Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[turbines]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 bookshelf speaker. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US US $600 a pair on Amazon including Prime shipping.

This review will be abbreviated for reasons that will become apparent later.

Here is a shot of the speaker:

View attachment 104686

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of less than 1% through majority of audible band.

Temperature was 59 degrees F. Measurement location is at sea level so you compute the pressure.

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

Reference axis was the tweeter center.

Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 104689

Hmmm, seems like we keep hitting on speakers that shelf the mid to highs for some reason, this type lowering it. I checked other reviews and this matched another measurement posted so it is not instrumentation error.

Early window aggravates this some:
View attachment 104690

Resulting in this predicted in-room response:

View attachment 104691

Strange to see a mass market product opt for this type of high frequency output as it is opposite of conventional retail wisdom of "what sells in a showroom."

Distortion-test shows some issue around 600 Hz:
View attachment 104692

It is a resonance that also appears in impedance graph:

View attachment 104693

Edit: adding directivity information:
View attachment 108449
View attachment 108450

View attachment 108451

Speaker Listening Tests
I always start my testing with select few female tracks as they quickly tell me if the speaker is too bright, lispy, etc. The first couple of tracks sounded fine but then I played the third standard track, the Eva Cassidy Ain't no Sunshine. Right at the marker something bad happened:
View attachment 104694

She takes a breath and starts singing. On Elac Uni-Fi I heared a rather loud squeak instead of that breath! I can't it to words but the artifact actually sounded louder than her voice which came on an instant after that.

I remember during the measurement prep, I could hear a high pitched sound in the middle of the sweep. Thought maybe this was the same thing. To narrow down the frequency, I cut off everything above 1 kHz and problem remained. I inverted and cut off the lows and problem went away. I got it close to around 600 Hz but couldn't get the exact frequency. So went back to the distortion graph and found that frequency and notched it out:


View attachment 104695

90% of the problem vanished! This speaker uses a new woofer and seems like it has a nasty resonances in this area that Eva's breath energizes. The artifact can be heard on the youtube version but not as strongly:

I stopped testing at this point. As a confirmation, I played the same track on Revel M105 and it sounded wonderful with zero issue (I have used the same track to test at least 100 speakers).

Conclusions
What a shock to discover what I did with this speaker. Usually resonances color the sound. They don't become instruments on their own. But that is what happened here. And in a design from the talented Andrew Jones. Given how easy it was to detect the issue in multiple measurements, it should have been caught and fixed.

As far as I am concerned, this is a show-stopper, broken design. Don't know how else to put it. FYI Eva Cassidy album is standard issue at all audio shows in multiple suites so it is not like it is some oddball track one never sees. I guess it is possible this one speaker sample has an issue in which case I encourage Elac to try to replicate this problem and let us know what is going on.

For now, I can not recommend the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Appreciate any donations using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

There have been several rave reviews of this speaker and I recently purchased a new pair of the UB52s. I haven't been able to hear the resonance amir described. My conclusion was based on listening tests using the Eva Cassidy track and tone generator very slow sweeps from 550 to 650 Hz. The sweeps were performed at quite high SPL.
I really believe amir may have received a defective sample. Is Andrew Jones or EPIC following up on this? Have other members reported problems? I really hope we see some additional tests on other samples.

 

[Barry_Sound]

There have been several rave reviews of this speaker and I recently purchased a new pair of the UB52s. I haven't been able to hear the resonance amir described. My conclusion was based on listening tests using the Eva Cassidy track and tone generator very slow sweeps from 550 to 650 Hz. The sweeps were performed at quite high SPL.
I really believe amir may have received a defective sample. Is Andrew Jones or EPIC following up on this? Have other members reported problems? I really hope we see some additional tests on other samples.

You need to crank up the volume beyond "healthy" to replicate the issue.

 

[turbines]

i wouldn't sweat it too much..most decent amps do just fine ...people pearl clutch over 10% of improvement in audio..it's an entitled first world problem ...

You need to crank up the volume beyond "healthy" to replicate the issue.

