Elac Debut Reference DBR-62 Speaker Review

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Exactly. I mean the DBR62s measure really nicely - right up there with a bunch of much more expensive speakers, and even better than a bunch of other much more expensive speakers. Presumably those more expensive speakers use more expensive components and yet there the Elac's are. Could a mod make a difference in the sound of a speaker? Sure, probably. But if you measured the modded speaker you'd probably find the effect was nothing more than a couple dbs of boost at a couple of frequencies perhaps giving some impression of improved clarity or something - an effect that could totally be achieved by boosting those frequencies with an EQ if that's what you wanted. But why?

 

[Livnmuskoka]

Regardless of frequency response, many speakers have greater clarity or resolution than the DBR-62's.
Kef Reference 1's, Kharma Elegance S7's, Bryston Mini T's, just a few examples that I've owned or heard many times.
So is it the much better drivers and boxes only that are contributing with those speakers, or the premium crossover parts as well?
Or are the drivers and boxes of the DBR-62's not good enough to show any crossover upgrades?
Or has nobody else here heard any higher end speakers than DBR-62's to know what I'm talking about with greater clarity and resolution?
Not trying to being a smart ass, just wondering why it couldn't make a very small but positive difference, say even 5% better clarity?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'd want to see the measurements of the speakers you mention for one thing. For instance, looking at the measurements I can find of the Bryston Mini T's, they appear to have a fair bit of high frequency energy. Whenever I hear "clarity" in a subjective listening assessment, I pretty much assume there's something going on with the higher frequency response. That seems so often to be what it comes down to...

 

[richard12511]

I'd want to see the measurements of the speakers you mention for one thing. For instance, looking at the measurements I can find of the Bryston Mini T's, they appear to have a fair bit of high frequency energy. Whenever I hear "clarity" in a subjective listening assessment, I pretty much assume there's something going on with the higher frequency response. That seems so often to be what it comes down to...

I could see clarity being boosted treble, though we know the Reference 1 is almost perfect in terms of FR. Clarity (for me) also comes from a narrower dispersion pattern(higher ratio of direct/reflected sound), but it comes at the expense of spaciousness/envelopment. The KEF may have narrower dispersion.

 

[Livnmuskoka]

I'd want to see the measurements of the speakers you mention for one thing. For instance, looking at the measurements I can find of the Bryston Mini T's, they appear to have a fair bit of high frequency energy. Whenever I hear "clarity" in a subjective listening assessment, I pretty much assume there's something going on with the higher frequency response. That seems so often to be what it comes down to...

I'm not talking about just the highs, but more resolution and detail in the whole frequency range.
I never mentioned the B&W D3 speakers because they are very boosted in the highs, and I don't like them at all, but even in the flatter areas of the response you can hear many more details than the DBR-62's.
My $2,000 Audeze LCD-3F headphones are another example. You can hear many more low level details in a recording, like soft background coughs, stools sliding, whispers, etc, that you can't hear with my $100 Triple Driver earbuds. That's not just about frequency response.

 

[Livnmuskoka]

I'd want to see the measurements of the speakers you mention for one thing. For instance, looking at the measurements I can find of the Bryston Mini T's, they appear to have a fair bit of high frequency energy. Whenever I hear "clarity" in a subjective listening assessment, I pretty much assume there's something going on with the higher frequency response. That seems so often to be what it comes down to...

In a previous room that had more carpet and softer furnishings to dampen down the highs, the Mini T's were near perfect. In my newer room of hardwood, glass, and stone, they were too bright.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'm not talking about just the highs, but more resolution and detail in the whole frequency range.
I never mentioned the B&W D3 speakers because they are very boosted in the highs, and I don't like them at all, but even in the flatter areas of the response you can hear many more details than the DBR-62's.
My $2,000 Audeze LCD-3F headphones are another example. You can hear many more low level details in a recording, like soft background coughs, stools sliding, whispers, etc, that you can't hear with my $100 Triple Driver earbuds. That's not just about frequency response.

you might be surprised.

But of course comparing full size over ears with ear buds is going to reveal some pretty distinct differences. But it's not really about the money. I very much doubt your $2000 Audeze cans would reveal many more details than my $300 HE-400i cans.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

In a previous room that had more carpet and softer furnishings to dampen down the highs, the Mini T's were near perfect. In my newer room of hardwood, glass, and stone, they were too bright.

Rooms are significant.

 

[Livnmuskoka]

I also find that Revel speakers, although measuring extremely well, don't have as good of resolution or tonality of many other speakers in their price ranges. Even the Salon2's, I did really like them, but I've heard other speakers that beat them in clarity, tone, or both, but unfortunately wouldn't measure nearly as well. And you don't realize how important good measuring speakers are until you get into a really difficult room, this one being the worst I've ever had.
But the biggest strength of the DBR-62's for me, along with being mostly accurate and the decent detail, is the tone. Instruments just sound right on these, and they remind me of the Mini T's in that regard.

