ELAC DF63 Floor standing Speaker Review

[jdavis417]

Preference Rating
SCORE: 6.0
SCORE w/sub: 7.2

Sensitivity: 86.5dB (300Hz-3kHz ; spec: 87.5dB)
Frequency response: ±4.3dB 31Hz-20kHz ; ±3.4dB 80Hz-20kHz

View attachment 474581
View attachment 474576View attachment 474577
View attachment 474578View attachment 474579
View attachment 474580​

Here is a screenshot of what is currently listed in the ranking database on this site... Is this the same ranking? What changed and when?

Thanks in advance.

 

[beagleman]

I don't think that's a fair criticism of the forum membership. The rigorous, large-N random sampling you're talking about is the manufacturer's responsibility, not @amirm 's or any other reviewer's. If we can't be reasonably confident that a review sample will be representative of the performance of a unit we purchase, that's not on the reviewer or on the allegedly poor understanding of forum members. That's on the manufacturer - and that by itself is reason to avoid that manufacturer's products.

Yes for sure on the manufacturer. It seems almost certain we have some issues with drivers etc here.

But at the same time, many forum members, only comments are "Junk, I will pass" on this, and that gives the impression, they are not aware of what may be at play in this particular review, or put little to no thought into their comments.

Sure it could be poor quality control, OR simply something that was a one off damaged unit.

Erin got far better distortion at 96db, in fact, not just the normal small variations, but magnitudes better, increasing the chance of issues with this particular model that Amir got, one way or another.

 

[Power Pop 23]

Yes for sure on the manufacturer. It seems almost certain we have some issues with drivers etc here.

But at the same time, many forum members, only comments are "Junk, I will pass" on this, and that gives the impression, they are not aware of what may be at play in this particular review, or put little to no thought into their comments.

Sure it could be poor quality control, OR simply something that was a one off damaged unit.

Erin got far better distortion at 96db, in fact, not just the normal small variations, but magnitudes better, increasing the chance of issues with this particular model that Amir got, one way or another.

Agreed.

I am happy ELAC sent Erin a DF63 to measure and disappointed ELAC has not (AFAIK) contacted Amir regarding his review of the ELAC DF63.

 

[Marin]

This is a review, listening tests, and detailed measurements of the ELAC DF63 Debut 3.0 Tower speaker. It was kindly drop shipped and donated by a member. It costs US $649 each.
View attachment 474472
The DF63 looks no worse or better than I expected which means, it is fine. Nothing exciting in the back other than the two ports:

View attachment 474473
I appreciated close to the ground terminals as there is less chance of speaker wire resonating against the cabinet. And rear ports means that their high frequency distortion is less likely to be audible.

As usual, if you are not familiar with my speaker measurements, please watch this video first:

ELAC DF63 Speaker Measurement
As usual, we start with our family of anechoic frequency response graphs generated by Klippel Near-field Scanner:
View attachment 474474
If you stand back (or filter the graph), the on-axis response generally looks level. Closer examination shows something untoward happening around 900 to 1000 Hz. And a few resonances at 90 and 180 Hz. Treble response also has some variability. But again, at high level, this is not bad.

Sensitivity is specified at 87.5 dB and it gets there, making it about 1 to 2 dB better than average (can get louder with the same amplification power). This is a common benefit of tower speakers with multiple woofers.

Directivity is reasonably smooth although doesn't follow a monotonic trend. This messes (badly) with early window reflections:
View attachment 474475

And as a result, in predicted in-room frequency response:
View attachment 474476

Showing just one port and woofer, we see the reason for some of the anechoic frequency response errors:
View attachment 474477

While this is a 3-way rather than (messy) 2.5 way speaker, it still suffers from multi-sourced interference including a port/cabinet resonance.

Back to directivity, we see very well controlled one horizontally above 1 kHz:
View attachment 474478
View attachment 474479

Vertical is messy despite the midrange:
View attachment 474480

See the messiness around 1 kHz in both graphs.

Distortion test generated very surprising results:
View attachment 474481
View attachment 474482

I have not ever seen such a massive jump in distortion with 10 dB in this class speaker! We go from better than average to worse than average. Here is a comparison with 5 dB increments:
View attachment 474483

I could hear some audible distortion at 96 dBSPL which got highly exaggerated at 101 dBSPL, rattling the entire structure of the Klippel NFS. In other words, what there is, is amplified by the cabinet.

