Elac Adante AS-61 Speaker Review

[Shazb0t]

as it sounds like you might actually be able to share something useful.

Or probably not.

I don't know if it's a complete loss! We've gained some additional insight on the psychological makeup of Danny Richie's customer base. A pattern has emerged.

 

[amirm]

I was implying that if i were to choose between who I'd trust more on competency levels.... Andrew Jones + John Atkinson Vs the guy who runs this forum.....I may have to go with Andrew and Atkinson here.

If you are that lost that you can't figure out and what the data means and have to rely on personalities, then I suggest reading and learning more about sound reproduction science. On that front, please start with Dr. Toole, Dr. Sean Olive, etc. The research they have created is what we follow as do Andrew and Atkinson (more or less).

I mean...what does this reviewer dude's room even look like? I have a sneaky suspicion that this guy did a listening test in a lousy fking room. What did this guy's setup look like? What kinda sht electronics or good electronics does this guy use? What does this guy know about music? Does he even know what to listen for?.....A lotta questions come in play here.

I don't go around show off my room as if it is some sign of knowledge or being an audiophile. But when necessary such as when I perform room EQ, I do show it and explain what is in it. Here is a shot of it:

The speakers are Revel Salon 2 retailing for $22,000. It is the only high-end speaker I know of that has been through controlled double blind testing to verify its performance.

Amplifiers are the two mono blocks next to the Salon 2 speakers. They are the Mark Levinson No 53. They produce 1000 watts into 4 ohm and cost $25,000 each. There is stereo amplifier in the middle which I am not currently using but it is also Mark Levinson and costs about $25,000.

The DAC when that picture was taken was a Mark Levinson No 360S. When new, it cost $6,000 or so (well over $10K in today's dollars). Now it has been replaced with Matrix Audio Sabre MQA ($2,000).

A silent, custom PC runs Roon player and serve up files and Tidal streams to DACs throughout the house. Room Equalization is provided in software courtesy of Dirac Live.

An OLED display is there to show the output of said PC server and from UHD player.

An Otari Reel to Reel deck plays second generation master tapes.

This is not a dedicated space. I have a dedicated room but it is in the basement with no windows. That room has been converted to a home theater and runs a different system altogether.

The system sounds better than my wildest imagination. I have been to dozens of audio shows and have heard thousands of listening rooms both there and at home. Not once I feel like I should replace what I have with those.

Hope this meets your requirement for a proper setup and expectations from a speaker.

 

[amirm]

If I listened and said that this speaker is highly resolving, has incredibly refined bass, images way better than a boom box, etc, etc ASR reviewer dude’s graphs can’t show anything there either.

That's because you don't understand audio science and research. Nor are you trained on what to listen for in speaker. Folks like you have been tested in research. This is how you all did:

On the left are the trained listeners who are behind much of research we follow in this forum. I have taken that training and can almost match Harman trained listeners.

Now look at audio reviewers. They are five times less reliable than trained listeners! You probably fall in the Marketing/sales bucket which are 10 times worse. This means your opinion in uncontrolled testing is not worth anything.

There are plenty of forums where each person considers themselves a grade A listener. You should go there and brag about your hearing abilities. In this forum, we put zero value on it.

 

[WonderBoy]

I'd say that the Adantes are all but guaranteed to sound better in a sighted comparison, just based on the way the human brain works. And when I say "sound better", it's not like it's "fake" per say. They really will sound better, even if the sound entering the ear canal is of lesser quality. So when people that own both speakers chime in saying the Adantes sound way better, I believe them, and I don't think that conflicts with the science. Increasing the price will increase the sound quality we hear, even if nothing else changes. Then you add a nicer looking cabinet. The science is based on blind listening tests, so sighted impressions don't contradict the measurements.

I think this is a really interesting example. The measurements are far enough apart for us to say that ~85% of people should prefer the cheaper model under blind level matched(with sub) conditions, yet the biases introduced by sighted comparison not only flip the results around to the opposite, but do so to the degree that it's "not even close". This is precisely the problem that the science is intended to fix. This is where you must ask yourself whether or not you believe the science. If the answer is no, then all these measurements are somewhat worthless. If we can't conclude that a 7.4 should beat a 5.9(most of the time), then there are truly very few scenarios in which we can conclude anything based on measurements. Personally, I choose to believe the science, but I also know that placebo is a real phenomenon(even in medicine), and we almost always listen sighted, so in some sense, what is preferred blind doesn't really matter.

