Elac Debut Reference DBR-62 Speaker Review

[djdragon66]

If you still have the measurement microphone of the Denon x2400h I spotted,I would suggest to use that with the dbr62 and sub to test the dbrs in the smaller room, in the bigger room and at different positions.

It will give you the right crossover, eq and the ability to tinker with the sound and explore what differences there are.

I no longer have the measuring microphone for the Denon X2400H, but it's only suitable for Denon devices anyway. I do have my own Yamaha microphone, though. The difference was enormous when I swapped my Yamaha RN800A for the Denon. On paper, the Denon has the same 100 watts at 8 ohms as the RN800A, and even the total harmonic distortion is almost identical, but the Yamaha can play significantly louder without distorting. It's a noticeable difference, but as I said, I didn't want to get used to it. Many people, even here in specialist shops, claim that the Yamaha YPAO isn't very good (maybe that's why they want to sell me something from them), but I've heard from many others that it's good. That's why I preferred not to use it. Should I move my speakers to another room in my large room (see picture above)? What do you think? Actually, I'd rather not. I've found a good listening position in my small room, and the ELAC RS 500 subwoofer sounds good from there. I also briefly tested it in my larger room, but couldn't find an optimal position for the bass. Is room calibration for surround sound really that beneficial? Why isn't it integrated into more expensive amplifiers? That makes me doubt it.

 

[Marc v E]

I no longer have the measuring microphone for the Denon X2400H, but it's only suitable for Denon devices anyway. I do have my own Yamaha microphone, though. The difference was enormous when I swapped my Yamaha RN800A for the Denon. On paper, the Denon has the same 100 watts at 8 ohms as the RN800A, and even the total harmonic distortion is almost identical, but the Yamaha can play significantly louder without distorting. It's a noticeable difference, but as I said, I didn't want to get used to it. Many people, even here in specialist shops, claim that the Yamaha YPAO isn't very good (maybe that's why they want to sell me something from them), but I've heard from many others that it's good. That's why I preferred not to use it. Should I move my speakers to another room in my large room (see picture above)? What do you think? Actually, I'd rather not. I've found a good listening position in my small room, and the ELAC RS 500 subwoofer sounds good from there. I also briefly tested it in my larger room, but couldn't find an optimal position for the bass. Is room calibration for surround sound really that beneficial? Why isn't it integrated into more expensive amplifiers? That makes me doubt it.

You can use the Yamaha if it has the ability to measure, eq and has a crossover.

What matters is that it consistently measures and implements crossover and eq in the same way every time you test for a difference. That change can be different location of the speakers, different speakers, sub/no sub, different room. I would recommend to change only one thing at a time. Then after a few tests it will become clear what does what and what improvements you can get.

 

[Chromatischism]

The R3 Meta costs €2000 per pair, four times as much as the DBR62. And perhaps there's no audible difference at all?

There will be an audible difference.

The imaging will be more pinpoint, and the sound will be more neutral. It will involve the room less and sound more accurate.

It won't be four times better but it will be better.

 

[djdragon66]

There will be an audible difference.

The imaging will be more pinpoint, and the sound will be more neutral. It will involve the room less and sound more accurate.

It won't be four times better but it will be better.

Almost everyone here is talking about the Kef R3 Meta. Are there other models that are better than my DBR62? Or did I just mention the Kef R3 Meta by chance?

1. Triangle Theta,

2. Kef R3 Meta,

3. Q Acoustics Concept 50 floorstanding speakers (not too big),

4. Kef Q Concerto Meta,

5. Wharfedale evo 4.2,

6. Monitor Audio Gold 50

Which speakers are serious competitors to the DBR62? Of course, let's not get carried away with the price, because we're already talking about €2000 and above. The question then arises: is the upgrade worth it for only a slightly noticeable improvement in sound? But I'd say if I get 30-40% better sound than the DBR62, maybe I'd still be willing to spend €2000, but no more.

 

[Roland68]

Almost everyone here is talking about the Kef R3 Meta. Are there other models that are better than my DBR62? Or did I just mention the Kef R3 Meta by chance?

1. Triangle Theta,

2. Kef R3 Meta,

3. Q Acoustics Concept 50 floorstanding speakers (not too big),

4. Kef Q Concerto Meta,

5. Wharfedale evo 4.2,

6. Monitor Audio Gold 50

Which speakers are serious competitors to the DBR62? Of course, let's not get carried away with the price, because we're already talking about €2000 and above. The question then arises: is the upgrade worth it for only a slightly noticeable improvement in sound? But I'd say if I get 30-40% better sound than the DBR62, maybe I'd still be willing to spend €2000, but no more.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the basics first.
If you don't use a high-pass filter to cross over the DBR62s (or other speakers) when using a subwoofer, you're wasting a large part of their potential. Even without a subwoofer, a high-pass filter can make a significant difference and improve performance.

