good, British” speaker design during its run from the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The line more resembled the offerings of JBL and Cerwin-Vega than it did Rogers, or its Rank cousins. The E-series was built with primarily two things in mind: efficiency and speed. The “E”, after all, stood for Efficiency.

Fast forward 2 decades to the late 1990’s and early 00’s, and you see that the idea of the traditional British mini-monitor never went away, where as the E-series were enthusiastically praised in small circles of people in the know. At this time, I had an after school job working for a small, local hi-fi and HT shop that sold what were to most people in the area “high-end” gear: Denon, Wharfedale, h/k, Audio Source, and so on. At this time, Wharfedale had several product ranges, all equally as cluttered. In the high-end were the excellent Emeralds, and the low-end was filled with the Atlantics (the successor to Valdus). Smack in-between was the Sapphire line.

The top dog in the Sapphire line was the Sapphire 89 (SP-89). The Sapphire 89 is a 4-driver, 3-way system made up of 2x 6.5” woofers, a 6.5” mid-bass/mid-range driver, and a 1-inch soft dome tweeter. The bass drivers are loaded into a dual-ported cabinet with a single front port and single rear port tuned to different frequencies. The mid-bass/mid-range driver gets its own large, trapezoidal shaped, sealed sub-enclosure, which it also shares with the tweeter. The cabinet is extensively braced, but is unfortunately made up of only 5/8ths inch MDF. Due to the heavy bracing, it is very solid and “dead”, but you can see where costs were cut none the less. The front baffle is further reinforced by polymer trim plates around the woofers and integral tweeter wave guide. The edges of the front and side baffles are gently beveled and rounded to a nice effect.

The tweeters are slightly off-set from the center, and are typically sold in mirror-imaged pairs. The cabinets are labeled “L” and “R”, with the tweeters meant to be on the inside.

The cabinets are finished in either a black-ash or rosewood vinyl veneer. Although not by any means ugly, both finishes look sort of fake, and if you have the skill, you would be well put to re-veneer them in real wood. And finally, there is a grille that covers all the drivers, but leaves the front bass port exposed.

The cross-over is made up of two boards: one for the bass drivers, the other for the mid and tweeter. The system is designed with bi-amp capability in mind, and a set of double, gold-plated, 5-way binding posts are normally strapped together with a gold-plated, form-fit metal jumper. Cross-over components are good quality with air-core inductors and poly caps. Internal wiring is a little ordinary with 18 ga. stranded wire, but it is about par for the course.

Finally, I should mention that there were several different versions of the Sapphires made. The original version was made in G.B. and used the Wharfedale 1750 driver for the woofer. The second version was made in China (but still using British made Wharfedale drivers), and these can be I.D.’d by the use of a 1750H driver for bass (though some British made B-Stock units and replacement woofers were 1750H as well). Then there was the “True Blue” series that used blue-tinted woofers with a Wharfedale “W” embossed on the dustcap. These used a 1767H driver for bass. The units in particular I have are the original version, except I swapped out two of the 1750 drivers (one in each cabinet) with 1750H drivers.

The Sapphire 89 is an efficient speaker: actually it is the most efficient speaker I own. It is rated at 91dB 1w/1m, but I think that is conservative. I get satisfactory sound levels when the volume control is just above the point of 0. On the Mitsubishi, all that is needed is one click above -∞. However, the SP-89 can take 200-watts when needed. They are nominally rated at 8-ohms impedance, but measure about 4.2-ohms DCR. Sound is either true-neutral or 1 or 2 degrees cool from neutral.

The SP-89 must be very carefully positioned in the room due to having both a front and a rear port: too far or close to a rear wall, and you loose the lowest notes; too close or far from a side-wall and you loose lower mid-bass (80-150Hz). In my setting, they want to be about 16-18 inches from the rear wall, and about 18-24 inches from the side wall. Because of the offset tweeter, they do not require toe-in, but in my room and listening location it helped to have +/- 5 degrees of angle.

Listening to the SP-89 is a wonder. They look foreboding, but they are indeed balanced and very clean. No particular range overwhelms another, and vocals are exceptionally clean. The SP-89’s have tremendous energy and impart it on the sound, making the speakers disappear and putting the performance in its place. Alice Babs sang to me last night, not to a microphone in a studio.

Instant headroom is one of the features of the SP-89. Because of its good efficiency, even a mid-power amplifier, like a h/k 430 can go insanely loud without distress.

