• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Review (bookshelf speaker)

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,454
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
If photographs and video clips of the speaker measurement setup/room/etc that went into generating these graphs were posted, it would add more credibility to this review.....Otherwise, credibility is a li'l lacking....It is hard to assume that every dude out there with a Klippel these days knows how to use it.....
Can i ask what is the problem here is it curves didn't look as good like expected and in acordance to curves from other sources, as i see and get it it is so that in Amir use new technology Klippel scanner that rolls over most anechoic chambers in resolution he publish that high acoustic resolution without interpollation before published and natural in his measurement is often based on more than 1000 points in space all around the DUT then curves will look more ugly than we used to not to speak of DUT is most often product from sales channel so not a golden sample plus Amir is a independant 3rd party, now what other anechoic chamber or gated pro/ameteur solution is based being up to 1000 points all around the DUT plus resolution in low end is higher than most anechoic chambers and also output is 100% anechoic without any boundary controverse many anechoic chambers actual use grond plane to relotute low end best possible but realize that in grond plane method one plane for DUT is not in free air but blocked and influenced by 1 time physical boundary, Amir's Klippel scanner is physical situated into Amir's garage and as understood from other threads that situation was approved with Klippel company in the past before any purchase and photographs or video clips wont help reveal how Klippel scanner really do its magic.

Hope above helps a bit in credibility else suggest use graphs of other sites or from manufacture if you cant stand the relative high resolution published here :)..
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,403
Surprisingly, KEF centers are not 3-way until you get to the R3 (actually the R2c) which is something like 3x the price of a Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 and I am curious about what benefits in sound quality that I would receive for the extra $ (admittedly the KEF has an aesthetic advantage).

FYI, the Q250C and Q650C are each about half the price of the R2C.
 

eyeCalypso

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
1
Likes
0
Hopefully there's more added to this story. I'd love to see it resolved, Mr. Jones say his findings one way or another, and our host receiving another sample of this speaker to test and issue results of.
 

boselover61

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
302
Likes
310
Hopefully there's more added to this story. I'd love to see it resolved, Mr. Jones say his findings one way or another, and our host receiving another sample of this speaker to test and issue results of.
Sadly this is probably the end of it. If any findings were done the results would be posted by now. Dont hold your breath or anything
 

Livnmuskoka

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
79
Likes
65
I have the Debut Reference DBR-62's and really like them, almost as much as previous speakers that were up to 6x more expensive.
As much as I like the DBR-62's I was wondering if I was missing out on something by not getting the UB52's.
I thought the UB5's were very good for the price, but not good enough to keep them.
Looks like any improvements with the Uni-Fi 2.0 come with some flaws.
The 3 things I value most are tonality, clarity, and having reasonably accurate response, so it looks like I made the best choice.
 

palmoyas

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
20
Likes
13
Any thoughts on the best toe-in angle for these UB52 bookshelf speakers? Directly at listening position? Just outside? None?

Also, I tried to recreate the anomaly noted in the review with the speakers right out of the box, at many different volumes, with the track on Amazon HD, and was unable to reproduce it.
 

Livnmuskoka

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
79
Likes
65
Any thoughts on the best toe-in angle for these UB52 bookshelf speakers? Directly at listening position? Just outside? None?

Also, I tried to recreate the anomaly noted in the review with the speakers right out of the box, at many different volumes, with the track on Amazon HD, and was unable to reproduce it.

The best toe-in angle is the angle that sounds the best to you.
 

palmoyas

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
20
Likes
13
The best toe-in angle is the angle that sounds the best to you.

Yeah...I'm interested in what others have found to be most accurate.

I did find this from Andrew Jones on the Facebook Elac Speaker Owners group, so probably enough said:

AJ Toe In.JPG
 
Last edited:

danielkt

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2020
Messages
13
Likes
3
Any update on this issue?

About production & measurement, just got this and they said also use "ear".
I hope also they use statistics to measure defect, because I think not only production but also about delivery, packaging, storage and etc.. . before receive by customer

 

Feyire

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2019
Messages
272
Likes
314
Location
Netherlands
Yeah...I'm interested in what others have found to be most accurate.