To put it simply, the DBR62 cannot reproduce low frequencies—or does so inadequately—yet the driver cone still moves. This leads to imprecise sound reproduction as well as unnecessary strain on the mid-woofer.
At the same time, certain frequency ranges from the DBR62 and the subwoofer overlap and sum together, which is also highly counterproductive.
Just take a look at Spinorama to see the data and differences for your speakers (and others)—comparing setups with and without a subwoofer, and with and without DSP.

As I said, in my opinion, the best investment would be a USB measurement microphone and the use of REW.

In my experience, having a bed, two upholstered chairs/armchairs, a rug, curtains, and six large acoustic panels in a room of only 14 square meters suggests significant over-damping. Then again, I could be wrong. But if I'm not...

 

[LTig]

I watch a lot of YouTube videos, these tests of all sorts of things,

Most of them are BS. You can trust ASR and Erin's audio corner.

and now I have the opportunity to spend a bit more money on hi-fi because I simply want a better system. But I also have a limit: about €2000 for speakers and €2000 for an amplifier. Is it worth it? That's the question I'm asking myself!

It is possible, but whether it's worth to you is a personal thing you can only answer to yourself.

That said: with a budget of €4000 you could buy a Wiim Ultra streamer/preamp [€400] and a pair of Neumann KH150 or Genelec 8050B (both arounnd €3000).

 

[djdragon66]

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the basics first.
If you don't use a high-pass filter to cross over the DBR62s (or other speakers) when using a subwoofer, you're wasting a large part of their potential. Even without a subwoofer, a high-pass filter can make a significant difference and improve performance.


In my experience, having a bed, two upholstered chairs/armchairs, a rug, curtains, and six large acoustic panels in a room of only 14 square meters suggests significant over-damping. Then again, I could be wrong. But if I'm not...

I don't quite understand! If there are no subwoofers and I'm using a high-pass filter with the DBR62, where does the bass come from? Why should the sound be better as a result? Or do you have an example specifically for the DBR62 in the midrange and treble?

I installed the side panel because I've read everywhere that the first and second reflections (which can be determined using the mirror method) are the most important for damping. Therefore, I covered this area with decorative panels and left a gap at the back, which is lined with carpet against the wall and between the panels.

 

[LTig]

I don't quite understand! If there are no subwoofers and I'm using a high-pass filter with the DBR62, where does the bass come from? Why should the sound be better as a result? Or do you have an example specifically for the DBR62 in the midrange and treble?

@roland69 wrote: If you don't use a high-pass filter to cross over the DBR62s (or other speakers) when using a subwoofer, you're wasting a large part of their potential.

 

[NanoGuidingStar]

I'm curious though—when it comes to the Ascialb C6B, if spending 50% more on top of its price gets me the R3 Meta, is the extra investment worth it?

(This is for a home theater setup, with Ascialb F6Bs as side surrounds and DBR62s as rear surrounds.

To be honest, my initial plan was to go with the C6B and Ascialb's upcoming MTM center speaker. However, development on their center speaker seems to be significantly delayed, and it might not drop until late this year or early next year.

This has led me to reconsider going with the KEF R3 Meta + R2 Meta combo for my LCR setup instead.

 

[Roland68]

I don't quite understand! If there are no subwoofers and I'm using a high-pass filter with the DBR62, where does the bass come from? Why should the sound be better as a result? Or do you have an example specifically for the DBR62 in the midrange and treble?

I installed the side panel because I've read everywhere that the first and second reflections (which can be determined using the mirror method) are the most important for damping. Therefore, I covered this area with decorative panels and left a gap at the back, which is lined with carpet against the wall and between the panels.

You do realize that a high-pass filter can be set at 20, 30, 40, 45, or even 50 Hz, right? This makes a lot of sense for many bookshelf speakers—especially when used without a subwoofer—because it relieves the mid-woofer of a frequency range where the cone moves but simply lacks the surface area needed to produce meaningful volume.

However, it makes an even bigger difference when using a subwoofer.

You can easily test this by installing DSP software on your computer, setting a steep-slope high-pass filter at those frequencies, and sending the signal to the Yamaha via USB.
Naturally, do this without a subwoofer. Then, listen to how your DBR62s perform with and without the respective high-pass filters.

It seems you haven't come across the fact that a room can also be overdamped. There is simulation software available for that as well, allowing you to model your entire room and run calculations on it.