I also don't think this negatively reflects on Andrew Jones. It's clear that Andrew was working in new territory here, whereas with the Pioneers he was right in his element. In loudspeaker design, implementation matters more than the materials used. It doesn't surprise me that a cheaper model could outperform a more expensive model under those circumstances. Also, as you mentioned, those results only apply under level matched and low passed conditions; without those, I would expect the Adante to win.

this is absurd on many levels

 

[Abe_W]

That's because you don't understand audio science and research. Nor are you trained on what to listen for in speaker. Folks like you have been tested in research. This is how you all did:

View attachment 63541

On the left are the trained listeners who are behind much of research we follow in this forum. I have taken that training and can almost match Harman trained listeners.

Now look at audio reviewers. They are five times less reliable than trained listeners! You probably fall in the Marketing/sales bucket which are 10 times worse. This means your opinion in uncontrolled testing is not worth anything.

There are plenty of forums where each person considers themselves a grade A listener. You should go there and brag about your hearing abilities. In this forum, we put zero value on it.

Of course, full evasiveness of everything I brought up that you wouldn’t possibly have an answer for. I won’t comment on your room and get you all riled up (I’ll play nice for a second).

Let’s see, I started on a violin at age 7. I started on a piano at age 16 if I recall right. I guess that would make it 41 and 32 years now (what a drag! I suppose). But, I guess that leaves li’l ol’ me out of this great looking chart with “relative” performance inscribed on its y axis! Ok! lol.

Let’s see, you went to one training at Harman! How long did it last? 6 hours? And you’re the expert sitting right on top of the expert pile on the chart eh? Really?? i mean...

Speaking of Harman, I will give Timbers a call this weekend. I will read out some things from this clown car over a shot of whisky and have a good laugh.

Bye now good sir and good luck to ya.

 

[richard12511]

this absurd on many levels

What do you do you disagree with? I haven't heard either speaker. I'm going mainly by what we should expect based on science, which I think is more generalizable to others than a solitary sighted subjective impression.

 

[Frank Dernie]

a speaker such as this with the coupled cavity will come out in the future

KEF released a speaker with this technology in 1984 (there may have been earlier ones, this is the one I am familiar with). Andrew Jones started work there in 1983.
I expect he learned about it there. It is likely they were already working on it when he was hired.

 

[amirm]

Let’s see, I started on a violin at age 7. I started on a piano at age 16 if I recall right. I guess that would make it 41 and 32 years now (what a drag! I suppose). But, I guess that leaves li’l ol’ me out of this great looking chart with “relative” performance inscribed on its y axis! Ok! lol.

Musicians do not have critical listening skills when it comes to sound reproduction or they would have the best audio systems in the world and all would be audiophiles. Neither is true. This is a common myth. Creating music is not the same as consuming it using audio devices. They can of course judge the art better than someone that doesn't play music. But that is not the topic here.

College students that were used in some of Harman tests were from McGill University Music program. See this from the research paper behind that graph:

So you are represented there, just at the bottom of the graph as least ability to discreminate good speakers from bad.

 

[amirm]

Let’s see, you went to one training at Harman! How long did it last? 6 hours? And you’re the expert sitting right on top of the expert pile on the chart eh? Really?? i mean...

No, Harman has released the software that their trainers take. I took that and combined with my previous professional training, sharply increased my score. I was then tested blind at Harman together with a bunch of High-end audio dealers. The testing is a bit like a video game where difficulty keeps increasing (the EQ band narrows). The dealers kept up to level 2 and a few to level 3. I went to level 6. Sean olive sailed past me into 7 and 8 before stopping.

Here is a picture I took while Sean was running the blind test on us (audience is sitting behind me):

Instead of pumping your chest, I suggest learning the topic, taking the training, and then spending time practicing it as I have done.