Now for some caveats:

Wharfedale did an excellent job with the big picture on this speaker, but it seems that in an effort to keep to its intended MSRP, they skimped on the details. The mid-range sub-enclosure, for instance, contained no dampening material. It is a veritable echo chamber in there, though the trapezoidal enclosure is supposed to negate that to some effect. The speaker had a certain hardness to voices before I filled it with fiberfill. Same goes for the bass enclosure. A single bit of batting on the bottom was all it had. I took the original bit and unfolded it to line the top and sides of the bass enclosure, adding a bit to the bottom and back. This eliminated the mid-bass “honk” that emanated from the rear port. The rear ports were held in only by friction fit. Putting a bead of mastic compound around the inner, external edge of the port sealed it up good and tight and holds it in place much better. And finally, the barrier between the bass and mid enclosure has wiring for the mid and tweeter going though it. It was sealed only be some brittle hot-glue. I filled up the hole with more mastic compound to provide a better seal. Just the small stuff like that elevated this speaker from a “good for the money” level to a “sounds twice as expensive” level.

The second issue (not an important one to me) are the flimsy grilles. The pegs have a bad tendency to break-off in the sockets, requiring you to drill them out if you ever want to access the internal workings of the speakers.

And finally, and this really just nit picking, is that because of the polymer trim around the drivers, you have to remove 8 screws to access any single driver. Tragic, I know.

So, is the SP-89 the second coming of the E-series? They are efficient, and they are energetic, but no. There can be no replacement for the E. However, the Sapphire 89 is a worthy, modern interpretation, and a very capable speaker on its own. :thmbsp:

Very nice writeup, where's the friggin pic's at man?

Those wharfs I mentioned are back on the gon in my area again but alas I have no cash! Dammit!

Mike, I missed this post when it came out. I sure enjoyed reading it. I'm cleaning house right now of several Wharfedale speakers, Trying to decide what to keep and what to sell. I own the Emerald 97 and the MFM -7, MFM-5. Probably gonna keep the Emeralds. What amazed me was the pricing back when I bought them a few years ago. UBID was blowing many Wharfedales out for peanuts. They had the SP-89 as well. I got the Emerald 97 for 200.00 a pair DELIEVERED. New, not refurbs. Real wood veneer on these. Did you have any experience with the MFM line?
Thanks

Steve

Steve,

Sorry I missed this one. I have had extensive experience with both the Emerald and the MFM line. The Emeralds were supposed to replace the MFM range when they were introduced, and I have to say that I preferred the Emerald 93 and 95 to the MFM 3 and 5 respectively. Both ranges were supposed to appeal to audiophiles, but the MFM’s were a little too dry and laid back for my tastes. The design of the MFM range lended itself to stacking, though, and for my HT system I was running 4 pair of MFM 7’s in the front channels (powered by 2 Peavey CS-800 power amps). In that configuration they were unbeatable.
Contemporary with the MFM series, and using the same bass/mid-bass drivers were the Modus Music range, which I positively adored. The Music 1.6 in particular is still one of the best speakers I have heard in the MSRP $1000-$2000 price range.
In all of my time working with Wharfedale speakers, two models were truly standouts: the Diamond 7.2 ALE (Anniversary Limited Edition), and the first version of the Emerald 93. Both are bookshelf speakers (though the Emerald 93 is more the size of a Dynaco A25 or Smaller Advent), and both trampled speakers many times their size and/or price, except perhaps on maximum dynamic range.
It kind of sucked when the speakers were getting dumped on Ubid. This happened after IAG took over US distribution (and the company as a whole). At the same time, you began to see the Chinese made units (most still using British drivers) and some of the less than memorable model ranges, such as the positively garish Zaldek and the “Diamond in name only” Diamond 8 and 9 series. But, by that time I was no longer selling them, so I did not care that much.

Hey thanks Mike. I had similiar thoughts. I consider the MFM to be more neutral than the Emerald series. I really like the Emerald for jazz. The mid range is superb. I remember the Modus, with the tweeter pod on top. My Emerald 97 are the Mark IV version. I know the tweeter is different than the Mark III. I had some Emerald 99 towers for awhile. Big things. I don't remember any store selling the 99 at all except for UBID. All of my Wharfedales are made in Chna, but are built pretty well built. I even powered a set of the 97s in a small room with a T-Amp to OK volumes. Stunning sound.

