Elac Debut Reference DBR-62 Speaker Review

[Roland68]

There is nothing more I hate on the internet than the "I listened to X, but it was horrible, Y was a lot better" without any details. Or 1 star reviews with comments like "Horrible, I returned it, don't recommend".
So, what was bad about the DB63 and what does DBR62 do better? Besides the bass hump in the 60-100Hz, I can't see any difference in measurements or people's reviews.

Details weren't reproduced as clearly, the bass wasn't very clean and sounded somewhat diffuse.
The treble was unpleasant in some passages and, in comparison, rather shrill.

We didn't conduct a comprehensive blind test or take any measurements, as it was solely about his purchasing decision. EQ/PEQ could certainly improve things, but it wouldn't turn into a DBR62.

 

[pathtonowhere]

Surprising, since DB63 are 1-2dB lower beyond 4kHz. They are 1-2dB louder in the 3-4kHz area, though. So either the lower treble bump or the characteristics of the tweeter, because it's metallic. Or maybe even the metal thing in front of the tweeter, who knows...

The bass is rather difficult to assess by itself, because it's totally dependent on the room. DB63 has the bass port tuned a bit lower than DBR62, and if there's a room mode that the port tuning overlays on, the bass can become sloppy and resonant. Here in Romania we only have concrete or brick wall rooms. I have a strong base mode at 33Hz in one room and 37Hz in another, so I'm always careful to get speakers with a response that falls abruptly under 45Hz. I can still hear the resonance, but it's in line with the rest of the sound, it doesn't stand out. If I use speakers with a shallow slope down to 35Hz, I get a nasty boom.

 

[Roland68]

Surprising, since DB63 are 1-2dB lower beyond 4kHz. They are 1-2dB louder in the 3-4kHz area, though. So either the lower treble bump or the characteristics of the tweeter, because it's metallic. Or maybe even the metal thing in front of the tweeter, who knows...

The bass is rather difficult to assess by itself, because it's totally dependent on the room. DB63 has the bass port tuned a bit lower than DBR62, and if there's a room mode that the port tuning overlays on, the bass can become sloppy and resonant. Here in Romania we only have concrete or brick wall rooms. I have a strong base mode at 33Hz in one room and 37Hz in another, so I'm always careful to get speakers with a response that falls abruptly under 45Hz. I can still hear the resonance, but it's in line with the rest of the sound, it doesn't stand out. If I use speakers with a shallow slope down to 35Hz, I get a nasty boom.

The room is set up as a test room for music listening and is as neutral as possible. Since neither our two subwoofers, which easily reach down to 20 Hz, nor our floorstanding speakers, which with 2 x 20cm woofers go down to about 30 Hz at -3 dB, cause any problems in this regard, I assume that the two Elac speakers will not excite the room to such an extent either.

 

[pathtonowhere]

Ok, so, first of all, the looks. The proportions are perfect. I've had Monitor Audio BX2, which were too tall and slim. I've had MA Silver 100, which were wide and fat. These have the perfect proportions. I don't like the silver grill of the tweeter, it looks garish to me, I would have liked it black or not present at all. I keep them with the cloth grilles on, so they look like my dream speakers, all-black rectangles, the most elegant for me. They also match with the black boxy appearance of the A-S501. It's a tasteful discreet combo, with a classic look.

The highs are at the top limit for which I consider exciting and not too bright or metallic. I now have the Wharfedales 230, which have the most non-offensive highs among the budget and mid level speakers sold in the last decade.
If I had to compare the highs:
Whardefale 230: strongness - 0
metallic character - 0

MA Silver 100: strongness - 7
metallic character - 9

B&W 607: strongness - 10
metallic character - 7

Elac DBR62 strongness - 5
metallic character - 5

So, the highs are at the maximum level that I can still enjoy. Beyond this, it starts to annoy me too much.
Also, when I say metallic character, it isn't necessarily something bad. Cymbals and many other instruments are metal, it's inevitable that they sound somewhat metallic. Maybe some speakers sweeten the character and make them sound velvety and soft. But others make them sound overly metallic and have a ringing to them.

The bass is punchy and more articulate than the Wharfedale 230. Maybe due to the smaller box, the distance from the floor, I don't know. It's as articulate and punchy as that of MA Silver 100.

