Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[q3cpma]

As to making intermodulation measurements, that is another option to pay for on Klippel. I could try to set it up and measure it on AP but really, I don't see my job as spending tons of effort troubleshooting the cause. I am here to report on what I test. There is enough data here for the company to investigate. Or contact the owner to buy his unit to test before he returns it.

Just hope you'll do it when you get another good coaxial (KEF or Genelec).

 

[Rock Rabbit]

For testers here is a heavy filtered "goes" word, some bass effect use an envelope with heavy dc offset, the woofer must move backward but not the midrange (?) and then try to reproduce a 24 Hz plucking sound. This dc offset has -26 dB peak (right channel) and recovery time over 2 seconds, for bassheads it means below 1 Hz components!. At SPL tested level the woofer must move visibly.



All bass lines use this effect
Edit: DC glitches only on Nightbird version
P.S.: maybe better try to catch the ringing frequency of the midrange, probably at 1200 and 1800 Hz (with less power)

 

[beagleman]

Yeah. I was going on the smoking gun principle. Lots of emission from the port would suggest the bass driver is the culprit. But there are reasons why this still might not be true. If stuffing the port did nothing to help that points elsewhere. The offset in the driver remains most odd. A DC offet would have had the amp shut down real quick, so unless there really is a problem in the amp (unlikely), the head scratching continues.

The recording you did does sound nasty, but not in the way I expected. I wonder if the apparent Q of the peak isn't an artefact of the sweep speed, and the peak is actually wider (maybe). Eyeballing a spectrograph as it played I could see a wide peak from about 500 to nearly 1000Hz whilst things sounded nasty. OTOH, there are mechanisms whereby once a resonance is initiated it becomes established and will continue even when the frequency is outside the range needed to set it up in the first place. Again, non-linearity in the system is needed.

My intuition based on the recorded sound is that this is a baked in problem, not a manufacturing fault. That opinion is worth what you paid for it.

But on the other hand I have no idea how a speaker would exhibit high DC offset, and NOT be caused by the amplifier.
The speaker on its own can not exhibit DC offset movement....

 

[Rock Rabbit]

But on the other hand I have no idea how a speaker would exhibit high DC offset, and NOT be caused by the amplifier.
The speaker on its own can not exhibit DC offset movement....

Read https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-0-review-bookshelf-speaker.19216/post-632055

 

[beagleman]

Read https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-0-review-bookshelf-speaker.19216/post-632055

So part of the recording?

Maybe the bass DC offset then has nothing to do with the other issue noted.

 

[Rock Rabbit]

So part of the recording?

Maybe the bass DC offset then has nothing to do with the other issue noted.

It seems so, at least for the Nightbird (2015) and Best of (2012), but not in YouTube versions.
Amir made the observation that midrange moves too (xover or xover + midrange resonance issue?)

 

[richard12511]

I can't hear the artifacts in any of your recordings but it is quite audible to me in my own sample, in your youtube video! Do you all not hear it? It may be closer to "g" sound than "he" (he goes away....). I am listening with headphones by the way.

Having listened to your recording, the source, and Joe's video on 4 different speakers(one of those being the M105) now, I do think the distortion you're talking about is more on the "g" than it is the "h". It seems to me that there is actually some sort of distortion(echo, mic clip, something else?) going on in the track itself, but then the Elac is magnifying that distortion 10 fold, and/or maybe exciting some other sort of metallic sounding resonance. On all my speakers, there is something slightly unpleasant about that "g", but it's hard to describe. The distortion is similar to the distortion I hear on your recording, but much, much less loud. On my clearest speakers(haven't tried headphones), it almost sounds like 2 distinct sounds, first the "g" then the distortion tied to the reverb immediately after? On my less clear, more enveloping speakers, it kinda blends the distortion in with the "g", making it a little less audible.

@joentell , you may not have been playing loud enough in your test. Comparing the amount of reverb present in your recording to Amir's, it sounds like Amir's recording was recorded at a much higher volume. What spl(pink noise?) was your recording taken at? Also, I really liked the end of the video where you slowed all the tracks down. Good idea, and I found it quite helpful for hearing the difference.

