Elac Adante AS-61 Speaker Review

[Delacroix]

Amir, thank you for your hard work and measurements, I hope to see some Martin Logan’s Motion bookshelf’s one day.

 

[napilopez]

I'm actually surprised it didn't rate a bit higher. There are dips in the FR but they are quite narrow-band, while the overall balance is actually pretty neutral. And the off-axis behaviour is quite well-controlled.

Not a criticism, obviously, and not arguing with the maths lol. Just a little surprised it was apparently penalised so heavily for these particular shortcomings.

EDIT: I also would have thought little weight would be given to the top-octave off-axis droop, as this region of the audio spectrum is perceptually not very important. Or are all spectra weighted equally in the calculation? I'll have to read up on it, has been a while...

If you look at the score breakdown, it was the smooothness of the predicted in room response that really hurt it. This is the part of the score I always have the most trouble "eyeballing." That and the narrow band deviation on axis. MZKM calculates a score using the listening window too, but the ELAC doesn't improve that much because the response doesn't really smooth out until quite a bit off axis (compared to, say, the Kali In-8, which improves very much with off axis listening)


As for weighting of the droop, the Narrow band deviation scores cover the regions from 100 to 12000Hz, while smoothness one covers 100 to 16000. That said it's been said before that a potential flaw with the formula is that it weighs every part of the frequency response equally. A narrow-band error at 11KHz or beneath schroeder is sure to be less of a problem than something in the sensitive upper mids and presence regions.

 

[Milesian]

You didn’t wait very long for Andrew’s response. I would imagine you had less of a deadline than he may have had.

 

[amirm]

You didn’t wait very long for Andrew’s response. I would imagine you had less of a deadline than he may have had.

It is rare for me to contact manufacturers let alone wait on them. Now, if they send me gear, then that is different. But if it comes from members, my service is timely response to them, not the manufacturer.

 

[andreasmaaan]

If you look at the score breakdown, it was the smooothness of the predicted in room response that really hurt it. This is the part of the score I always have the most trouble "eyeballing." That and the narrow band deviation on axis. MZKM calculates a score using the listening window too, but the ELAC doesn't improve that much because the response doesn't really smooth out until quite a bit off axis (compared to, say, the Kali In-8, which improves very much with off axis listening)


As for weighting of the droop, the Narrow band deviation scores cover the regions from 100 to 12000Hz, while smoothness one covers 100 to 16000. That said it's been said before that a potential flaw with the formula is that it weighs every part of the frequency response equally. A narrow-band error at 11KHz or beneath schroeder is sure to be less of a problem than something in the sensitive upper mids and presence regions.

Thanks for the explanation @napilopez. My apologies for the dumb question, but where is the score breakdown? I only saw the two numbers for SCORE and SCORE ignore LFX in @MZKM's post.

 

[MZKM]

I'm actually surprised it didn't rate a bit higher. There are dips in the FR but they are quite narrow-band, while the overall balance is actually pretty neutral. And the off-axis behaviour is quite well-controlled.

Not a criticism, obviously, and not arguing with the maths lol. Just a little surprised it was apparently penalised so heavily for these particular shortcomings.

EDIT: I also would have thought little weight would be given to the top-octave off-axis droop, as this region of the audio spectrum is perceptually not very important. Or are all spectra weighted equally in the calculation? I'll have to read up on it, has been a while...

That 200Hz dip will be very audible, and it indeed heavily impacts the score.

The high treble dip ~7kHz, not that high, it should have a decently audible effect. But yes, one large limiting factor of the formula is that it does not weight frequencies difference, if that dip was in the presence region or at 10kHz or 500Hz it would impact the score the same.

 

[MZKM]

My apologies for the dumb question, but where is the score breakdown? I only saw the two numbers for SCORE and SCORE ignore LFX in @MZKM's post.

Click my signature (doesn't appear on mobile if in portrait mode).
If having trouble, direct link to the Elac's data sheet (if on iOS, use Chrome in landscape).

 

[MZKM]

Amir, thank you for your hard work and measurements, I hope to see some Martin Logan’s Motion bookshelf’s one day.

SoundStage has measured some; some good, some not (I believe the XT models noticeably did better than the non-XT ones).

 

[Midwest Blade]

I am finding these measured reviews quite illuminating. I have had the chance to listen to Andrew Jones on a couple of occasions and find him interesting and engaging in his presentation but on both interactions the speaker demonstration has not lived up to my expectations. Might be able to link this to hotel room accoustics, but, if I was a speaker company I would certainly be making sure things were at least passable. I am sure Elac has the resources and talent with Mr. Jones to really make this work for them.

 

[Kaiju]

please don’t review Triangle speakers..please

Please Review Triangle I am about to buy Titus ez or comet series.. also please review Buchardt s400 and kef r3's

 

[Blur]

Can I say that it’s reassuring that even these costly speakers do not get close to similarly priced headphone systems. I mean we have no “yay” speakers yet which really surprises me.

