Elac Debut Reference DBR-62 Speaker Review

[renaudrenaud]

Ok, let's go for a new ring. We will design this tomorrow. It's time to switch off and go to bed... But this is only the first bars of Tubular Bells... Can I stay a little bit more time in the sofa?
Edit: We have phosphorescent PLA, I thing it's mandatory for listening at night.

 

[ferongr]

Without before and measurements of the "mod", we can't be sure of anything. This starts veering into audionervosa "tweaker" territory.

 

[renaudrenaud]

Without before and measurements of the "mod", we can't be sure of anything. This starts veering into audionervosa "tweaker" territory.

Of course you're right. But the beginning of the story was the grid not aligned. We do not have any measurement for this.

 

[wje]

Still enjoying the Elac Debut Reference speakers. Female vocal jazz just seems so soothing after midnight. Speaking subjectively, of course, the sound just seems "balanced" for my ears at this point.

 

[hardisj]

So, I finally got set up today to at least start taking some test measurements. I started with the ELAC since it's what I sent to Amir and was tested here. My results are ... different. Particularly in how Amir's measurements show a lift from about 600 - 1khz while mine shows the lift from about 1-2khz. Now, this was measured with the DUT about 8.5 feet off the ground and the first reflection didn't occur until about 13 ms (see attached). That means the first reflection does not occur until roughly 80hz (that's a good thing; a real good thing). Now, I played around with seeing what happens if I drop that window down to the standard 3ms that so many are forced to use. The trend still stays the same. You'll also notice I have a smoother response up high; no dip in the 16khz region as measured by Amir. I did play with adding foam to my mic stand. No real difference was made.

Point being, outside measurements has kind of been considered the next-best-thing to anechoic (and now NFS) measurements but there's a decent difference in what I measured (with a huge window of time being reflection free). I'm going to do this again tomorrow and if I find the same results I'm planning on contacting Klippel to see what they think.


I don't necessarily think there is anything alarming here; not yet, at least. But I wanted to share.

Note: Measurements were conducted with no ambient noise (no cars, no kids screaming, etc.) Measurements were averaged with 2-4 sweeps to help remedy any external noise, just in case, as advised by Klippel R&D.

 

[napilopez]

So, I finally got set up today to at least start taking some test measurements. I started with the ELAC since it's what I sent to Amir and was tested here. My results are ... different. Particularly in how Amir's measurements show a lift from about 600 - 1khz while mine shows the lift from about 1-2khz. Now, this was measured with the DUT about 8.5 feet off the ground and the first reflection didn't occur until about 13 ms (see attached). That means the first reflection does not occur until roughly 80hz (that's a good thing; a real good thing). Now, I played around with seeing what happens if I drop that window down to the standard 3ms that so many are forced to use. The trend still stays the same. You'll also notice I have a smoother response up high; no dip in the 16khz region as measured by Amir. I did play with adding foam to my mic stand. No real difference was made.

Point being, outside measurements has kind of been considered the next-best-thing to anechoic (and now NFS) measurements but there's a decent difference in what I measured (with a huge window of time being reflection free). I'm going to do this again tomorrow and if I find the same results I'm planning on contacting Klippel to see what they think.


I don't necessarily think there is anything alarming here; not yet, at least. But I wanted to share.

Note: Measurements were conducted with no ambient noise (no cars, no kids screaming, etc.) Measurements were averaged with 2-4 sweeps to help remedy any external noise, just in case, as advised by Klippel R&D.

View attachment 59618View attachment 59619View attachment 59620View attachment 59621

@hardisj Thanks for following up with measurements!

Probably not the cause, and it's hard to tell from the image, but is the speaker pushed up all the way to the front of that platform? I've sometimes found stray reflections from measurement platforms can noticeably affect the measured frequency response, although rarely as broad as the hump in your measurements.

EDIT: Particularly the bump at circa 1ms on the impulse response strikes me as unusual.

 

[hardisj]

@hardisj Thanks for following up with measurements!

Probably not the cause, and it's hard to tell from the image, but is the speaker pushed up all the way to the front of that platform? I've sometimes found stray reflections from measurement platforms can noticeably affect the measured frequency response, although rarely as broad as the hump in your measurements.

EDIT: Particularly the bump at circa 1ms on the impulse response strikes me as unusual.