The midbass is more articulate than both Wharfedale 230 and MA Silver 100.

The mids are present. The voices don't drown in the mix. This is a characteristic of Wharfedale 230, too. On the MA Silver 100, the voices were a little in the back and a bit thin.

All in all, the highs were the thing about which I was afraid the most. And with a serious reason, too. When you get used to Wharfedale speakers and Senn HD650 headphones, almost any other speaker will sound bright or shrill in comparison. I knew they would and I hoped it would be to a degree that still allowed me to enjoy them, which I do. I can listen to them like now, too, and it isn't overwhelming, but I'll treat the room to make the treble even more subdued.
I recommend them for people looking for something neutral, I can't find any flaws in them for that. If you want something overly bright or overly dark, there are other alternatives.

Also, this forum is amazing. From all the measurements, this is the exact way I thought they would sound. And it's not the first time speakers sound to me the way I expect from seeing them measured here. Before this, I relied on customer reviews or WhatHiFi and other review sites. Damn, it was like opening a Kinder Surprise egg, I rarely got what I expected.

 

[Roland68]

Ok, so, first of all, the looks. The proportions are perfect. I've had Monitor Audio BX2, which were too tall and slim. I've had MA Silver 100, which were wide and fat. These have the perfect proportions. I don't like the silver grill of the tweeter, it looks garish to me, I would have liked it black or not present at all. I keep them with the cloth grilles on, so they look like my dream speakers, all-black rectangles, the most elegant for me. They also match with the black boxy appearance of the A-S501. It's a tasteful discreet combo, with a classic look.

The highs are at the top limit for which I consider exciting and not too bright or metallic. I now have the Wharfedales 230, which have the most non-offensive highs among the budget and mid level speakers sold in the last decade.
If I had to compare the highs:
Whardefale 230: strongness - 0
metallic character - 0

MA Silver 100: strongness - 7
metallic character - 9

B&W 607: strongness - 10
metallic character - 7

Elac DBR62 strongness - 5
metallic character - 5

So, the highs are at the maximum level that I can still enjoy. Beyond this, it starts to annoy me too much.
Also, when I say metallic character, it isn't necessarily something bad. Cymbals and many other instruments are metal, it's inevitable that they sound somewhat metallic. Maybe some speakers sweeten the character and make them sound velvety and soft. But others make them sound overly metallic and have a ringing to them.

The bass is punchy and more articulate than the Wharfedale 230. Maybe due to the smaller box, the distance from the floor, I don't know. It's as articulate and punchy as that of MA Silver 100.

The midbass is more articulate than both Wharfedale 230 and MA Silver 100.

The mids are present. The voices don't drown in the mix. This is a characteristic of Wharfedale 230, too. On the MA Silver 100, the voices were a little in the back and a bit thin.

All in all, the highs were the thing about which I was afraid the most. And with a serious reason, too. When you get used to Wharfedale speakers and Senn HD650 headphones, almost any other speaker will sound bright or shrill in comparison. I knew they would and I hoped it would be to a degree that still allowed me to enjoy them, which I do. I can listen to them like now, too, and it isn't overwhelming, but I'll treat the room to make the treble even more subdued.
I recommend them for people looking for something neutral, I can't find any flaws in them for that. If you want something overly bright or overly dark, there are other alternatives.

Also, this forum is amazing. From all the measurements, this is the exact way I thought they would sound. And it's not the first time speakers sound to me the way I expect from seeing them measured here. Before this, I relied on customer reviews or WhatHiFi and other review sites. Damn, it was like opening a Kinder Surprise egg, I rarely got what I expected.

You should keep in mind that every change requires an adjustment period, often several weeks.

Then you should reassess the situation.

 

[silent-amp]

Ok, so, first of all, the looks. The proportions are perfect. I've had Monitor Audio BX2, which were too tall and slim. I've had MA Silver 100, which were wide and fat. These have the perfect proportions. I don't like the silver grill of the tweeter, it looks garish to me, I would have liked it black or not present at all. I keep them with the cloth grilles on, so they look like my dream speakers, all-black rectangles, the most elegant for me. They also match with the black boxy appearance of the A-S501. It's a tasteful discreet combo, with a classic look.

