On the one hand, if your aim is to (a) get a working sub and (b) improve a bit over the Tannoy SFX then either package above will do that. Like
@hornetstinger though, I have reservations about the Q Acoustics sub.
IMO the intent of it is obvious. The QA designers were given a challenge of coming up with something 'wife friendly', or at least a more acceptable choice than a big cube. So they made something that could be hidden behind the sofa. In the process they had to make a lot of compromises. Sound quality and performance were secondary considerations to aesthetics. They made it tall and slim so it could be hidden away. There was only space for a 6.5" driver on the side face, so they put two in hoping that purchasers would be fooled by the argument that the combined surface area of twin drivers would somehow magically equal one bigger unit. It doesn't. My bet is that no one buys this as a standalone sub for its performance. Although a bit more money, I think that of the two packages that the Wharfedale is the better option.
That's not the end of the story though.
Package deals have an appeal on a few levels. The principle benefit is for the manufacturer - they sell more product and so keep out competitor brands from dealers. For the dealer it's an easier sell because customers hate making decisions. From the consumers point of view, a package should represent better value than buying individually, so lets have a look at that.
I've used AV.com and Richers for pricing and compared individual item costs versus the package prices to see how much is saved. With the Q Acoustics the saving is just £17. On the Wharfedale it's even less. It's just £7.
The other consumer argument to justify packages is what you said "
It's all designed to work together." That's true of the centre and front pair. Getting those to match for tone is really very important. It's less important for the surrounds, and it has absolutely no relevance when it comes to subs. If it did, then all the companies that started out making standalone sub ranges wouldn't have survived their first year or so of trading. No one would have bought their products. Companies such as REL, MJ Acoustics, BK, SVS, Cerwin Vega, HSU Research, Sunfire and Velodyne would have all gone bust.
You might not be familiar with all those brand names, but the fact that they're some of the best-in-class product brands says to me (
and should say to you) that subs don't need to be from the same manufacturer as your main speakers. In fact, I'd go further than that and say quite categorically that there's a very strong case for avoiding package subwoofers because there's almost always a third party product that does bass better.
So where's this heading?...
Given that either package isn't saving you much compared to buying the speakers individually; and knowing that matching the sub to the main speakers for tone isn't important in any way; and that better subs dig deeper and hit harder; and that you're likely to keep a third party sub after upgrading the main speakers two or three times so you don't lose money.... then other than "they're cheap" is there any real justification for buying either the Wharfedale or Q Acoustics sub?
Let's look at how you'd set up a package sub:
Park it in position. Wire it up. Run the amps auto set-up wizard.
Now let's look at how you'd set up a 3rd party sub:
Park it in position. Wire it up. Run the amps auto set-up wizard.
So it's the same. There's no difference.
Oh, my apologies, there is a justification; the warranty. Okay, so let's look at the warranty.
You get a 5-year or a 6-year warranty thrown in by the retailer depending on who you buy from.
You had your Tannoy speakers for, what, ten years before the sub went bump? How would a 5 or 6-year warranty helped you with that?
Warranties are good on products that are known to be unreliable and likely to fail within a few years. Ordinary loudspeakers don't fail unless they're abused which wouldn't be covered under a warranty anyway. Sub failures aren't unknown, but usually it's well past any warranty period. Dealers throwing in a free warranty are canny. They've done the maths. They'll know the risks and so offer the warranty on the basis that it will generate far more in sales and profits than it costs them in claims. They're betting on a sure thing with speakers and subs. The exception is TVs. But any company offering TV warranties that aren't insurance underwritten will have such a strong relationship with the TV manufacturer that they get favourable terms anyway. I know this because I used to supply AV product to several of the big name AV retail companies for a well known manufacturer.
The bottom line here is that the retailer's warranty costs them very little, and it gives you a warm and cuddly feeling, but the chances of you actually needing it are slim to none. It's a marketing tool.