The speaker was flush with the stand platform.

Not sure about the 1ms mark. But there is nothing in the vicinity of the speaker, as you can see. 1ms is just over 1 foot and there's nothing anywhere near that close. Literally the closest thing is the mic at 1 meter and the nearest surface is the floor at about 8.5 feet directly down (more when you consider the triangle path).

 

[napilopez]

The speaker was flush with the stand platform.

Not sure about the 1ms mark. But there is nothing in the vicinity of the speaker, as you can see. 1ms is just over 1 foot and there's nothing anywhere near that close. Literally the closest thing is the mic at 1 meter and the nearest surface is the floor at about 8.5 feet directly down (more when you consider the triangle path).

Yeah, I figured. And I imagine the pole is unlikely to make such a contribution...

A mystery!

I wouldn't worry about the HF differences much as that can vary so much by microphone, calibration, and slight positioning changes, but the midrange discrepancies are certainly curious.

 

[amirm]

Thanks for the measurements. How are you determining the orthogonality of the mic relative to the speaker and the angle? On NFS, I am able to push the mic to almost touching the tweeter. I center it there and then make sure the speaker is parallel to the stand which is at 90 degree angle to microphone boom. It can still be off a bit since I am not using instrumentation.

The two measurements are well correlated as is. I don't think we will ever have identical measurements using different systems.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Negative impressions
Something about the timbre in the extreme high frequencies seems off to me. Extra sparkle around 8-12KHz that adds a little color to violins that souldn't be there? This shows up on a few poor recordings I have with artifacts in that region. Seems a few db higher than on headphones I own and like, as well as compared to the 305s. The voicing in the midrange to midbass is maybe too lean out of box for me. They *will* need a subwoofer to do kick drums and bass justice if not using lots of power and DSP.

Well, I don't have the DBR62's yet but remember the Debut 6.0 is known for having a dark, rolled off top end without a lot of detail. This was the number one complaint and why they were reworked for the Debut 6.2. The 6.0 were also know for having a "fat" bass that deviated from neutral.
I have noticed that poor recordings did not fare well on the Debut 5.2, nor do they fare well on many speakers I have used that have good response in the high end. Just a thought for you , you may prefer a mellow non neutral & heading dark top end (sometimes I do, loved my old Boston M25's for that quality) and "fat" bass.
I have used the JBL Series three in the 6 and 8 inch sizes (not the 5 as you have) and I found them to be smooth but lacking in ultimate detail and sparkle. They were solid but did no justice to excellent recordings, they did help gloss over the defects of poor recording though. Pick your poison there.
finally, ADCOM is know for being bright if you get into that sort of subjective thing.
You're room may also be a factor as if it is small you likely have a big dip in the kick drum region of the upper bass. Make sure your seat is not in the center of the room front to back.

It’s a lot of fun comparing notes here!
Agree with @Gatordaddy about the highs sparkling. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing I guess is subjective? I really enjoy it as a fun aspect of this speaker and think of it as a realism where a lot of other speakers might back off in an effort not to offend. This is not your 4-5 khz crashy edgy sound I don’t think, I think it‘s like @Gatordaddy said, something going on more toward the 10 khz area. I think we would agree it’s a little attention-grabbing anyway.

 

[ROOSKIE]

If I were shopping it would probably be for the R3. However, in the sub $1000 price range I like the Revel M16 better primarily because it has a much better finish. The preference rating is nearly the same. The Elac is a great achievement for only $600 and what we would expect from Andrew Jones.

Music direct has the Revel M16 B-stock for $630 shipped(plus taxes)
https://www.musicdirect.com/speakers/Revel-M16-Bookshelf-Speakers-B-STOCK

 

[napilopez]

Thanks for the measurements. How are you determining the orthogonality of the mic relative to the speaker and the angle? On NFS, I am able to push the mic to almost touching the tweeter. I center it there and then make sure the speaker is parallel to the stand which is at 90 degree angle to microphone boom. It can still be off a bit since I am not using instrumentation.

The two measurements are well correlated as is. I don't think we will ever have identical measurements using different systems.

While I do largely agree, I would personally expect greater consistency than displayed above in the mids and beyond, based on my comparisons with anechoic measurements thus far, especially considering it's the same sample.

For example, here's how the four speakers I've overlapped with the NRC measurements compare...