I have very similar feeling about looks and proportions. Thanks for the photo. All-black version is the way to go

 

[pathtonowhere]

OK, so after another 5 days of living with the DBR62, my initial impressions haven't changed. Articulate midbass and midrange, present voices, present and clear highs.
The highs still catch my attention in comparison to Wharfedale 230. They aren't overly bright or metallic, like B&W or Monitor Audio, but they don't hide in the background either, like on the Wharfedales. Also, slight bass hump, which I like, but weak sub-bass under 40Hz, which I like, because of my brick room that amplifies 33Hz a lot.
People calling them unexciting, boring, maybe are used to speakers that pierce your ears. Yes, they aren't sizzling aggressively, like a lot of other speakers, but they aren't hiding anything either. They are just neutral. At first I was like...hey, the bass is upfront, then hey, the mids are upfront! Wait, the highs are upfront, too! It's all upfront! The Wharfedales keep the mids upfront, the rest is in the back (which I like, doesn't bother me), the Monitor Audio keep the bass and especially the highs upfront, the mids are a little in the back. (this I usually don't like that much)

What they definitely need is some room treatment. The tweeter dispersion is pretty wide, especially in the 3-4kHz area, so lateral absorbtion, even partial, would stop the reflections and improve clarity. They don't sound like a good Kef coaxial or JBL horn or deep waveguide, but more like a flat baffle speaker. The sound cone above 4kHz gets narrow and stays that way, but for the 3-4kHz area you need some treatment. They sound decent without, too, but...

Also, the finish is on par with Monitor Audio, I haven't seen vinyl peeling anywhere or botched finish, like others that complained. Maybe the black version is done differently, I don't know. The vinyl at the edges is uninterrupted, I don't see how can it peel. I've bought the last black pair at $365/€310, which is a steal. I wanted to buy them a few times in the past, but the wide disperssion and non-black option prevented me. Now that I've seen the black version, I pulled the trigger and I'll fix the dispersion with some absorbtion, seems easy to fix.

 

[anli]

Is it Ok these days? Probably something sound similar already exists with lower price, doesn't it?

 

[tw 2022]

Is it Ok these days? Probably something sound similar already exists with lower price, doesn't it?

if you can point me in the direction of a $800 /pr speaker with that decent (wide)dispersion and f.r. : i'm all ears.. edit: maybe the ascend cmt 340 v2...a.a.m.o.f... that may be my next step "up"...

 

[darakon]

Ok, so, first of all, the looks. The proportions are perfect. I've had Monitor Audio BX2, which were too tall and slim. I've had MA Silver 100, which were wide and fat. These have the perfect proportions. I don't like the silver grill of the tweeter, it looks garish to me, I would have liked it black or not present at all. I keep them with the cloth grilles on, so they look like my dream speakers, all-black rectangles, the most elegant for me. They also match with the black boxy appearance of the A-S501. It's a tasteful discreet combo, with a classic look.

The highs are at the top limit for which I consider exciting and not too bright or metallic. I now have the Wharfedales 230, which have the most non-offensive highs among the budget and mid level speakers sold in the last decade.
If I had to compare the highs:
Whardefale 230: strongness - 0
metallic character - 0

MA Silver 100: strongness - 7
metallic character - 9

B&W 607: strongness - 10
metallic character - 7

Elac DBR62 strongness - 5
metallic character - 5

So, the highs are at the maximum level that I can still enjoy. Beyond this, it starts to annoy me too much.
Also, when I say metallic character, it isn't necessarily something bad. Cymbals and many other instruments are metal, it's inevitable that they sound somewhat metallic. Maybe some speakers sweeten the character and make them sound velvety and soft. But others make them sound overly metallic and have a ringing to them.

The bass is punchy and more articulate than the Wharfedale 230. Maybe due to the smaller box, the distance from the floor, I don't know. It's as articulate and punchy as that of MA Silver 100.

The midbass is more articulate than both Wharfedale 230 and MA Silver 100.

The mids are present. The voices don't drown in the mix. This is a characteristic of Wharfedale 230, too. On the MA Silver 100, the voices were a little in the back and a bit thin.

All in all, the highs were the thing about which I was afraid the most. And with a serious reason, too. When you get used to Wharfedale speakers and Senn HD650 headphones, almost any other speaker will sound bright or shrill in comparison. I knew they would and I hoped it would be to a degree that still allowed me to enjoy them, which I do. I can listen to them like now, too, and it isn't overwhelming, but I'll treat the room to make the treble even more subdued.
I recommend them for people looking for something neutral, I can't find any flaws in them for that. If you want something overly bright or overly dark, there are other alternatives.