 

[turbines]

What is an unhealthy level? My listening was done at levels that hurt.

 

[NikJi]

A sample of one. I would not publish any findings based on a sample of one, especially if it is an unexpected behavior. No responsible scientist or engineer should do that.

 

[Shazb0t]

A sample of one. I would not publish any findings based on a sample of one, especially if it is an unexpected behavior. No responsible scientist or engineer should do that.

Let us know after you've purchased at least 30 pairs, tested them, compiled the statistical results, and made them available for free on the internet. Then you can complain.

 

[JayGilb]

A sample of one. I would not publish any findings based on a sample of one, especially if it is an unexpected behavior. No responsible scientist or engineer should do that.

Donating money to ASR is a good way of helping Amir become a "responsible scientist and engineer". Your donations will enable him to procure multiple numbers of the same model and replicate his measurements.

 

[Humon]

I assume by the recent posts that this debate is ongoing. I got the UB52's when they were on sale for the holidays and for what it is worth, I can't hear any problem using the referenced track. I have Monolith Monoblock stands filled with sand and some basic isolation, but using bananas.

 

[CauliflowerEars]

I have the Debut Reference DBR-62's and really like them, almost as much as previous speakers that were up to 6x more expensive.
As much as I like the DBR-62's I was wondering if I was missing out on something by not getting the UB52's.
I thought the UB5's were very good for the price, but not good enough to keep them.
Looks like any improvements with the Uni-Fi 2.0 come with some flaws.
The 3 things I value most are tonality, clarity, and having reasonably accurate response, so it looks like I made the best choice.

Did you maybe get a chance to try the UB52 as well?
I'm having the same thoughts, but have to chance to listen to them both in the same setup ...

 

[LtMandella]

To me, one of the most interesting, really interesting, aspects of this test: Amir had to actually do a LISTENING test to identify a problem! The normal measurements did not have a clue!

I am curious how the "measurements are everything" folks rationalize this obvious contradiction to their rock solid and unwavering commitment to the idea that measurements are everything....

 

[Steve Dallas]

To me, one of the most interesting, really interesting, aspects of this test: Amir had to actually do a LISTENING test to identify a problem! The normal measurements did not have a clue!

I am curious how the "measurements are everything" folks rationalize this obvious contradiction to their rock solid and unwavering commitment to the idea that measurements are everything....

Where is this "measurements are everything" unicorn to which you refer? This board has some of those in the area of electronics, but very few in the area of speakers. Almost all of us acknowledge measurements do not tell the whole story when it comes to transducers.

 

[CauliflowerEars]

...well, this thread horrified me, but it didn't make me dislike the Uni-Fi 2.0...I like them very much and indeed feel I might have been spoiled by the sound they present...

...so it is with heavy heart that I packed them back off to Amazon...this had nothing to do with the 600 hz blow out...that did make for a good excuse...

...I had decided to just not worry aboot that as I would likely never drive the speakers hard enough to invoke the demon and really loved the detailed expansive soundstage...the $450 sale price made that easy fo me to decide...

...I though we would be OK with the cloth dome tweeter but the aluminium drivers seem to irritate my ears...they get really twinged in the voice range...

...I am looking to replace them with a set of ELAC DBR62...both amirm and Randy like those...I just hope they don't sound too muddy and flat after my Uni-Fi Experience....

...I am very much tmepted by the new Uni-Fi Reference speaker but understand I would just run into the same issue evn though I am sure I would like that speaker even more than the Uni-Fi 2.0...

Did you get the DBR62s? How are they, compared to the UB52?