 

[MZKM]

So, do a simple exercise. Take a lousy sounding budget shtbox that measures alright ( there’s several of them out there). Take the crap crossover out and throw in a “better” one, replicate with the exact same values, but use higher quality components (solen caps, larger gage inductor whatever). Compare measurements as much as you please and when they measure identical, the one with the upgraded crossover will sound drastically different than the sht box with it’s original crossover. ASR reviewer dude’s infamous graphs wouldn’t catch one freaking difference though

Please explain what sonic differences will occur that won’t show up in theses graphs.

Sound is vibration through air, if we can measure these vibrations, how can we not measure the sound?

You stated this:

These speakers image ungodly and can his "measurements" say anything about it? NO.

Which shows that you don’t get understand what these measurements can tell us. Imaging is the ability to pan a sound from left <-> right as well as the size of this image. This is captured in the horizontal off-axis plots. The panning will be smooth if the horizontal off-axis stays very close in shape to the on-axis (or the listening axis if not using full toe-in); this can be seen in the normalized horizontal directivity graphs I post, usually one of the first comments in these reviews. The size of the image will be determined be how close in loudness the off-axis is to the listening axis, if it decays rapidly, it will have a very focused image. Now, the difference in image size and soundstage size is going to happen at some degree off-axis, but at which I don’t know, but you can technically have A very wise image but not that side of a soundstage.

Here is the above mentioned graph for this speaker:

That is indeed pretty good performance in terms of imaging, the soundstage width narrows >7kHz though.

I wouldn’t call them “ungodly”, that title currently belongs to the Genelec’s that were measured:

 

[BYRTT]

.....I suggest learning the topic, taking the training, and then spending time practicing it as I have done.

We must bow in we all clowns on this forum so waste of time educate or try improve on protocols and understanding ............

 

[BYRTT]

Please explain what sonic differences will occur that won’t show up in theses graphs.

Sound is vibration through air, if we can measure these vibrations, how can we not measure the sound?.....

We clowns should understand its in same category as coupled cavity feature curves on paper don't understand the magic that happens

 

[Pepperjack]

Please explain what sonic differences will occur that won’t show up in theses graphs.

Sound is vibration through air, if we can measure these vibrations, how can we not measure the sound?

You stated this:


Which shows that you don’t get understand what these measurements can tell us. Imaging is the ability to pan a sound from left <-> right as well as the size of this image. This is captured in the horizontal off-axis plots. The panning will be smooth if the horizontal off-axis stays very close in shape to the on-axis (or the listening axis if not using full toe-in); this can be seen in the normalized horizontal directivity graphs I post, usually one of the first comments in these reviews. The size of the image will be determined be how close in loudness the off-axis is to the listening axis, if it decays rapidly, it will have a very focused image. Now, the difference in image size and soundstage size is going to happen at some degree off-axis, but at which I don’t know, but you can technically have A very wise image but not that side of a soundstage.

Here is the above mentioned graph for this speaker:

That is indeed pretty good performance in terms of imaging, the soundstage width narrows >7kHz though.

I wouldn’t call them “ungodly”, that title currently belongs to the Genelec’s that were measured:

Isn’t the adante a bit tighter grouping off axiS until about 800, and then they seem pretty similar until 7k. Even at 6000 adante is a bit closer knit with what looks likes a 14db spread vs something like. A 16db spread no? I mean, the genelac looks way smoother to my eye but I think the adante is slightly closer knit the majority of the way to 7k, no?

 

[Pepperjack]

We clowns should understand its in same category as coupled cavity feature curves on paper don't understand the magic that happens

Oh my god, you k is how co fusing this is woth the wink to us newbies...I think your joking...but who is the butt of the joke?

 

[MZKM]

Isn’t the adante a bit tighter grouping off axiS until about 800, and then they seem pretty similar until 7k. Even at 6000 adante is a bit closer knit with what looks likes a 14db spread vs something like. A 16db spread no? I mean, the genelac looks way smoother to my eye but I think the adante is slightly closer knit the majority of the way to 7k, no?

You are not gonna hear a 2dB difference at an far off-axis angle. And my comments for those graphs were mainly for imaging not directivity width.

 

[Pepperjack]

You are not gonna hear a 2dB difference at an far off-axis angle. And my comments for those graphs were mainly for imaging not directivity width.

