Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[Rock Rabbit]

ASR has influence in the industry and you have the power to hurt or help companies.

But not to work for free!
The issue was detected at frequency swept, it is shown on THD graph, at subjective test was triggered by vocals at D5 range (ringing midrange cone distortion (?)) and compensated by EQ at 585 Hz -20 dB Q=11
So the subjective approach was fully backed by objective actions!
Left extra details to have fun in the thread, like finding DC issues on the test track.
Hope Amir could test another "pair"
P.S.: "only" problem with EQ correction is muted vocal range (C5-E5)...that's unacceptable ;-)

 

[BYRTT]

Almost a year later the IN-8 review still shows a headless panther. Not a good example of a model to follow in my book.

Try understand panther is not representing what objective data IN-8 could perform, what panther means is Amir's out of box experience and why should he use days or weeks of administration on something that should have been half a day or so, think manufacture's is responsible broken designs or broken products never reach out in consumer channel and in that regard its okay Amir use headless panther also because think about if this particular sample be it IN-8 or Uni-Fi 2.0 was sold to some avarage joe he/she had probably lived with it forever without notice anything.

Good enough for both Kali IN-8 and Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Amir has reached out and informed producer about case so they have their chance to be heard, but probably their feedback if any wont change much on panther out of box experience, think its a bit weird that Amir has to cross fingers for each acoustic review that unit perform as well as possible in objective data to keep units fanboys happy and that the unit sample is not a broken design or broken unit to protect himself for days work of administration.

 

[hardisj]

It is very easy to underestimate the effects of small changes, especially with the "averaged or weighted" aggregate curves such as ER, SP,....
In the animated gif you can easily see that the Uni-fi loudspeaker has a lower sound level in the ER bass range and a significantly higher ER sound level in the range 3.5-10kHz (if we take the ER sound level around 3kHz as a basis).
View attachment 105305
So I would not completely dismiss the statement out of hand.



The Spinorama can be used very well for the rough tonal classification of a loudspeaker.
Also, when it comes to identifying the causes of sound impressions in loudspeakers, a look at the spinorama is often sufficient (emphasized bass, excessive treble reproduction,...).

Agree with you however when it comes to details in loudspeaker reproduction or fine tuning when developing a loudspeaker. There I need the horizontal and vertical frequency response measurements of the loudspeaker (and of the individual drivers) to be able to explain tonal details.
.

Yea, but my point was more about the inadequacies of a subjective evaluation simply saying "detail" or "highs" without providing a frequency range. Broad terms to describe multiple octaves are not very helpful to the end user and when you look at the data between the two sets, I still maintain, the two do not coalesce. In the case of someone like Mr. Guttenberg - a person who notes his vast years of experience providing subjective feedback - it should be no issue to quantify bandpass regions such as "highs" to a particular frequency or within a 1/3-octave. And, yet, there is no such mention. It's just "detail" or "highs". That's not very useful. Besides this, though, the data shows more similarities than differences above 1kHz (looking at both ER as well as overall SP as well as the predicted response curves (ignore Amir's slope; they are not consistent; look instead of the PIR result)). Therein lies my issue with all these broad-stroke subjective evaluations. This is an example of why said subjective opinions are just... opinions... no matter how much experience the evaluator provides on his resume. It would be nice if the terms were somehow more descriptive... at least that would strike more of a balance between subjective and objective and would help the end goal of determining how we can use measurements to make educated decisions on a product before we plop down a lot of money on something that might not match our subjective tastes.

/

 

[JohnBooty]

But not to work for free!

I did not suggest he perform extra effort for free.

(I agree that would be a very entitled suggestion)

I suggested he refrain from a final verdict when there are open questions such as these. He could shelve a review, or post it sans verdict and ask others if they can duplicate the issue.

Well... I guess I did suggest he give the other speaker a listen if he had it available. Technically that is extra work. But plugging in a second compact bookshelf speaker doesn't seem like more than a few minute's work to me.

 

[Rock Rabbit]

I did not suggest he perform extra effort for free.

(I agree that would be a very entitled suggestion)

I suggested he refrain from a final verdict when there are open questions such as these. He could shelve a review, or post it sans verdict and ask others if they can duplicate the issue.