 

[Roland68]

I'm curious though—when it comes to the Ascialb C6B, if spending 50% more on top of its price gets me the R3 Meta, is the extra investment worth it?

(This is for a home theater setup, with Ascialb F6Bs as side surrounds and DBR62s as rear surrounds.

To be honest, my initial plan was to go with the C6B and Ascialb's upcoming MTM center speaker. However, development on their center speaker seems to be significantly delayed, and it might not drop until late this year or early next year.

This has led me to reconsider going with the KEF R3 Meta + R2 Meta combo for my LCR setup instead.

I would never again use an MTM speaker laid on its side as a center channel. Just look at the dispersion characteristics of a D'Appolito speaker and what happens when you lay it on its side.
The best center speaker is a standard speaker—ideally the same model as the front speakers.

 

[djdragon66]

You do realize that a high-pass filter can be set at 20, 30, 40, 45, or even 50 Hz, right? This makes a lot of sense for many bookshelf speakers—especially when used without a subwoofer—because it relieves the mid-woofer of a frequency range where the cone moves but simply lacks the surface area needed to produce meaningful volume.

But if you have a stereo amplifier like the Cambridge EXA100 and can't adjust the high-pass filter, what's the point? And you've already spent twice as much on the amplifier. How can you then adjust the high-pass filter for your speakers? If it's so good, why doesn't everyone have an amplifier? I'm just asking; I want to know more, not to provoke anyone.

I know this is the setting that YPAO uses for me, which separates at approximately 80 Hz. But as I said, I didn't want to get used to it because many people say it's artificial or not recommended. But here in this forum, people say something different, and I have to try and test it.

 

[Roland68]

But if you have a stereo amplifier like the Cambridge EXA100 and can't adjust the high-pass filter, what's the point? And you've already spent twice as much on the amplifier. How can you then adjust the high-pass filter for your speakers? If it's so good, why doesn't everyone have an amplifier? I'm just asking; I want to know more, not to provoke anyone.

I know this is the setting that YPAO uses for me, which separates at approximately 80 Hz. But as I said, I didn't want to get used to it because many people say it's artificial or not recommended. But here in this forum, people say something different, and I have to try and test it.

I wasn't talking about YPAO, but rather about dedicated DSP software on your computer that operates independently of your amplifier. There were reasons for that. You should disable YPAO, the subwoofer, and all other sound settings for this purpose.

It makes no sense to me to keep discussing this when, on the one hand, you say you don't understand it, yet on the other, you aren't willing to try out some basic things.

 

[djdragon66]

I wasn't talking about YPAO, but rather about dedicated DSP software on your computer that operates independently of your amplifier. There were reasons for that. You should disable YPAO, the subwoofer, and all other sound settings for this purpose.

It makes no sense to me to keep discussing this when, on the one hand, you say you don't understand it, yet on the other, you aren't willing to try out some basic things.

Sorry, but I need to understand.



Can I continue using my DBR62 via my Yamaha RN800A (YPAO switched off, Pure DIRECT mode possibly on) and configure the DBR62 via PC with a high-pass filter? How exactly? Or only if the PC is the streamer and I'm using the Yamaha's USB DAC connection? Please explain. By the way, I'm only getting my new Cambridge Audio CXN100 SE streamer tomorrow.

And the CXN100 is supposedly connected to the Yamaha via analog (as recommended), with Pure Direct activated, and the CXN100's better DAC used. But then there's the problem: I can no longer use YPAO. Is there any way to use a high-pass filter with the Elac DBR62 speakers?

 

[pdfield34]

Almost everyone here is talking about the Kef R3 Meta. Are there other models that are better than my DBR62? Or did I just mention the Kef R3 Meta by chance?

1. Triangle Theta,

2. Kef R3 Meta,

3. Q Acoustics Concept 50 floorstanding speakers (not too big),

4. Kef Q Concerto Meta,

5. Wharfedale evo 4.2,

6. Monitor Audio Gold 50

Which speakers are serious competitors to the DBR62? Of course, let's not get carried away with the price, because we're already talking about €2000 and above. The question then arises: is the upgrade worth it for only a slightly noticeable improvement in sound? But I'd say if I get 30-40% better sound than the DBR62, maybe I'd still be willing to spend €2000, but no more.

With room correction / eq implemented you will not get 30-40% better sound. You will get some variation and you will satisfy a curiosity (perfectly valid).
The Elacs are solid, solid, solid. There is a reason they are old and still going for $800. I point out KEF as a comparison because that is what I know, and I feel that you will experience some variation if you were to go with KEFs (imaging and directivity).