Yes I didn’t mean that you would hear the difference and I have no idea. My understanding was that the change in off axis level was what you were saying would create a sense of large image and soundstage no? So when comparing g it to the adante and LS50 I see that while the changes are not as smooth, the actual dB readings across the off axis measurements is often actually a narrower range-with the exception of a few dips), though I do not have the knowledge (let alone experience) to interpret that meaningfully. The ls50 for example, it have a wider range as it hits I think 600 or 800, and then the off axis seems to move up and is actually quite a bit narrower than the genelac.

 

[VintageFlanker]

I have budget gear as well as electronics hugging 20k. i have/had many speakers at home including the Adantes and ones that retailed for 10 to 15 times more than the Adante. This is not my speaker for a lifetime. But, I can safely say that the Adante (especially the floorstander) is a steal for what you get. I mean, what is it? 2500 a pair for an open box now?

Ok...
I don't know how many times I red this exact argument over and over:
"I may afford much more expensive equipment... So I'm able to tell you these "cheap" speakers sound incredible for their price point"

(Yeah, you deserve at least three facepalms)

Pfffff. Really? How on Earth the money you spent on your equipment should give you any credibility for evaluating audio gear?! You may be millionaire, own a Porsche 911 GT2, and yet be a terrible driver all the same...

 

[StevenEleven]

I am (good-naturedly, I assure you) accumulating a lot of bones to pick with this converstaion. I think we are getting a little detached from reality.

The Harman research tends to show that the litmus test is DBT of at least three speakers repeated enough times to be statistically reliable to see what the preference for people with good hearing is. I think there is here truly a lot of over-interpretation of graphs and imagined correlation between what a graph shows and what a person hears in their own listening space. Harman trained listeners, even speaker designers, give you garbage biased results on comparative sighted listening. We should take a lesson from that. The real deal is the DBT, no graphs in hand. The graphs are shorthand to roughly predict what would be preferred on a DBT. Or so the story goes.

I also like to leave some nooks and crannies in my brain for something other than the Harman / Toole / Olive school of thought.

I also note that people with good hearing tend to exercise the same preferences on DBT, no matter their training level or background. Harman trained listeners just tend to get to the same conclusions faster and more efficiently during blind testing. The outliers on preference tend to have defective hearing or be older.

This is all in Toole’s book, backed up by research, etc., etc.

I like to have good speakers because they are good speakers. Kind of like a blank canvas on which to project the aural image created by the recording artists and recording engineers. That’s my motivation. Get into the upper 7s and 8s and 1) the preference scores tend to under-rate the performance of speakers on DBT and 2) you’re likely to have a statistical tie as to preferences. The exciting truth is that good speakers can be inexpensive! And the data presented by @amirm is much more than sufficient to achieve the otherwise nearly impossible task of separating the wheat from the chaff. We now know tremendously more about these speakers than what you would know about a tire by reading the specifications on the tire wall (to paraphrase F. Toole).

Life is good! But for any variety of reasons this truth, that good speakers can be inexpensive, is often shunned or greeted with skepticism or even hostility. This is not a good thing from the standpoint of promoting the hobby by expanding the awareness of the consumer population.

And yet, even so, good speakers are really not needed. I can listen to a Sonos One at my bedside at 32-38 dB at 2 in the morning and greatly enjoy it. Why is that? Cause I’m nuts? Or because I really didn’t need Hifi to enjoy the music? Or it can fill up my whole bedroom. HiFi, nope. Enjoyable, absolutely. On the downside, this presents a lot of unchecked opportunity for corporate cynicism, sloppiness and deceit when it comes to motivations for manufacturers to provide consumers a product not commensurate in performance with dollars (or your currency of choice) spent.

Also the Harman school of thought on loudspeakers is ultimately founded on subjective preferences, objectively ascertained. Objectivist versus subjectivist is a false dichotomy in the context of speakers. It’s just really fortunate that such an admirable body of knowledge has been developed as to what people with good hearing will prefer, and how to make good (but not perfect by any means) predictions as to what people with good hearing will prefer based on measurements. This really sprang from Toole’s intuition at a young age that people would prefer a neutral speaker, and then was refined based on empirical data. If someone has hearing that is problematic to one degree or another, no problem, it’s just that their subjective preferences won’t translate reliably over to others. But their subjective impressions and preferences are certainly valid for them and their enjoyment of music is no less valid and may even be more informed (in the case of musicians with occupational hearing damage, etc.).