Also, this forum is amazing. From all the measurements, this is the exact way I thought they would sound. And it's not the first time speakers sound to me the way I expect from seeing them measured here. Before this, I relied on customer reviews or WhatHiFi and other review sites. Damn, it was like opening a Kinder Surprise egg, I rarely got what I expected.

I posted this unpopular opinion about the the DBR 62 before:

I bought them because they seemed to measure and test well and were quiet cheap the same time.
I send them back 3 days later, because they were just not sounding good. Unnatural, not entertaining, not involving.

 

[wyup]

I send them back 3 days later, because they were just not sounding good. Unnatural, not entertaining, not involving.

Not entertaining, not involving: understandable.
Unnatural? No way. They have an unusual great midrange. Feed them with a good sounding amplifier such as a Musical Fidelity A1, and a quartet of strings sounds amazingly realistic (despite a bit unpowered for bass and body). What makes them sound unnatural is cheap class D, at least in my case and opinion. (I have a floating ground electrical installation, safety earth is not installed and I believe EMI/RFI inside the chassis from the SMPS is designed to be discharged through earth, when available. This could affect sound quality, and propagate across gear connections, as some devices are meant to work with safety ground).

 

[Pilot]

... they were just not sounding good. Unnatural, not entertaining, not involving.

In my experience, it's the room.

I suspect I would need to spend tens of thousands for something that significantly improves on my my current setup (objections welcome):

WiiM Ultra Roomfit, x70Hz ⇾ Audyssey AS-EQ1 ⇾ SVS SB-2000
                          ⇾ Gustard X16 (was there before the WiiM) ⇾ CXA61 ⇾ DBR62

But, what really made a difference was diffusers, placed in the corner, behind and to the side of the DBR62s.

I did not expect that they would matter so much there, but they did. I suppose the horizontal plot does show that you can have up to -10dB at up to 5 Khz, in that direction (120-150 degrees); and between 250Hz-1.25KHz, where there is energy going backwards, these diffusers (Vicoustic Wavewood) are also doing absorption.

 

[ckone0815]

Help a newbie out. I'm looking to upgrade(?) my Wharf D330. Largish open area with 16x18 listening area at end, 14' to listening spot, Denon X1800H power. Should I try the DBR63 or the Q Concerto next?

(I currently have Wharf 12.2 and Dali Oberon here for auditioning but neither is blowing me away)

 

[Roland68]

Help a newbie out. I'm looking to upgrade(?) my Wharf D330. Largish open area with 16x18 listening area at end, 14' to listening spot, Denon X1800H power. Should I try the DBR63 or the Q Concerto next?

(I currently have Wharf 12.2 and Dali Oberon here for auditioning but neither is blowing me away)

How about a floorstanding speaker for such a large room?

 

[ckone0815]

How about a floorstanding speaker for such a large room?

Absolutely an option. My wife prefers them. Just feel like the better options are stand mounted.

 

[Roland68]

Absolutely an option. My wife prefers them. Just feel like the better options are stand mounted.

I absolutely cannot understand that.
I also own the DBR62s, but they don't stand a chance against my floorstanding speakers in a room this size.

 

[ckone0815]

How about a floorstanding speaker for such a large room?

Absolutely an option. My wife prefers them. Just feel like the better options are stand mounted

I absolutely cannot understand that.
I also own the DBR62s, but they don't stand a chance against my floorstanding speakers in a room this size.

<shrugs> what are your floor standers?

 

[Roland68]

Absolutely an option. My wife prefers them. Just feel like the better options are stand mounted

<shrugs> what are your floor standers?

Elac Carina FS 247.4, Heco Aurora 700 and Satorique 4. The latter is a little unfair, as it is an elaborate DIY speaker that plays in a completely different league.

 

[kyuu]

Absolutely an option. My wife prefers them. Just feel like the better options are stand mounted.

JBL HDI-3800 or KEF Q11 Meta.

 

[Beershaun]

Curious, why do you feel stand mount are better options than floorstanders?

And what is it that the options you are demoing presently are lacking?