 

[Marc v E]

@djdragon66 I see you joined yesterday. When I joined it took me some time to get used to this forum and the reviews, but in the end it gave me a much better system for a lower price. It takes time to understand. You could watch some explainer videos that Amirm posted on youtube while trying out a few thing with your current setup.

 

[Chromatischism]

Almost everyone here is talking about the Kef R3 Meta. Are there other models that are better than my DBR62? Or did I just mention the Kef R3 Meta by chance?

1. Triangle Theta,

2. Kef R3 Meta,

3. Q Acoustics Concept 50 floorstanding speakers (not too big),

4. Kef Q Concerto Meta,

5. Wharfedale evo 4.2,

6. Monitor Audio Gold 50

Out of your list, I believe the R3 Meta is the best.

Which speakers are serious competitors to the DBR62? Of course, let's not get carried away with the price, because we're already talking about €2000 and above. The question then arises: is the upgrade worth it for only a slightly noticeable improvement in sound? But I'd say if I get 30-40% better sound than the DBR62, maybe I'd still be willing to spend €2000, but no more.

Note that speaking in percentages is very subjective and subject to error. But my experience trialing the ELAC DFR52 vs the Buchardt S400–another top speaker in that price range–tells me that moving to speakers in the $2k/pair range would get you a solid 35% improvement in sound quality.

The S400 MKII is another speaker I'd look into. Great measurements. I'd prefer it over the R3M due to a little wider directivity and better bass.

 

[Chromatischism]

I'm curious though—when it comes to the Ascialb C6B, if spending 50% more on top of its price gets me the R3 Meta, is the extra investment worth it?

No. The Ascilab speakers have been a disruptor in this price range. But it doesn't matter if you can't get them.

 

[djdragon66]

Out of your list, I believe the R3 Meta is the best.


Note that speaking in percentages is very subjective and subject to error. But my experience trialing the ELAC DFR52 vs the Buchardt S400–another top speaker in that price range–tells me that moving to speakers in the $2k/pair range would get you a solid 35% improvement in sound quality.

The S400 MKII is another speaker I'd look into. Great measurements. I'd prefer it over the R3M due to a little wider directivity and better bass.

First of all, thank you so much for the excellent expert recommendations.

I wasn't familiar with the Elac Debut Reference DFR52; it costs around €700 per pair here in Europe. However, it's not suitable for my room, or more precisely, my 14 m² room (at least I don't think so). I believe the DBR-62 would be better suited for a smaller room? I'm considering replacing it with the DFR52, then I wouldn't need the Elac RS500 subwoofer anymore. But I think that would be pointless.

The Buchardt S400 MKII costs €2800 here, which is too expensive for me. I'd like to stick with the KEF R3 Meta, which costs around €2000 per pair. But that's just a plan, and I'll probably stick with the R3 Meta. Does this mean that the R3 Meta is a good alternative to the DBR62 in the €2000 range and I don't need to speculate about other alternatives?

 

[Marc v E]

In my experience preference score aligns with my own experience. It's basically saying that based on research people generally prefer one kind of frequency range (speaker and eq) over another if tested without seeing the speaker but only hearing them.

Based on preference score from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, the elac dbr62 vs the buchard s400 vs the Kef R3 scores:

NO EQ
| Rank | Speaker | Score |
|_______|_______________|_______|
| 1 | KEF R3 | 6.46 |
| 2 | ELAC DBR62 | 5.56 |
| 3 | Buchardt S400 | 5.40 |

WITH EQ
| Rank | Speaker | Score |
|_______|_______________|_______|
| 1 | KEF R3 | 6.86 |
| 2 | Buchardt S400 | 6.73 |
| 3 | ELAC DBR62 | 5.82 |

WITH SUB
| Rank | Speaker | Score |
|_______|_______________|_______|
| 1 | KEF R3 | 8.27 |
| 2 | ELAC DBR62 | 7.76 |
| 3 | Buchardt S400 | 7.59 |

SUB + EQ
| Rank | Speaker | Score |
|_______|_______________|_______|
| 1 | Buchardt S400 | 8.54 |
| 2 | KEF R3 | 8.52 |
| 3 | ELAC DBR62 | 7.89 |

(Spinoramama.org)

Basically what you can get from this data, is that adding a sub really matters a lot: on average + 2 points.
For that to work you need a crossover and eq.

Comparing elac dbr62 and buchard on their own merits (without sub and eq) there is only a marginal difference of 5.56/5.40= 3% in favour of the elac. And with eq 6.73/5.82 = 15% in favour of the buchard. With sub there is a 7.76/5.56= 40% increase for the elac.

This imo really shows you what matters. That's why I would recommend to keep your speakers, integrate the sub properly with a crossover and eq and experiment a bit with measuring to get real improvements and a good perception of what matters.