Elac Debut Reference DBR-62 Speaker Review

[Bernard23]

Because unless special measures against are taken, parasitic midrange parts also leak from the port which are more audible when it is on the front.

OK, and is that the measured case here?

 

[thewas]

OK, and is that the measured case here?

Unfortunately as its an old/early review there are were nearfield measurements directly at the port to tell, but anyway my reply was general on the comment saying that front ports are better when the desk is away from the wall.

 

[Bernard23]

Isn't that a bit over generalised though? Baffle size, driver size and configuration, room boundaries etc. Surely the model is more complicated?

 

[thewas]

Isn't that a bit over generalised though? Baffle size, driver size and configuration, room boundaries etc. Surely the model is more complicated?

Measurements have shown that as long as the port is at least around 3 inches away from boundary is is not an issue so in most cases a rear port for 2-ways has the smaller problem of the mid leakage to the front. Of course everything is a compromise and putting the port on the rear you can lose 1-2 dB of output in its operating region.

 

[NovakJi]

Will something like Denon X1800H or S970H (seems to be similar, so would just pick whats cheaper) work just fine with these speakers, please?

 

[tw 2022]

Will something like Denon X1800H or S970H (seems to be similar, so would just pick whats cheaper) work just fine with these speakers, please?

as long as you aren't trying to go crazy loud it should be fine for 2.x music.. i might not try to go with them all around in a 5.x on higher though...

 

[NovakJi]

as long as you aren't trying to go crazy loud it should be fine for 2.x music.. i might not try to go with them all around in a 5.x on higher though...

Care to provide more details, please? I would not go crazy loud, but I will very likely eventually go from 2.0 to bigger configuration. What would be the problem then? What would you perhaps recommend for 2.0 setup and then some 5.x setup, please? What are the things I should look at?

 

[Pilot]

After a few months with the DBR62, I want to contribute my experience on questions of equalization (or removal of tweeter metal grilles even, which I have tried ) - in order to mitigate any perception of "muddiness" or "recessed" regions, etc, as they have been mentioned occasionally in the thread:

In the end, as @amirm points out in his review, no EQ is required. For me it was a question of, in decreasing importance:

1. Surface isolation (in the spirit of the DBR62's frugal market positioning, I just made a base with several strips of "E" profile "aerostop")
2. Placement (in my case it turned out that avoiding equal distance from a corner's two walls was preferable to maximizing the back wall's distance)
3. A subwoofer with phase, cutoff, and of course volume, adjustments

Actually, #3 was an impressive and comprehensive improvement *. It's last in the list because with better placement and surface isolation it's possible to "live without it" (albeit less so after you've heard it)

Spoiler: *

*The subwoofer made everything clearer and more balanced, it didn't just take care of the lower spectrum. I suspect this is not so much due to the resulting DBR's slightly improved distortion, as due to the room behaving better when the low frequencies came from that source.
It did require a lot of adjustment though. In the end, I used the following "trick" (not sure how valid it is) to set the volume and cutoff on the subwoofer:
I used a 90Hz (my receiver's fixed cutoff) tone generator and set the amp to output both to the mains and sub. I set the sub's phase adjustment (by ear) so it was working opposite to a nearby DBR62 and then played with the sub's cutoff and volume until the signal was silent (cancelled out). My thinking is that this got the sub's level to match the DBR's at that cutoff point. Restored the phase of course and (by ear) I found that I had to further lower the sub's volume by 2-3 db below that "~90Hz cancellation" point to get an overall good result

Following up on my experience with the DBR62 as I've had a bit of a revelation recently.

Sidenotes: I've since been using a Cambridge Audio CXA61 with them, which I think made a small improvement; and I upgraded the sub, which also made a definite small improvement.

So in addition to the points in my post from 2023, I think what really upgraded the sound for me recently was minimizing reflections. Amir has said in his review that getting rid of vertical reflections would help; I suppose I didn't expect by how much it would.

I found some used Vicoustic Wavewood panels for a low price and I thought I'd just try them (they are similar to their newer edition). I am not sure how much of what they do is diffusion (I've placed them with a horizontal orientation) and how much of it is absorption. But in some test tracks I know well, I could hear more details.