 

[Dimitri]

A device with 2 drivers, a headband and two plastic cups should sell for a hell of a lot less than a pair or speakers with four drivers , crossover components and a finished cabinets.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Thanks @MZKM for the info! I have to respectfully disagree with you about the 200Hz dip. It is reasonably high Q, it's in a frequency range where our ears are not very sensitive, and moreover it's in the modal region of most rooms. Sure I agree it would be audible though.

But anyway, that's a side detail I'm certainly not arguing that this is a great speaker - it's more that I'm trying to understand how the score is calculated. Do you (or does anyone) have a link explaning in depth how the calculation works?

Just to explain where I'm coming from with this:

• When I compare the preference rating document for this speaker with that of the Pioneer SP-BS22, for example, I see similar response variations, but the Pioneer's are more concentrated in the ear's most sensitive region, and moreover, more in the form of (more audible) peaks than (less audible) depressions.
• Then, I see the horizontal polar response for this speaker track more closely to its direct response than the Pioneer's does (top octave and a half notwithstanding).
• Finally, I see a reasonably deep, reasonably-close-to-on-axis lobe in the Pioneer's vertical polar response that this speaker avoids (obviously, being coaxial). In comparison to the Pioneer, this speaker's vertical polars are easily superior.

In this context, I find the Pioneer's much higher (non-LFX) rating a little puzzling.

I'm sure the discrepancy will be cleared up though once I understand better what is being weighted and how.

 

[andreasmaaan]

So the main questions I guess I'd like to find answers for are:

• Are peaks in FR penalised more heavily than dips (as they should be)?
• Is the frequency-dependent sensitivity of the human ear taken into account when weighting a speaker's performance in the various frequency bands? (If I understood you correctly, the answer is no.)
• How specifically does the metric deal with lobing? It seems the penalty is very low.

 

[MZKM]

So the main questions I guess I'd like to find answers for are:

• Are peaks in FR penalised more heavily than dips (as they should be)?
• Is the frequency-dependent sensitivity of the human ear taken into account when weighting a speaker's performance in the various frequency bands? (If I understood you correctly, the answer is no.)
• How specifically does the metric deal with lobing? It seems the penalty is very low.

1: No
2: Correct (no)
3: Vertical performance is a part of the predicted in-room curve.

However, ceiling and floor reflections are not overly audible.

In the far-field, the listening window for vertical performance is less than +/-5°, so it’s not that important. For near-field it is, but that’s not what this formula is based on.

For comparing speaker measurements, you have to ignore where the deviations exist, as there is no weighting, the graphs are log-scaled though, so the 2000Hz-4000Hz range takes up more space than say 8000Hz-10000Hz.

 

[wwenze]

This is the kind of thing that makes me wary of spending 4-digits on speakers

But this kind of measurements are also why I feel appreciation for this website

(Can we see ATC and PMC some time lol)

 

[amirm]

also please review Buchardt s400

The S400 is supposed to be coming.

 

[MZKM]

The S400 is supposed to be coming.

At least you then will have another speaker with manufacturer measurements to compare. This ELAC didn’t even state a +/-dB for the stated frequency response (and I see why, I calculated +/-4.7dB; and if wondering why they chose 41Hz and not 40Hz if not stating +/-dB, I got 41Hz for the -6dB point).

EDIT: And their flagship models use an IEC standard which mandates:
“linearity within the frequency response, where the sound pressure level is not more than 10 dB below an averaged maximum.”
Shame they use such a lax parameter.

 

[andreasmaaan]

1: No
2: Correct (no)
3: Vertical performance is a part of the predicted in-room curve.

However, ceiling and floor reflections are not overly audible.

In the far-field, the listening window for vertical performance is less that +/-5°, so it’s not that important. For near-field it is, but that’s not what this formula is based on.

Thanks again. Do you have a link to the literature that specifies how the score is calculated, please?

Also, would you mind fleshing out your statement that floor and ceiling reflections are not overly audible? Is this based on the fact that HRTFs show lower sensitivity to up/down sources in the high frequencies, or is it based on specific studies in which listeners were asked to give preference ratings of specific speakers? If the latter, do you have any specific links, perhaps?

And finally, one (I think) last question about the ELAC: The Spinorama shows a rather large dip in the Sound Power, Early Reflections, and Predicted In-Room Response between 1kHz and 2kHz. These dips are significantly wider and deeper than the small dip in the same frequency range in the on-axis response, yet there is no peak in this range in the Sound Power DI or Early Reflections DI. This seems odd to me - are you aware of how this could be?

Sorry also to be dominating this thread with my attempts to understand the preference ratings. Above all, I'd just like to read some detailed literature on how the preference rating is computed - then I'll happily shut up

 

[amirm]

And finally, one (I think) last question about the ELAC: The Spinorama shows a rather large dip in the Sound Power, Early Reflections, and Predicted In-Room Response between 1kHz and 2kHz. These dips are significantly larger than the small dip in the same frequency range in the on-axis response, yet there is no peak in this range in the Sound Power DI or Early Reflections DI. This seems odd to me - are you aware of how this could be?

YOu mean this region?

If so, the four curves above track each other so if you subtract them, you don't see a peak.