I did find this from Andrew Jones on the Facebook Elac Speaker Owners group, so probably enough said:

View attachment 113157

I find this very interesting, as it differs from the instructions found in the manual of my speakers, which also have a concentric arrangement of the tweeter and midrange. Note how the toe-in suggests that the concentric drives point directly at the listener, thus axis crosses at the head, not behind it as Andrew suggests in that post. Looks like I'll have to experiment with my toe-in position again o_O. @AndrewJ , care to comment :)?

image_2021-03-01_112519.png
 

palmoyas

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
20
Likes
13
I find this very interesting, as it differs from the instructions found in the manual of my speakers, which also have a concentric arrangement of the tweeter and midrange. Note how the toe-in suggests that the concentric drives point directly at the listener, thus axis crosses at the head, not behind it as Andrew suggests in that post. Looks like I'll have to experiment with my toe-in position again o_O. @AndrewJ , care to comment :)?

View attachment 115615
I saw that the other day too, once I finally decided to read the manual. Definitely an inconsistency between what Andrew says and his manual. Perhaps the manual is just a general guideline, and we are meant to tweak as necessary?

Thanks for sharing!
 
Last edited:

AndrewJ

Member
Technical Expert
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
5
Likes
215
OK, it's taken a while, but here are my findings.
I sent them to Amir directly a week or so ago so he could take a look, and now I'm haring them with the group directly.
I had to wait to get the sample Amir had tested, since he had already returned it to the original owner. I contacted that owner to arrange to have it shipped to me , along with the other of the pair, once he received it. Since Amir had not noted the serial number I made sure the owner marked which one was the sample that was returned from Amir.
I also asked that he give it another listen to compare to the retained speaker, in light of Amir's findings
His response was that maybe, just maybe he heard something different, but wasn't totally sure that it wasn't just bias from knowing Amirs findings.

I have now studied the speaker samples; the one you tested, the other sample from the customer, and a number of samples I had in my lab.

These are my findings.

1/ The sample you tested has a trim ring that is slightly raised in a few places. This lifted it in such a way that it could potentially vibrate.
2/ It’s pair showed no such signs. The trim ring was properly seated.
3/ In my initial listening and testing sessions, I found no evidence of vibration (Rattling) during standard sweep testing or odd noises while listening to the test track you identified. These tests were done at normal test level and listening level.

In light of your comments about listening at high levels, and using an extremely powerful amplifier, I brought out an amplifier rated at 300W into the impedance of the speaker at the frequency in question.
I first listened with the test track and adjusted the level to just reach clipping point during that track segment. I could not hear the noise. I then raised the gain to push the amplifier into severe clipping, to the point that on the loudest vocals the voice was heavily modulated and distorted due to clipping. I could still not detect the noise you described. Nor could my colleague.

I then went to do sweep testing from an oscillator to try and zero in on that frequency range. At normal sweep testing levels I could not detect any odd noise.

However, if I increased the level to just below clipping on this test amplifier, in this case at 80W/5 ohms, I now heard a very noticeable rattle/vibration.
It was a little more obvious on the sample with the raised trim ring, but was still evident on the pair sample.

After a short while I went to push on the midrange cone to see if it might be rubbing on a potentially off-center tweeter, but was surprised that the midrange cone was very hot. The midrange driver has a voice coil wound on an aluminum former bonded to an aluminum cone. This gives quite a good heat transfer from coil to cone.
I let it cool down, and repeated the experiment. Same result. In just a matter of 10-15 seconds the cone became very hot.
This is a lot of power being dissipated in the driver. On music I have never noticed that cone getting warm, despite playing at loud levels even in show conditions.

Once I backed down the level a few dB, the vibration noise went away.

It seems that the vibration happens at high level. But this level is way beyond the rated power level of this speaker. Let me explain how we do our power testing and how it relates to the power contained in music rather than sine waves.

When we establish power rating on a speaker, we test with IEC noise (pink noise filtered to a limited bandwidth to represent a music spectrum, with a crest factor of 6dB) . Let’s say that we want to test for a Max power of 100W. We adjust the long term average power to 25W (6dB crest factor) equivalent to a 100W amplifier just at clipping. We then run the speaker for 96 hours at this level. This is severe. Over such a long period the speaker gets very hot, the drivers being much too hot to touch. After cooling down, we retest the speaker. It must pass the standard test limits we put on a production speaker.
We then increase the level to 33W and run for a further 24 hours. it must survive and shift its specs just moderately. After that we turn up the level to destruction point. The speaker must not catch fire.