To be clear, I have no opinion on the efficacy of these panels as advertised. i.e., that they "simulate a QRD sequence" and that the scattering/diffusion fixes reflections without absorbing them too much. But for whatever reason they did the trick.

Bottom line I suppose for me is: Before you decide the DBR62 is short of fantastic (esp for the price) try to improve on reflections.

 

[DeadAndCompany]

Following up on my experience with the DBR62 as I've had a bit of a revelation recently.

Sidenotes: I've since been using a Cambridge Audio CXA61 with them, which I think made a small improvement; and I upgraded the sub, which also made a definite small improvement.

So in addition to the points in my post from 2023, I think what really upgraded the sound for me recently was minimizing reflections. Amir has said in his review that getting rid of vertical reflections would help; I suppose I didn't expect by how much it would.

I found some used Vicoustic Wavewood panels for a low price and I thought I'd just try them (they are similar to their newer edition). I am not sure how much of what they do is diffusion (I've placed them with a horizontal orientation) and how much of it is absorption. But in some test tracks I know well, I could hear more details.

To be clear, I have no opinion on the efficacy of these panels as advertised. i.e., that they "simulate a QRD sequence" and that the scattering/diffusion fixes reflections without absorbing them too much. But for whatever reason they did the trick.

Bottom line I suppose for me is: Before you decide the DBR62 is short of fantastic (esp for the price) try to improve on reflections.

Great, as expected. That‘s exactly why we love measurements.

 

[Buckster]

struggling between DBR62, DB63 and Polk R200 for Home Theater use

R200 seems to be better at higher volumes/lower distortion in mid-range ?

here in the UK all similar price (<£400 a pair) except DB63 which is fair amount cheaper

 

[Philipp]

U are from the UK, right? Go with Wharfedale diamond 12.2, should be way more bang for the buck, no?

 

[tw 2022]

U are from the UK, right? Go with Wharfedale diamond 12.2, should be way more bang for the buck, no?

wharfedales generally handle higher volume well... but for ht i might go polk r200 (when on sale)..it would be close

 

[Philipp]

@Buckster
For which channel you wanz to use them?
Front L/R or Back L/R ?
How many channels in total?
How many subs?
(Might go off topic at this point)

 

[Buckster]

thankyou - Front L/R to replace JBL A130s which are pretty good but quite difficult to EQ with the basic EQ available on my Denon 7200, and would like something with a bit more dynamic range - current setup

Front L/R JBL A130
Front Dolby Upfirers - KEF Q50a
Center Genelec 8030C
Rears KEF Q350
Rear Heights JBL A130
Sub - SVS PC-13 Ultra (with latest Sledge amp)

The DBR62s are almost £100 more than the DB63s - which I think Erin thought were pretty good ?

I tried the Q350s as fronts and they sounded great (better than the A130s) but seemed to run out of dynamics at higher volumes

was wondering for Hometheater though whether the R200s would have more dynamic range

the DBR62s look great but the charts show reasonable distortion showing up in the mid-range at higher volumes ?

many thanks, Best Regards, Mark

 

[kyuu]

I tried the Q350s as fronts and they sounded great (better than the A130s) but seemed to run out of dynamics at higher volumes

For dynamics like you're wanting, you really want to go beyond your typical TM (tweeter midwoofer) bookshelf. Typically that means going to floorstanders. Another often overlooked option is using MTM bookshelves (many "center channel" speakers are good for this used vertically). Also 3-way speakers help since the woofer is relieved of the higher frequency range. You really need more/bigger/better woofers to get good power handling, which along with high sensitivity is what will get you good dynamics I think.

 

[ZolaIII]

@Buckster well woofer size certainly helps. Refer to Erin's compression tests, when you can. At the moment for about 2x money of R200 you can catch Revel F36 on clearance sale (if you are lucky) or Wharfedale Linton's and you get 7~8 dB more headroom compared to the very good single 5.5".

 

[dark132]

U are from the UK, right? Go with Wharfedale diamond 12.2, should be way more bang for the buck, no?

In terms of style, 12.2 is obviously brighter, making the vocals too sharp.