Well... I guess I did suggest he give the other speaker a listen if he had it available. Technically that is extra work. But plugging in a second compact bookshelf speaker doesn't seem like more than a few minute's work to me.

Someone here test same speaker...but seems not at same loudness. That's a problem, we don't know dB SPL and distance at subjective test (was far field) the speaker can put 104 dB SPL peak (140 watts peak, 85 dB sensitivity) and music range is some 14 dB so I assume the speaker was tested at most at 90 dB SPL (1 meter ref), ...and the issue must be ratified with other music.
For BS U5 model review distortion at xover was the main problem, but you can see same resonance hint at 500 Hz

Then it seems a non solved coax driver problem

 

[Beershaun]

I did not suggest he perform extra effort for free.

(I agree that would be a very entitled suggestion)

I suggested he refrain from a final verdict when there are open questions such as these. He could shelve a review, or post it sans verdict and ask others if they can duplicate the issue.

Well... I guess I did suggest he give the other speaker a listen if he had it available. Technically that is extra work. But plugging in a second compact bookshelf speaker doesn't seem like more than a few minute's work to me.

I respectfully disagree. I think his role is to review and assess what he is given and evaluate it's merits and limitations. He then goes a step further providing more value for the community by optimizing the system for the speaker by providing recommended EQ settings. That's a huge win for all of us.

It is explicitly not his role to root cause a defect and figure out a solution. That is the manufacturers role. Denon has shown what can happen when a manufacturer plays their role and engages to reproduce the defect and come up with a solution.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Good grief. Please tell me that you don't actually believe that a speaker can benefit from the ability of the amplifier to supply more current than the speaker is drawing. How would this be possible?

You have a vivid and somewhat cynical imagination.

The points I intended to make are:
1. The speakers had no bass with amp A at 60Wpc in a smaller room
2. The speakers performed better with receiver B at 90Wpc in a larger room at a similar listening distance, but were still unsatisfactory
3. Bringing out the big gun and removing power from the equation provided the best result in that larger room
5. I questioned why a $500 /pr speaker should require more power than receiver B could provide

 

[richard12511]

@amirm acknowledged in his conclusion that this could either be a broken design or an issue specific to the individual sample and invited confirmation from Elac which now has the opportunity to clear this up as Kali did with the IN-8:

Agreed. Hope Elac steps up and sends in another sample.

 

[SmackDaddies]

getting a little carried away here folks

Amir spends his own time and money to review speakers. He provides valuable information not readily available, and has a number of industry related people providing additional comment.

He is clear in his testing process.

Amir does not owe anyone. We are all free to participate or not, the same as Amir is free to do reviews in the way he believes to be correct.

 

[Juhazi]

Published Dec 17th...
https://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/elac-uni-fi-2.0

"But Uni-Fi 2.0 isn’t just a tweaked version of the original Uni-Fi; it’s a completely new design from the ground up, including all new custom-designed drivers. Perhaps that should be expected from a company that describes itself as “passionate about driving innovation and refining its existing products.” It’s certainly to be expected from Jones, who never seems to rest on his laurels for more than a few months. "

 

[JohnBooty]

I respectfully disagree. I think his role is to review and assess what he is given and evaluate it's merits and limitations. [...]
It is explicitly not his role to root cause a defect and figure out a solution. That is the manufacturers role. Denon has shown what can happen when a manufacturer plays their role and engages to reproduce the defect and come up with a solution.

You don't disagree, though.

Where did I say any of that?

I very explicitly said it's not his obligation to do extra work, or any work whatsoever, much less figure out the "root problem" of anything.

I said that shelving the review, or simply refraining from issuing a verdict, would also be completely appropriate actions. Those do not require additional work.

There are enough disagreements in the world. No need to invent more where they don't exist. Life's hard enough.

I've run an active online community in the past. I know what it's like to pour all my time into something like this and have fifty people asking for more no matter how hard I work. It is simply not in my DNA to feel entitlement towards Amir's time or suggest he does more than he already does.

 

[SmackDaddies]

The UniFi are rated for amplification from 40 to 140 wpc, with the 140 being the peak number. A couple of observations

If it needs more that 40 wpc to produce good sound, it deserves a broken head panther.
If it is being tested at more than 140 wpc (peak!), the test is invalid.