This is a very severe overall test. Much more severe than regular music represents, and much more severe than the AES/IEC long term power handling test spec.

In the case of the UNIFI, the max power rating is 140W. The testing we do allows for up to 25 or 33W of continuous power. In testing this sample I had to put in 2-3 times that continuous power level, centered at the frequency of the issue, to excite the noise, and on music I tested at 2 times the max power level and just below clipping level of the amplifier and heard nothing. Even when running into gross clipping I only heard the effect of gross clipping of the amplifier

It seems that the level you were testing at was far in excess of the max power rating of the speaker. This could account for the comments from other listeners that have not heard the sound.

I will put the speaker back together, and get it, or a fresh sample, returned to you to continue your evaluation. I will also track down the rattle that I did hear when the speaker was grossly overdriven and report back.

Regards

Andrew Jones
ELAC
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
944
Location
USA
OK, it's taken a while, but here are my findings.
I sent them to Amir directly a week or so ago so he could take a look, and now I'm haring them with the group directly.
I had to wait to get the sample Amir had tested, since he had already returned it to the original owner. I contacted that owner to arrange to have it shipped to me , along with the other of the pair, once he received it. Since Amir had not noted the serial number I made sure the owner marked which one was the sample that was returned from Amir.
I also asked that he give it another listen to compare to the retained speaker, in light of Amir's findings
His response was that maybe, just maybe he heard something different, but wasn't totally sure that it wasn't just bias from knowing Amirs findings.

I have now studied the speaker samples; the one you tested, the other sample from the customer, and a number of samples I had in my lab.

These are my findings.

1/ The sample you tested has a trim ring that is slightly raised in a few places. This lifted it in such a way that it could potentially vibrate.
2/ It’s pair showed no such signs. The trim ring was properly seated.
3/ In my initial listening and testing sessions, I found no evidence of vibration (Rattling) during standard sweep testing or odd noises while listening to the test track you identified. These tests were done at normal test level and listening level.

In light of your comments about listening at high levels, and using an extremely powerful amplifier, I brought out an amplifier rated at 300W into the impedance of the speaker at the frequency in question.
I first listened with the test track and adjusted the level to just reach clipping point during that track segment. I could not hear the noise. I then raised the gain to push the amplifier into severe clipping, to the point that on the loudest vocals the voice was heavily modulated and distorted due to clipping. I could still not detect the noise you described. Nor could my colleague.

I then went to do sweep testing from an oscillator to try and zero in on that frequency range. At normal sweep testing levels I could not detect any odd noise.

However, if I increased the level to just below clipping on this test amplifier, in this case at 80W/5 ohms, I now heard a very noticeable rattle/vibration.
It was a little more obvious on the sample with the raised trim ring, but was still evident on the pair sample.

After a short while I went to push on the midrange cone to see if it might be rubbing on a potentially off-center tweeter, but was surprised that the midrange cone was very hot. The midrange driver has a voice coil wound on an aluminum former bonded to an aluminum cone. This gives quite a good heat transfer from coil to cone.
I let it cool down, and repeated the experiment. Same result. In just a matter of 10-15 seconds the cone became very hot.
This is a lot of power being dissipated in the driver. On music I have never noticed that cone getting warm, despite playing at loud levels even in show conditions.

Once I backed down the level a few dB, the vibration noise went away.

It seems that the vibration happens at high level. But this level is way beyond the rated power level of this speaker. Let me explain how we do our power testing and how it relates to the power contained in music rather than sine waves.

When we establish power rating on a speaker, we test with IEC noise (pink noise filtered to a limited bandwidth to represent a music spectrum, with a crest factor of 6dB) . Let’s say that we want to test for a Max power of 100W. We adjust the long term average power to 25W (6dB crest factor) equivalent to a 100W amplifier just at clipping. We then run the speaker for 96 hours at this level. This is severe. Over such a long period the speaker gets very hot, the drivers being much too hot to touch. After cooling down, we retest the speaker. It must pass the standard test limits we put on a production speaker.
We then increase the level to 33W and run for a further 24 hours. it must survive and shift its specs just moderately. After that we turn up the level to destruction point. The speaker must not catch fire.