 

[Jeff19342]

Yes there is a potential resonance issue with the UB52 & UC52 cabinets at VERY high volume, but there’s a very good reason to keep Uni-Fi 2.0 on your short list of speakers if you’re into home theater… Typical center speaker design is not good for multiple listening positions; however a coaxial design is & the UC52 is the highest rated center all the way up to $1400 according to this list here on ASR:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-recommendations-for-usa-by-sweetchaos.28296/

Note Amir never said Uni-Fi 2.0 sound bad; he simply pointed out a design quirk… One that can be mitigated if you know what to look for (which Amir points out). Eliminating banana jacks worked for me (they buzzed very audibly whenever the 550 Hz resonance occurred.) I also added isolation pads just for good measure. And I tend not to play them at the extremely high volumes that will energize the cabinets to vibrate aggressively. Problem solved. I can feel it when I touch the cabinet at high volume during Eva’s “Ggggoooes..” but never HEAR the resonance any more.

I considered opening them up to add bracing in the middle of cabinet I suspect Elac engineers would have preferred to reinforce the cabinet further but costs dictated the final settled on design… Note the UB52 & UC52 are among the most affordable coaxial speakers available & also have high quality components, so some compromise had to occur to achieve their target price point.

I wouldn’t blame anyone from deciding this potential resonance isn’t worth the risk of the hassle to return them. But I encourage anyone who wants excellent affordable home theater speakers—especially in a wider room that will entertain multiple people—give the Uni-Fi 2.0’s a listen.

 

[Benedium]

I recently got the whole unifi 2.0 combo of floorstander, center and bookshelf speakers at a good price... I believe for beginners it doesn't get much better than this.

The 3 way and the concentric features really seems to fix lots of room problems with my AVR's room correction. Lesson for beginner like me is... instead of mixing and matching, just trust the manufacturer.

I believe now I won't need to upgrade anymore, until I feel I can afford a Kef Reference Meta combo. Heheh.

 

[Shazb0t]

To me, one of the most interesting, really interesting, aspects of this test: Amir had to actually do a LISTENING test to identify a problem! The normal measurements did not have a clue!

I am curious how the "measurements are everything" folks rationalize this obvious contradiction to their rock solid and unwavering commitment to the idea that measurements are everything....

Despite the obvious strawman that is your argument, did you just ignore the part where measurements actually showed the resonance?

 

[Humon]

I haven't been able to recreate the resonance problem, but I don't doubt that it exists under certain conditions. The thing is, every speaker should be judged at its price point. They go on sale fairly regularly, but even at the full price they are freakishly good. They may have some noteworthy shortcomings, but for the vast majority of listening conditions they outperform their price point by a wide margin. I think everyone who has the power to run them should get a pair at the sale price as a backup and reference set, even if you have better speakers for daily use. Like right now I had to send my new Lintons back because Wharfedale's warehouse screwed up my order. My Elac UB52's will be the stand-in until that debacle is sorted out. No, they aren't as full sounding as the Lintons, but with help from a good sub, they come surprisingly close. I think this is why some people find this thread troubling, because it obscures the fact that the UB52's are nevertheless very good speakers for the money.

 

[fineMen]

... they outperform their price point by a wide margin.

Did you see the distortion graph at 96dB?

All components HD2, HD3, HD4 are peaking. This is 'buzz', the most devastating problem with speakers. No go, no no. Apparently Elac didn't come back to this. What else to say, really?

I once had a palette of speaker drivers, old stock. They, all, sounded strange with a nasty something especially with piano music. I went through the frequencies to find an increadibly sharp peak in distortion at 1234Hz, only a few Hz wide and all the very same. Standard measurements missed it perfectly, but my ears with music not. A buzz like that renders a speaker unusable for anything remotely 'hifi'. Gross!

 

[Hapo]

...I loved these speakers, but they hurt my ears...

 

[Benedium]

Maybe the floorstanders UF52 are better?

 

[iulianm]

I had UF52 and returned them as the build quality was terrible. (they were supposed to be brand new but grilles came with broken legs, etc)
While this doesn't speak about the sound in any way, it might be an indicator of the quality control with *52 series to get a certain number of units that experience resonances.

The UB5s were flawless and I haven't heard much about resonances like UB52.

I have UC52 and that one seems fine and did not noticed any resonances (still bad quality; tried to take the grille off very gentle after 1 year and half of the legs got stuck in the speaker).