 

[981CS]

Nice experiments, @joentell !

I'm disappointed when @amirm reviews a product with an "intriuging" issue like this that *could* be a design flaw or *could* be something broken on one particular unit, doesn't investigate further, and gives the product a damning review.

I recognize the tremendous effort and expense that goes into ASR and the time that goes into each individual speaker review. ASR is a source for objective data and is therefore generally a force for good in this hobby/industry.

But when there's an issue like this ELAC issue I believe Amir should avoid rendering a verdict. Scrap the review entirely, or perhaps even just see if others can reproduce the issue. Or, in this case, simply listen to the other speaker and try to reproduce the issue.

Amir, you're your own boss. It's not like you're a content mill slave for C|Net and somebody's pressuring you to crank out 15 blog posts a day. I realize you do have a deadline of sorts (people wanting their speakers back) but I don't think anybody wins when this sort of thing happens. ASR has influence in the industry and you have the power to hurt or help companies.

Bolded part is what gets me. One would think that the folks at Elac have enough talent to sniff out such an obvious issue and that the problem might be with the unit itself and not necessarily the overall design. It happens. I've received a defective speaker before...probably anyone on here who has been buying them for a while has received a speaker that's had an issue at some point.

Personally, I have not been a huge fan of the Elac speaker voicing starting with the Debut 2.0. Regardless of that, they are still decent products for their pricepoints and such a fatal flaw should be investigated further because I highly doubt something like this would make it into the design.

So instead of rendering a final verdict, just make a thread and ask for feedback.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

The review clearly did not render a final verdict. "For now" indicates the final verdict is pending further input:

For now, I can not recommend the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0.

 

[981CS]

The review clearly did not render a final verdict. "For now" indicates the final verdict is pending further input:

Yet we have his signature Pink Panther saying otherwise and the title of this very thread is "Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Review (bookshelf speaker)"

Given how this thread went down, if I were a manufacturer I'd be a bit afraid for my product out of fear that a review would get published based on one speaker that might or might not be defective and/or damaged by the purchaser or shipping company.

Remember that criticism is the backbone of the scientific method. Something something sample size...

 

[amirm]

Remember that criticism is the backbone of the scientific method. Something something sample size...

I am not here to deal with sample size issue, how long the paint lasts, what functionality a device has, etc. I have but one role: a member has an piece of audio device and is curious how it performs. I get the unit and subject it to the same objective and subjective tests. There are results and conclusions that I draw based on my experience and expectations. That is the end of it.

As an industry, the audio companies have NOT embraced what we do. Even companies like Harman have been totally non-responsive despite my decade long personal and professional relationships with them. As I mentioned, I know Andrew as well but my prior attempts to get him to engage have not worked even though he is actually a member here (joined long time ago).

The accusation of a device being broken is extremely common in my review comments when I give a strong thumbs down. They are however just conjecture and often by people who don't even know how to diagnose such problems, let alone be right. If a device is broken to my knowledge, then I will provide that feedback to you all and to the company if they sent me product. In no way do I post a review and hide such information. Indeed there have been good number of instances where I had to fix equipment to test them, or did not publish a review because the product did not work.

In this case, the sample unit is in impeccable condition with no sign of damage. Given the volume sensitivity and resonances in a coaxial driver, it sounds and smells like a deign problem to me. Could it be a broken sample? It could and I noted that in the review. But in my judgement, it is not.

Still, I tried to get access to the second unit but the timing and logistics did not allow it. I asked Joe to send me his sample, and he is refusing. So far, Andrew has not engaged either even though we are told he should know about the review by now. He has my email address if he wants to reach me in private.

There is a suggestion that I sit on this review. What would I be waiting for? I did half a day's worth of work and you want me to flush that in the toilet on a hunch for a follow up from the company that may never come? How about all the people who will continue to buy this product and soon go out of their return period should this be a design fault? You rather have sympathy for the manufacturer than consumers?

Ultimately my mission and role is simple: I am here to test what you send me. If a company wants to have the privilege you all speak of, then they should send me the gear, not a member. Indeed in those cases when I find issues, I will bring it to their attention and get their feedback. To the extend the industry is not engaging with us, that is the end of the road. I am sure Elac seeded the youtubers and other reviewers with this speaker but we were not contacted. So that is that. And here we are.