Impedance is on the low side:
View attachment 474486

Waterfall and step responses are as expected:
View attachment 474484

View attachment 474485

ELAC DF63 Speaker Listening Test
Listening tests were made in our massive (volume wise) living room as you kind of see in the review picture. Immediate impression was that of (pleasant) warmth and full range response I don't expect to hear in this class of speaker. Fidelity was good enough that I started to question what I had measured. So I jumped right into my sub-bass test tracks to chase down the distortion there:

Sub-bass was reproduced better than this speaker has any business delivering! I almost stopped there but glad that I did not. At 30 seconds, there are some high frequency (strings?) that normally don't bother any speaker I have tested. Oh boy. Did it upset the DF-63. Massive, and I mean massive resonance set into tweeter, creating screeching sound that was nearly as loud as the notes themselves! I reduced the volume down to some -10 dB but I could still hear it. My wife was next to me so I asked her if she could hear it at around -5 dB and she could! This is a flat out failure in my book and reminds of another ELAC speaker with the same problem although here, it is far worse.

I tried to detect the problem in other clips and it was much harder. I could hear strangeness in high notes in other tracks but wouldn't bet my salary on it and nowhere as clear as the above track. I can't imaging it not being there in other clips though.

As an aside, above is a great example of using carefully selected audio tracks for speaker testing, than whatever you normally listen to.

On bass, the deep notes were very satisfying. As I cranked up the volume, I could tell they would start to get distorted and muddy but this was at rather elevated levels.

On EQ, I filled in the 1 kHz hole and it opened the sound fair bit, making the stock sound wooly and too warm and closed without it.

Conclusions
The DF63 seems to have a different recipe than many other speakers I have tested. It seems to aim for deeper bass at the expense of higher distortion/lower SPL playback. There is also some interference around 1 kHz which EQ seems to paper over. The main issue as you can imagine, is that tweeter. I don't mind gradual distortion or power limited but not this kind of massive and sudden break up. Yes, I was listening kind of loud. But once I got sensitized to it, even playback at moderate levels was audible.

On the positive front, the deep bass is extremely satisfying, making the speaker nearly full range which is remarkable in this price class. Sensitivity is higher than normal, meaning less demand on the amplifier.

I am sad to give a failing grade to ELAC DF63. Some technical flaws I can't get over and such is the case with tweeter response here.
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Mistery continues....

 

[Marin]

This is a review, listening tests, and detailed measurements of the ELAC DF63 Debut 3.0 Tower speaker. It was kindly drop shipped and donated by a member. It costs US $649 each.
View attachment 474472
The DF63 looks no worse or better than I expected which means, it is fine. Nothing exciting in the back other than the two ports:

View attachment 474473
I appreciated close to the ground terminals as there is less chance of speaker wire resonating against the cabinet. And rear ports means that their high frequency distortion is less likely to be audible.

As usual, if you are not familiar with my speaker measurements, please watch this video first:

ELAC DF63 Speaker Measurement
As usual, we start with our family of anechoic frequency response graphs generated by Klippel Near-field Scanner:
View attachment 474474
If you stand back (or filter the graph), the on-axis response generally looks level. Closer examination shows something untoward happening around 900 to 1000 Hz. And a few resonances at 90 and 180 Hz. Treble response also has some variability. But again, at high level, this is not bad.

Sensitivity is specified at 87.5 dB and it gets there, making it about 1 to 2 dB better than average (can get louder with the same amplification power). This is a common benefit of tower speakers with multiple woofers.

Directivity is reasonably smooth although doesn't follow a monotonic trend. This messes (badly) with early window reflections:
View attachment 474475

And as a result, in predicted in-room frequency response:
View attachment 474476

Showing just one port and woofer, we see the reason for some of the anechoic frequency response errors:
View attachment 474477

While this is a 3-way rather than (messy) 2.5 way speaker, it still suffers from multi-sourced interference including a port/cabinet resonance.

Back to directivity, we see very well controlled one horizontally above 1 kHz:
View attachment 474478
View attachment 474479

Vertical is messy despite the midrange:
View attachment 474480

See the messiness around 1 kHz in both graphs.

Distortion test generated very surprising results:
View attachment 474481
View attachment 474482

I have not ever seen such a massive jump in distortion with 10 dB in this class speaker! We go from better than average to worse than average. Here is a comparison with 5 dB increments:
View attachment 474483

I could hear some audible distortion at 96 dBSPL which got highly exaggerated at 101 dBSPL, rattling the entire structure of the Klippel NFS. In other words, what there is, is amplified by the cabinet.

Impedance is on the low side:
View attachment 474486

Waterfall and step responses are as expected:
View attachment 474484

View attachment 474485

ELAC DF63 Speaker Listening Test
Listening tests were made in our massive (volume wise) living room as you kind of see in the review picture. Immediate impression was that of (pleasant) warmth and full range response I don't expect to hear in this class of speaker. Fidelity was good enough that I started to question what I had measured. So I jumped right into my sub-bass test tracks to chase down the distortion there:

Sub-bass was reproduced better than this speaker has any business delivering! I almost stopped there but glad that I did not. At 30 seconds, there are some high frequency (strings?) that normally don't bother any speaker I have tested. Oh boy. Did it upset the DF-63. Massive, and I mean massive resonance set into tweeter, creating screeching sound that was nearly as loud as the notes themselves! I reduced the volume down to some -10 dB but I could still hear it. My wife was next to me so I asked her if she could hear it at around -5 dB and she could! This is a flat out failure in my book and reminds of another ELAC speaker with the same problem although here, it is far worse.