Focal Chora 806 vs soundstage network's measurements:

Dutch & Dutch 8C (messy, but shows even off axis angles match at 0, 30, and 60 degrees):

These had slightly different referent axes, but still show good agreement:

PSB Alpha P5:

Q Acoustics 3020i:

Some discrepancy - in particular my measurements miss bumps in the lower mids because of the resolution, but overall quite good agreements on trends despite different samples. Also note the taller vertical scaling.

The 3020i and Chora I measured before soundstage published their measurements too, so it wasn't a case of me trying to match my measurements to theirs =]

Anyway I don't mean to say things should match to the exact dB, just pointing out that a fair bit of consistency is possible with very different measurement systems.

 

[hardisj]

Thanks for the measurements. How are you determining the orthogonality of the mic relative to the speaker and the angle? On NFS, I am able to push the mic to almost touching the tweeter. I center it there and then make sure the speaker is parallel to the stand which is at 90 degree angle to microphone boom. It can still be off a bit since I am not using instrumentation.

I used a level on the speaker and the mic boom to make sure they're both level. And a laser point positioned on the mic boom to see where it's aimed. But I may be overhauling the stand setup anyway.

 

[Doodski]

I used a level on the speaker and the mic boom to make sure they're both level. And a laser point positioned on the mic boom to see where it's aimed. But I may be overhauling the stand setup anyway.

You need some stairs leading up to the speaker platform. So you don't hurt yourself. StuFF happens.

 

[hardisj]

You need some stairs leading up to the speaker platform. So you don't hurt yourself. StuFF happens.

I don't disagree. But those would be some big ol' stairs. And that would not be cheap. I've already exhausted all the donations I've received a long time ago. Right now I'm running on fumes. That's why you see me trying to make my basketball goal work for this project.

 

[hardisj]

I actually did look in to a DIY lift. Or just outright buying a used one from a machine company in town but when I go to my wife with "I need to spend $1k on this (thing)" ... well, that doesn't go over so well when I've already spent thousands. Of course, there's the old adage "better to ask forgiveness" but I think giving her half of everything would cost me more in the long run. LOL

 

[BYRTT]

@hardisj Thanks for following up with measurements!

Probably not the cause, and it's hard to tell from the image, but is the speaker pushed up all the way to the front of that platform? I've sometimes found stray reflections from measurement platforms can noticeably affect the measured frequency response, although rarely as broad as the hump in your measurements.

EDIT: Particularly the bump at circa 1ms on the impulse response strikes me as unusual.

The speaker was flush with the stand platform.

Not sure about the 1ms mark. But there is nothing in the vicinity of the speaker, as you can see. 1ms is just over 1 foot and there's nothing anywhere near that close. Literally the closest thing is the mic at 1 meter and the nearest surface is the floor at about 8.5 feet directly down (more when you consider the triangle path).

Yeah, I figured. And I imagine the pole is unlikely to make such a contribution...

A mystery!

I wouldn't worry about the HF differences much as that can vary so much by microphone, calibration, and slight positioning changes, but the midrange discrepancies are certainly curious.

Thanks for the measurements. How are you determining the orthogonality of the mic relative to the speaker and the angle? On NFS, I am able to push the mic to almost touching the tweeter. I center it there and then make sure the speaker is parallel to the stand which is at 90 degree angle to microphone boom. It can still be off a bit since I am not using instrumentation.

The two measurements are well correlated as is. I don't think we will ever have identical measurements using different systems.

Bit surprise that a area as 500-2500Hz would deviate some for DBR62 ..

 

[napilopez]

Bit surprise that a area as 500-2500Hz would deviate some for DBR62
View attachment 59640

Someone needs to give you an award for your animations

 

[hardisj]

yea, that impulse bump at 1ms bothers me. I don't know what to make of it right now. But this is exactly why I haven't started releasing any "official" test data yet. I'm still in the early stages. I just can't think of why that would be there if it weren't real. I've still got some testing and other aspects of my setup I need to iron out so I'll definitely be doing another round. Maybe there's something simple in the setup that I'm forgetting at this very moment. Let's put a pin in that for now.

 

[amirm]

Looking at the dip towards 20 kHz, it goes away in my measurements with as little as 10 degrees in horizontal axis:

I wonder of that dip is a diffraction that is picked up in near field but not in far.