I just checked my MFM-7. I can read the back of one of the woofers thru the rear bass port. It says Yorkshire, England 10 99. Looks like I got some British drivers. :thmbsp:

That seems about right. From 2000 (after the MFM's had been discontinued)on, the loudspeakers were largely made in China, but the drivers were still made in the UK by Wharfedale. The exception was the Opal range, which used drivers by York.

Earlier Emeralds, Sapphires, and all of the Diamond 7 range were made in Britain. I think the first range to have cabinets and final assembly outsourced to China was the Valdus range. They were, country of origin notwithstanding, of generally lesser quality than the upper shelf items, but they were one of the best sellers at the shop I worked at.

Where the speakers are made now, I do not know. I would like to get my hands on a pair of Opus 3's, though. And the Airedale Heritage and Neo look interesting too.

My Emeralds say made in China. I spoke with IAG some back then, at that time Amazon sold the Emerald line, like the 97 was around 600.00, versus the 200.00 delivered I paid for my last 2 pairs at UBID. I wanted to find out if they were the exact same speaker. They said yes. I seem to recall him mentioning they had built a huge factory there, and were making every part of the 97 in China. Still an excellent performer. Not big bass, as can be expected with a 6 inch driver, but really shines with jazz, acoustics, etc. Almost not worth selling any of the Wharfedale line. You get next to nothing on the Emeralds and even less on the MFM lately. No one knows what they are. I can't recall any reviews at all on the Emeralds on line, other than some user reviews. Found one review in a British mag on the MFM-5. They liked it. Mentioned the price at around $600.00. I paid 175.00 for the MFM-5 and around 280.00 for the MFM-7 when Ubid had them on clearance. Do you remember the Emerald 99?

Thanks

My original (series 1) Emeralds were British made, though the series II units were made in China (using British drivers; in particular I know they used the 0320H dome tweeter, which was shared with the Diamond 7.2ALE). What they did after that, I do not know. The Emerald range initially consisted of 4 models: The Emerald 93, the 95, the 97, and the Emerald Centre. $200 for a pair of 97's is remarkable, as the MSRP was $1,999/pr and our invoice cost was $1,785/pr (according to my old price list, which I still have). We usually sold them discounted for $1,900/pr. The "cheap" Emerald was the Emerald Center at $599/ea, and the Emerald 93 was $999/pr. The 99 was not introduced until after I left the shop in 2001, but from what I understand it was more or less a modified EM97.

I should look at comparing a later Ubid EM97 to the original version and see what differences there are.

I have a PDF of the Emerald line. Has the older style tweeter in the PDF, so maybe a Mark III.
What surprised me was the veneer. As you know, they matched the grain on both speakers, and shipped the pair with the same serial number. Nice quality veneer, better looking than most speakers I saw around town. I got many pairs of the Emerald 97 a few years ago from Ubid. Sold them all to friends and family, all at my cost. I kept the last 2 pair. The Emerald 99 had 8 inch drivers if I recall correctly. Some complained the midrange was not as good on the 99 because of the larger driver. I could never tell the difference except for better bass in the 99. My sister now has my 99s.

I just found a spare tweeter I have for the 97. It's marked Cambridge England,
08 2001
0325H

Intriguing. I'm willing to bet your bass drivers are also British made then too. I should also mention that aside from Valdus tweeters, all the replacement drivers I have ordered from IAG America have been British as well, though all are dated from 1997-2001.

All of this talk of the Emerald range has get mewanting to go and get my EM95's out of storage.

Oh yeah, the 95. Almost forgot about those. Those were the first Emeralds I got from UBID. 157.00 delivered. Mark III version. Can you believe it? I was amazed when I got them. Nice matched maple veneer. Great speakers. Not as much bass as the 97, as to be expected. Midrange is excellent. Sold those to my other sister. She has the 95 as her PC speakers with a T-amp powering them. I turned her on to the T-amp. She also has a set of the 97, with the earlier tweeter. She's happy.

Just joined the forum and loved your write up M Jarve. A few points to bring up in this post:

1. I also have a pair of the Sapphire 89's, the "True Blue" edition. I noticed you mentioned the drivers were different and you referenced the different model numbers. My question is this, do the drivers differ in any way except for the cone design? Just trying to figure out if there are differences in sound between the differnt SP-89's.