I tried to detect the problem in other clips and it was much harder. I could hear strangeness in high notes in other tracks but wouldn't bet my salary on it and nowhere as clear as the above track. I can't imaging it not being there in other clips though.

As an aside, above is a great example of using carefully selected audio tracks for speaker testing, than whatever you normally listen to.

On bass, the deep notes were very satisfying. As I cranked up the volume, I could tell they would start to get distorted and muddy but this was at rather elevated levels.

On EQ, I filled in the 1 kHz hole and it opened the sound fair bit, making the stock sound wooly and too warm and closed without it.

Conclusions
The DF63 seems to have a different recipe than many other speakers I have tested. It seems to aim for deeper bass at the expense of higher distortion/lower SPL playback. There is also some interference around 1 kHz which EQ seems to paper over. The main issue as you can imagine, is that tweeter. I don't mind gradual distortion or power limited but not this kind of massive and sudden break up. Yes, I was listening kind of loud. But once I got sensitized to it, even playback at moderate levels was audible.

On the positive front, the deep bass is extremely satisfying, making the speaker nearly full range which is remarkable in this price class. Sensitivity is higher than normal, meaning less demand on the amplifier.

I am sad to give a failing grade to ELAC DF63. Some technical flaws I can't get over and such is the case with tweeter response here.
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

I've read all the comments and would like to give my two cents.
Let me first say that I really appreciate what Amirm does for our community and the man approaches everything from a scientific standpoint.
But he also went through harman training to make it easier to recognize the resonance and in which frequency it is approximately located.But those are not spikes with high Q but increased frequencies through two or three octaves (wide Q).
I personally avoid these tests because I simply don't want to know what to look for and look for irregularities.As they say,Sometimes it's better not to know some things because that would only diminish my love for music and this hobby.
This is how I got the first iteration of these speakers and they were designed by Adrew. So I bought the speakers out of the blue just for that.
I knew he liked the gently sloping frequency curve and paid attention to the off-axis response.
Andrew himself said that the cabinet is the most expensive part of the speaker and that he focused on oversized motor structure and inch and a half voice coil so it can handle a lot of power and aramid fiber for membrane the quality of the driver and crossover.
The difference between these two are crossover point and twitter.Andrew prefer soft twitter and easy load on stereo equipment,he rated speaker as 6 Ohm but could easily be advertised as 10 or 8 Ohm load.
So Andrew use 100 Herz and 3000Herz crossover point, and this new one has crossed at 400 and 2200Herz.
The MDF are the same thickness and with minimum reinforcements are similarly placed in the box, and has same measures and weight.On the new speakers, the lower reinforcement is set too low, while on the older model it is between the two drivers and I saw that KEF sets the reinforcement next to driver, even supporting the motor structure, and they using leser interferometry so they know what they doing.
The uper reinforcement separate middle and twitter from the woofers,but is done beter with new one Because it breaks the inner waves better and strengthens the sides exactly where I feel the most vibration.
As soon as I played them for two weeks at 65spl.
Then I spent the whole evening in the dark listening to Dite Straits on around 90spl.
When I turned on the light, I saw that the wooden ashtray I had placed on the speaker had fallen.I place my hand on sides and it vibrate like sex toy right next to middle driver because he is responsible for 100 till 3000herz.
I couldn't figure out why the woofer crossover was placed so low.
Like two woofers play from 42 till 100hz. and that is it?
But know I believe that is because 350-400hz is where most voices both man and especially woman are located?
So resonance at 190 is more than real but you can't hear it no metter what I do.
The other thing that was weird that the whole tover insade has only one light white stuffing in upper section where middle and twitter are.
Back then, I thought we listened with our eyes, and the very thought of the box resonating drove me crazy.
And so I bought 5kg of green glue and took out the middle and both woffers and start applying thick coating inside and apply it thicker in some places and thinner in others so that the surface remains a little rough and it is applied so it looks like waves.
I spend whole 5 kilos so 2,5kg per tower.
The coating was thick at same place 8-10milimetar and some places 4.
Then I put that little bit of filling back up and nothing down there where the woffers are.
The resonance was gone but as soon as I star listening some familiar songs they sounded muffle.
I took frequencie sweet and the bas was lower by 2 db and whole frequency response was down by 1.5 db till 2500hz.
Basically I lower my speaker sensitivity.
I regrett imidiatly and I couldn't believe transformation from sound with all special Q and like it was live music to muffle sound and just couldn't believe so I hope someone learn from my mistake.
I really can't understand why such transformation occured and if someone has explanation I would appreciate if can share it.
Really for good embrace speaker tower you really need spend above 2500-3000 dollars like KEF R series and so on.