It is not a perfect situation but there is so much I and membership can do on our dime. Put your pressure on the company for not responding. Or step up and buy a pair to send me. Don't make it my problem to deal with your doubts. I am not trying to solve for world peace here for heaven's sake.....

 

[amirm]

And once more: testing a piece of audio is NOT a scientific endeavor. It is simple test/QA/QC. It should be done by the companies but it is not so we have to do it. There is no attempt to discover anything scientific as to then be subject to some kind of process. So please don't throw these arguments at me about "scientific process." There is no research grant here, free grad students to do a bunch of work, fame and fortune from publishing papers, etc. I am like a local mechanic you hire to look over a used car for you. If he says something may be wrong with the engine, are you going to say the "scientific method" calls for questioning what he says and that he needs to contact Ford to see if they agree with him???

So dispense with debating tactics please. I have enough to do than to deal with these things.

 

[sweetchaos]

After 15 pages of discussion, is there no one who purchased these speakers, and is willing to ship to Amir?
That's surprising...

 

[Creeky]

I have debated whether to comment. I certainly did not read 15 pages of comments. smile. warning: subjective experience follows mixed with mild objective measurement.

System: Uni-fi 2 speakers. SMSL M300 dac/preamp. Chinese Icepower 125. Amazon HD streaming from win10 PC; Set to HD only.

I bought the speakers just before xmas. I was surprised when out of the box I heard this weird sound. Like the music suddenly sounded like a tin can being struck. The first time I heard it was when some horns started playing. The second time I heard it was an Ella Fitzgerald recording. She starts singing low and as her voice climbs suddenly TIN CAN.

I thought it was my amp. Both the amp (very clean build with Nsomthing caps btw) and the speakers were new.

Objective note: To play the speakers I was setting the power level typically between 24 and 32 on the M300. Love that remote.
I have to say the sound was great. My girlfriend and I listen to mostly folk and sort of light rock and Jazz. Think Joni Mitchell.

And while, subjectively I heard a compressed sort of sound when lots of instruments were playing. Voices were forward and well articulated.

Objective: So "breaking in" the amp and speakers when we left the house I would turn the M300 to 34-35 or so and leave everything blaring.

After around 30-40 hours of music playing and maybe the third time I had left the speakers playing at high volume I subjectively notice
a) the sound was getting clearer
b) I didn't seem to hear the tin can sound as often
But mostly
c) I couldn't play the speakers at 32 anymore. They were far too loud. In fact our early average 24-32 has become 12 - 22.

I don't know if this helps explain the resonance. Could it be the speakers need an extensive break in?

All I can say is I still feel some frequencies (today a male vocalist sounded like he had a metal edged voice) still bug me. But the fact that I no longer play the speakers at 28 but usually more around 18. Up to 22-24 if its just a guitar and I really want that "I'm next to the guitar" feeling. It's weird but ...

I wish I hadn't read this review. smile. Now I sit there waiting for the tin can. Had a busy day today. Came home and enjoyed a half hour of Ella and various others. Sounded great. Do still find bass lines* a bit muted. That may be because my speakers are mounted on top of kitchen cabinets upside down. Until I can get the living room cleaned up.

* thinking a subwoofer will help

 

[abdo123]

And once more: testing a piece of audio is NOT a scientific endeavor. It is simple test/QA/QC. It should be done by the companies but it is not so we have to do it. There is no attempt to discover anything scientific as to then be subject to some kind of process. So please don't throw these arguments at me about "scientific process." There is no research grant here, free grad students to do a bunch of work, fame and fortune from publishing papers, etc. I am like a local mechanic you hire to look over a used car for you. If he says something may be wrong with the engine, are you going to say the "scientific method" calls for questioning what he says and that he needs to contact Ford to see if they agree with him???

So dispense with debating tactics please. I have enough to do than to deal with these things.

I think people are ... disgruntled because for the first time you're making a judgement that the design is broken, rather than just showing us what is wrong like it always has been.

you always brand your reviews as objective as possible, yet you never used such a term with speakers with worse or similar offenses.

The more personal the review is, the more this sort of backlash will happen. It doesn't matter whether what you think is true or not, it's just how the internet works. So take a deep breath and just move on.