2. I also have a pair of the Modus one-sixes. I have a lot more ear time with the one-sixes than I do with the SP-89's, but I seem to favor the one-sixes over the Sapphires. The modus' seem a bit more relaxed and not quite as bright as the sapphires do. I bought the SP-89s about a year ago and haven't purchased a power source for them yet which is the reason for the limited ear time with them, but every now and then I hook them up to my current receiver just to give them a listen. Do you have any experience with the Modus line? What was your take?

3. Would either the one-sixes or the SP-89s benefit from a more high end receiver? I'm currently in the market for another receiver so that I can have the SP-89s permanently hooked up and not just a decoration in my living room. I have considered the Marantz SR 8002, but haven't committed to anything yet because I'm just not sure that the speakers will benefit from such a high end unit or sound any better with a $2000 unit vs. a $500 unit. Each set of speakers was around $200 for the pair, afterall.


Thanks for your input.

In order:

The TrueBlue woofers have a little higher Fs and do not have the copper shorting rings- They're essentially Zaldek woofers, and so they're also a little more efficient.

I prefer the Modus Music 1.6 by a good margin for most listening. They're certainly more refined. The SP-89 is better for higher-energy rock music.

The 89's certainly benefit from the best power you can provide them. Marantz makes a good receiver. Also look to harman/kardon, and Pioneer Elite series. Denon is good as well. Basically, the heavier, the better.

M Jarve said:

In order:

The TrueBlue woofers have a little higher Fs and do not have the copper shorting rings- They're essentially Zaldek woofers, and so they're also a little more efficient.

I prefer the Modus Music 1.6 by a good margin for most listening. They're certainly more refined. The SP-89 is better for higher-energy rock music.

The 89's certainly benefit from the best power you can provide them. Marantz makes a good receiver. Also look to harman/kardon, and Pioneer Elite series. Denon is good as well. Basically, the heavier, the better.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick response. I have also thought about H/K and Pioneer Elite receivers, but keep leaning towards the Marantz as many many people seem say that they are one of the top brands for SQ, which is what I'm after first, features like ipod docks, internet connections and the sort I really don't care about.

I've certainly have heard the phrase "the heavier, the better" before. Which is one of the reasons I'm still up in the air. The marantz unit weighs in at 33lbs, the comparable elite and H/K units weigh in at nearly 50lbs. Big difference there. I know the only way to really tell is to audition the 3 and just get the one I like best and will do so when I find the time. Haven't really thought about Denon, even though they are Marantz's cousin?

Denon = Marantz, for the time being, anyways. They even share many of the same stylistic cues.

However, when it comes to HT, Denon may have the edge. On the top end, the AVR-5803 is currently the bees-knees for over the top HT recievers. From what I've seen, Marantz's HT offerings of late take second fiddle to Denon. When you go to 2-channel, on the other hand, the situation does a 180.

Nice write up but imo I think you may have given the Sapphire 89's a lower "grade" than what I would have. I think they produce an amazing sound. I picked a pair up for $50 and the sound was just incredible, they seem to just completely envelope you in sound even though they are in a different room. I even have these hooked up to an old 70's Pioneer SX-1250 which is 160wpc. I am currently in the process of replacing the woofer drivers as 2 of them seem to have separated at the spider which is giving a "pop" sound at higher volumes and we have no repair techs in the area or even remotely close. So I'm just looking for replacement drivers instead and contacted Wharfedale USA and waiting to hear from them. But in all fairness, these Wharfedales blow my HPM 100s, Bozak CS-501as and Pioneer CS-63DXs out of the water sound wise, not power wise but sound wise they are tops. I'm thinking I'm gonna keep them and sell one of the other mentioned pair because of the sound they produce and the enjoyment I get out of listening to them. Thanks for the write up even though it is old.

Hopeou you can repair those do you have the drivers out?

A bit of drift here but it may be a good source of help. I bought a pair of Wharfedale Speakers in the mid 80s but can't seem to find any info on them. I can't find photos and I can't remember the models. They came out about the same time as the original Diamonds, probably around 1984 or so. If my memory serves me correctly round piezo Horn Tweeter, 6.5 mid and 10" woofer in a mid sized cabinet. Didn't quite look like the E-Series but had the metallic trim on some of the drivers. They were very efficient and brash sounding. Still regret selling them. Any of you Wharfedale experts have a clue?