 

[jdavis417]

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.
The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.9
With Sub: 7.2

Spinorama with no EQ:
View attachment 474524
Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/15deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range. explanation hereView attachment 474533View attachment 474540
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 6.0
with sub: 7.6

Score EQ Score: 6.7
with sub: 8.2

ELAC DF63 APO LW EQ 96000Hz
September052025-211222

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 41.5 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.35
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 111.2 Hz Gain -2.88 dB Q 1.67
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 462.6 Hz Gain -1.42 dB Q 1.91
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1375.5 Hz Gain 1.85 dB Q 5.08
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1003.7 Hz Gain 2.72 dB Q 3.31
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3974.2 Hz Gain -1.29 dB Q 5.32
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8549.9 Hz Gain 3.58 dB Q 0.69
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9374.2 Hz Gain -3.02 dB Q 1.93

ELAC DF63 APO Score EQ 96000Hz
September052025-211222

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 41.5 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.36
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 112.1 Hz Gain -3.11 dB Q 1.48
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 448.4 Hz Gain -1.48 dB Q 1.61
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1366.8 Hz Gain 1.88 dB Q 4.02
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 971.4 Hz Gain 2.98 dB Q 4.66
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3951.5 Hz Gain -1.30 dB Q 6.00
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8455.3 Hz Gain 2.70 dB Q 1.28
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9389.6 Hz Gain -3.35 dB Q 1.90

View attachment 474529
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 474525

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 474526

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 474530

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 474527

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
No improvements?
View attachment 474528




The rest of the plots is attached.

Thank you so much for the EQ profiles!

I received a pair of these Elac speakers today and I feel that they are superior to the Infinity R253s and the Emotiva T2+'s that I have. Of course, they cost almost exactly as much as what I paid for both of those combined. LOL

 

[MZKM]

Here is a screenshot of what is currently listed in the ranking database on this site... Is this the same ranking? What changed and when?

Thanks in advance.

You mean 6.0 vs 6.1 and 7.2 vs 7.1?

If so, it's because the formula is missing clarification on some aspects, as such there is some minor leeway in how to calculate it (the "with sub" score is also something each person on their own made up how to calculate; I think for me it was whatever gave a perfect score for the bass sections, I think it was like 14Hz, others may have just chosen 20Hz). As you can see though, comparing the scores for everyone who calculates it, it usually doesn't result in more than a +/-0.1 difference.

 

[jdavis417]

You mean 6.0 vs 6.1 and 7.1 vs 7.2?

If so, it's because the formula is missing clarification on some aspects, as such there is some minor leeway in how to calculate it. As you can see though, comparing the scores for everyone who calculates it, it usually doesn't result in more than a single decimal spot of difference.

Good morning!

This was my first post and I've immediately shown that I'm an idiot who can't read! Sorry!

I ordered the speakers based on the score on the far right of the image that I attached which includes subwoofer AND equalization. Now I see that that is not represented in the ranking you list. I had a moment of buyers regret but now that the speakers are here, I find myself quite pleased.

Thank you so much for the clarification!

 

[MZKM]

Good morning!

This was my first post and I've immediately shown that I'm an idiot who can't read! Sorry!

I had ordered the speakers based on the score on the far right which includes subwoofer AND equalization and now I see that that is not represented in the ranking you list. I had a moment of buyers regret but now that the speakers are here, I find myself quite pleased.

Thank you so much for the clarification!

Yeah, I'm just doing everything in Sheets, so no auto-EQ solver from me (I could probably figure out a way; but EQ-ability is heavily reliant on what software/hardware you have available and also the setup in your particular space, and you don't easily know how extreme you can EQ a speaker without changing its distortion too much).

 

[jdavis417]

Yeah, I'm just doing everything in Sheets, so no auto-EQ solver from me (I could probably figure out a way; but EQ-ability is heavily reliant on what software/hardware you have available and also the setup in your particular space, and you don't easily know how extreme you can EQ a speaker without changing it's distortion too much).

Concerning those EQ solver predictions listed in the database I took a screenshot of, I find them to be both valid and valuable! Your evaluation, included right alongside the original, is also super informative as a direct, apples to apples, comparison and convenient!

I am creeping through that list searching for the outlier values. In my experience with the Emotiva and Infinity speakers from that list, I find that the predictions and separations between the speakers hold true. I want to mention that the upgrade from 8.2 to 8.4 with my current system including the Elacs is a pretty darn big difference!

 

[jdavis417]

...I place my hand on sides and it vibrate like sex toy right next to middle driver because he is responsible for 100 till 3000herz. ...

Yep I finally found what you're talking about! Mine exhibited as a loud click. It's right where you said!