 

[McFly]

You want real, Measurable mods to a commercial speaker? Open it up and glue some MDF bracing in the cabinet, after assessing (many ways to do this) the side panels for resonances. Be careful to make sure the braces are volume conservative, taking volume out of the cabinet with too much bracing will ruin the woofer/port tuning and will certainly be audable by means of less bass extension.

 

[Livnmuskoka]

you might be surprised.

But of course comparing full size over ears with ear buds is going to reveal some pretty distinct differences. But it's not really about the money. I very much doubt your $2000 Audeze cans would reveal many more details than my $300 HE-400i cans.

The LCD3's probably don't reveal that many more details than the HE400i, maybe up to 20%, for 7x the price. But that's the way this hobby is, and I'm at the point that it's just not worth it for me to go higher anymore, I have other interests along with bills to pay.

 

[Shazb0t]

What exactly is clarity? How do you measure it so you can demonstrate which speakers have more or less of it than others? See the problem with your selection process?

 

[jonfitch]

The LCD3's probably don't reveal that many more details than the HE400i, maybe up to 20%, for 7x the price. But that's the way this hobby is, and I'm at the point that it's just not worth it for me to go higher anymore, I have other interests along with bills to pay.

Also worth noting that the "detail" that planar and electrostatic drivers reveal do not actually exist in the source signal. It's the fact that the drivers are exhibiting extended low amplitude ringing (which can be seen in the impulse response) compared to dynamic drivers is interpreted as more detail.

It's a pleasant masking of the actual source material, to me its no different than making your music more euphonic by listening on tube amplifiers.

 

[ErikHd]

As far as I know the measurements can't show you everything you need in designing loudspeaker or amplifier etc. Fact, listening test is the final test you must do after all measurements you did before.

 

[muad]

As far as I know the measurements can't show you everything you need in designing loudspeaker or amplifier etc. Fact, listening test is the final test you must do after all measurements you did before.

If changing a crossover component to higher quality ones with the same values improved the sound, then either the old components or new components are broken.

The interesting thing is very often when people make changes to more expensive components its usually a perceived as an improvement. The problem with human perception is that its unreliable. We hear things one day, that are not there the next day. Most systems sound better when under the influence of something, or sound terrible when we have a headache. We are unreliable and cannot be trusted.

 

[ErikHd]

If changing a crossover component to higher quality ones with the same values improved the sound, then either the old components or new components are broken.

The interesting thing is very often when people make changes to more expensive components its usually a perceived as an improvement. The problem with human perception is that its unreliable. We hear things one day, that are not there the next day. Most systems sound better when under the influence of something, or sound terrible when we have a headache. We are unreliable and cannot be trusted.

I did diy almost 20 years and test about 12 to 15 brands component each time I did modification, it did shows difference each of brand (at the same value). Try it you will be surprised

 

[Beave]

I did diy almost 20 years and test about 12 to 15 brands component each time I did modification, it did shows difference each of brand (at the same value). Try it you will be surprised

So you knew exactly what modification you had done before you listened?

If so, it wasn't just the speakers you were modifying. It was also your mind.

 

[ErikHd]

So you knew exactly what modification you had done before you listened?

If so, it wasn't just the speakers you were modifying. It was also your mind.

It's hard to explain to someone that never do diy, sometimes I know how the modifications must done, some I did trial error

 

[Beave]

My point is that I'm guessing your listening tests weren't blinded comparisons of before/after modification. You know which one you are listening to.

 

[Livnmuskoka]

What exactly is clarity? How do you measure it so you can demonstrate which speakers have more or less of it than others? See the problem with your selection process?

I would describe clarity as being able to hear extra details in the whole frequency range, not just in peaked areas of the response. Boosted areas to me aren't clearer, usually just annoying or fatiguing, depending on where the peak is.
The DBR-62's and Kef Reference 1's both measure very well but I can hear more details in a recording with the Reference 1's. If you can't, you can save yourself lots of money by sticking with the DBR-62's.
But do I need the extra 10% or so of micro details for tv and movies that I use the DBR-62's for most of the time? No.
If I want to hear a mouse fart in the back corner of the recording studio, my RME dac and LCD-3F's give me that. And with some light EQ from the RME adi-2 dac, the LCD-3F's have about a 94% user preference rating, that may be higher than any other speaker or headphone ever measured. And oddly enough, I found that out after I picked out this combo by listening to many others. So I guess I really can trust my own ears.