End of mild-mannered rant.

 

[Pepperjack]

I am (good-naturedly, I assure you) accumulating a lot of bones to pick with this converstaion. I think we are getting a little detached from reality.

The Harman research tends to show that the litmus test is DBT of at least three speakers repeated enough times to be statistically reliable to see what the preference for people with good hearing is. I think there is here truly a lot of over-interpretation of graphs and imagined correlation between what a graph shows and what a person hears in their own listening space. Harman trained listeners, even speaker designers, give you garbage biased results on comparative sighted listening. We should take a lesson from that. The real deal is the DBT, no graphs in hand. The graphs are shorthand to roughly predict what would be preferred on a DBT. Or so the story goes.

I also like to leave some nooks and crannies in my brain for something other than the Harman / Toole / Olive school of thought.

I also note that people with good hearing tend to exercise the same preferences on DBT, no matter their training level or background. Harman trained listeners just tend to get to the same conclusions faster and more efficiently during blind testing. The outliers on preference tend to have defective hearing or be older.

This is all in Toole’s book, backed up by research, etc., etc.

I like to have good speakers because they are good speakers. Kind of like a blank canvas on which to project the aural image created by the recording artists and recording engineers. That’s my motivation. Get into the upper 7s and 8s and 1) the preference scores tend to under-rate the performance of speakers on DBT and 2) you’re likely to have a statistical tie as to preferences. The exciting truth is that good speakers can be inexpensive! And the data presented by @amirm is much more than sufficient to achieve the otherwise nearly impossible task of separating the wheat from the chaff. We now know tremendously more about these speakers than what you would know about a tire by reading the specifications on the tire wall (to paraphrase F. Toole).

Life is good! But for any variety of reasons this truth, that good speakers can be inexpensive, is often shunned or greeted with skepticism or even hostility. This is not a good thing from the standpoint of promoting the hobby by expanding the awareness of the consumer population.

And yet, even so, good speakers are really not needed. I can listen to a Sonos One at my bedside at 32-38 dB at 2 in the morning and greatly enjoy it. Why is that? Cause I’m nuts? Or because I really didn’t need Hifi to enjoy the music? Or it can fill up my whole bedroom. HiFi, nope. Enjoyable, absolutely. On the downside, this presents a lot of unchecked opportunity for corporate cynicism, sloppiness and deceit when it comes to motivations for manufacturers to provide consumers a product not commensurate in performance with dollars (or your currency of choice) spent.

Also the Harman school of thought on loudspeakers is ultimately founded on subjective preferences, objectively ascertained. Objectivist versus subjectivist is a false dichotomy in the context of speakers. It’s just really fortunate that such an admirable body of knowledge has been developed as to what people with good hearing will prefer, and how to make good (but not perfect by any means) predictions as to what people with good hearing will prefer based on measurements. This really sprang from Toole’s intuition at a young age that people would prefer a neutral speaker, and then was refined based on empirical data. If someone has hearing that is problematic to one degree or another, no problem, it’s just that their subjective preferences won’t translate reliably over to others. But their subjective impressions and preferences are certainly valid for them and their enjoyment of music is no less valid and may even be more informed (in the case of musicians with occupational hearing damage, etc.).

End of mild-mannered rant.

So basically what we need is a device that will play notes through headphones with known frequency levels and then have the user identify his/her perception of level at various frequencies, and then use that data to match to the frequency of a speaker to optimize performance for his/her hearing range ideally after inputting information about the listening room and anticipating reflections. Who’s got one for me?

 

[StevenEleven]

So basically what we need is a device that will play notes through headphones with known frequency levels and then have the user identify his/her perception of level at various frequencies, and then use that data to match to the frequency of a speaker to optimize performance for his/her hearing range ideally after inputting information about the listening room and anticipating reflections. Who’s got one for me?

I would recommend reading F. Toole’s book, Sound Reproduction, Third Edition. On Amazon (or elsewhere). Put your thinking cap on and turn up your reading comprehension skills to 10. It’s written for laypersons (like me). A tremendous amount of the footwork has been done for us.

After reading the book you may skim over a lot of problems here and decide you don’t have anything remotely approximating the time to correct them all. It‘s that good.