This is a very severe overall test. Much more severe than regular music represents, and much more severe than the AES/IEC long term power handling test spec.

In the case of the UNIFI, the max power rating is 140W. The testing we do allows for up to 25 or 33W of continuous power. In testing this sample I had to put in 2-3 times that continuous power level, centered at the frequency of the issue, to excite the noise, and on music I tested at 2 times the max power level and just below clipping level of the amplifier and heard nothing. Even when running into gross clipping I only heard the effect of gross clipping of the amplifier

It seems that the level you were testing at was far in excess of the max power rating of the speaker. This could account for the comments from other listeners that have not heard the sound.

I will put the speaker back together, and get it, or a fresh sample, returned to you to continue your evaluation. I will also track down the rattle that I did hear when the speaker was grossly overdriven and report back.

Regards

Andrew Jones
ELAC

Mr. Jones,

You earn the admiration and respect of everyone on this forum for your professionalism in handling this.

I would like to ask your thoughts about something. It became apparent that when Amir took the measurements and encountered what he encountered, the signal being fed to the speaker had a strong DC component, the obvious effect of which was to force the coil/diaphragm assembly to one extreme such that the midpoint of the normal rectilinear motion of the cone would be near that extreme and not at the normal rest position of the cone. As I've thought about this, it seems to me that it would be a great challenge to design a speaker to handle a situation of this sort. And I wonder whether, during testing, this type of signal would routinely be applied to the speaker to see what it does. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts about this.
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,310
Location
Midwest, USA
It seems that the level you were testing at was far in excess of the max power rating of the speaker. This could account for the comments from other listeners that have not heard the sound.

Amir's insane listening levels strike again. ;)
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,597
Likes
239,670
Location
Seattle Area
Amir's insane listening levels strike again. ;)
I can't hear you. Can you say that again??? :D

Thanks Andrew for posting your response here and investigation. Much appreciated. As we communicated, I am waiting to receive other samples to re-test here. Once there, we will have closed the loop on what may or may not have gone on here. It is a challenge with subjective testing to replicate things unlike disagreements on measurements.
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,310
Location
Midwest, USA
I mean he does the same testing for other speakers too. I dont see this same issue with say the jbl stage a130 thats priced at more than half the price. Maybe need better QA?

I don't think that its behavior under such gross overload is all that relevant.
 

ta240

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
1,421
Likes
2,848
I mean he does the same testing for other speakers too. I dont see this same issue with say the jbl stage a130 thats priced at more than half the price. Maybe need better QA?

Do we really need products designed to withstand testing rather than the use?

Is there some type of logo they can start putting on products if they are built to be able to run a sinewave through or high powered test tone for long periods? Personally, I'm not in favor of paying more for that feature.

It reminds me of the Sony receiver that died after forcing it to keep trying to play test tones at high power "I kept failing to get there at all frequencies with the amp shutting down or not getting to high enough distortion. Needing to play with the parameters a lot, " Keep in mind that this receiver has 3664 reviews on Amazon and 3334 of them are 4 star or better, meaning I don't think those people killed theirs playing test frequencies sweeps. So in the real world they aren't failing with music playing.
 
Last edited:

boselover61

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
302
Likes
310
Do we really need products designed to withstand testing rather than the use?

Is there some type of logo they can start putting on products if they are built to be able to run a sinewave through or high powered test tone for long periods? Personally, I'm not in favor of paying more for that feature.

It reminds me of the Sony receiver that died after forcing it to keep trying to play test tones at high power "I kept failing to get there at all frequencies with the amp shutting down or not getting to high enough distortion. Needing to play with the parameters a lot, " Keep in mind that this receiver has 3664 reviews on Amazon and 3334 of them are 4 star or better, meaning I don't think those people killed theirs playing test frequencies sweeps. So in the real world they aren't failing with music playing.
Sure. Why would i get a product thats worse built for practically triple the price?
 
Top Bottom