 

[New Record Day]

Hey all, first post here. I can try some Sound clips with my earthworks mics and Zoom F8N and see what happens if that’s of any help? I’ve listened to the track a few times and cannot hear what Amir is describing. Let me know and thanks! Ron

 

[Rock Rabbit]

Hey all, first post here. I can try some Sound clips with my earthworks mics and Zoom F8N and see what happens if that’s of any help? I’ve listened to the track a few times and cannot hear what Amir is describing. Let me know and thanks! Ron

Welcome aboard with this little problem and track issues ( see my #202), but maybe instead of testing at high SPL you can swept the midrange frequency (200-2kHz) looking for problematic resonances
Anyway, don't use YouTube versions

 

[Laederofmen]

Wow this is turning into something else. Who's next to comment Zeos? Steve G.? If these units were by any other designer/manufacturer... That being said Im enjoying this thread because of the science.

 

[hmt]

Having listened to your recording, the source, and Joe's video on 4 different speakers(one of those being the M105) now, I do think the distortion you're talking about is more on the "g" than it is the "h". It seems to me that there is actually some sort of distortion(echo, mic clip, something else?) going on in the track itself, but then the Elac is magnifying that distortion 10 fold, and/or maybe exciting some other sort of metallic sounding resonance. On all my speakers, there is something slightly unpleasant about that "g", but it's hard to describe. The distortion is similar to the distortion I hear on your recording, but much, much less loud. On my clearest speakers(haven't tried headphones), it almost sounds like 2 distinct sounds, first the "g" then the distortion tied to the reverb immediately after? On my less clear, more enveloping speakers, it kinda blends the distortion in with the "g", making it a little less audible.

@joentell , you may not have been playing loud enough in your test. Comparing the amount of reverb present in your recording to Amir's, it sounds like Amir's recording was recorded at a much higher volume. What spl(pink noise?) was your recording taken at? Also, I really liked the end of the video where you slowed all the tracks down. Good idea, and I found it quite helpful for hearing the difference.

That is the same I hear. The "g" sounds really strang and nasty on amirs clip. However, once you no where to listen at you also hear it a bit in the original recording. I precedence effect at work I guess.


Reminds me of this:

 

[BenB]

Amir should come clean. This is obviously a ploy with Eva's record labels to increase her posthumous recognition.

**In other news, multiple streaming companies have reported a surge in the streaming of the late Eva Cassidy's albums on their platforms. Some have tied this surge to a particular online review of speakers and her ability to cause said speaker to break down...**

I have to admit to streaming the song for the first time ever because of this thread. I mostly liked what I heard, but the recording had so much background noise that I can't pretend I'm listening to anything but a reproduction, which ruins the experience for me. I have developed a noise reduction algorithm I use in cases like this, where I do everything I can to preserve the fidelity of the underlying music. Honestly, there are times when I can increase the fidelity of the music, because I uncover things previously covered by noise. For this particular track, I thought the piano was a bit harsh/bright as well... like it was high pass filtered and the fundamentals were attenuated or something.

 

[hardisj]

Man, this thread really captures the essence of "forest for the trees". LOL

 

[MrPeabody]

I think this thread has shown us there is a serious case of OCD within the audiophile community.

It illustrates the folly of anyone trying to troubleshoot something like this from a remote location. I've decided that there are probably multiple things happening that are not even related. For the woofer cone to move to the rear and stay there, the coil former has just about got to be sticking. Something like this wouldn't be associated with any particular frequency. The distortion peak in the vicinity of 600 Hz is most likely not related to the funky behavior of the woofer cone. It isn't apparent to me whether the funky sound that Amir heard is related to either the distortion peak or to the funky behavior of the woofer cone. As you previously pointed out, there is great benefit to having a pair of speakers, to learn whether an anomaly discovered in one speaker is present in the other. Obviously the shipping cost is a concern, and obviously it takes more time to measure two speakers than one. But when only one speaker is tested, too much remains uncertain, especially in a case like this one, where mysteries are found but never explained. It's kind of like watching one of those annoying TV shows on the History channel. I would try to mimic that spooky Twilight Zone theme sound, but since you can't hear me anyway, there's no point.

 

[hmt]

The second speaker would not have to be even measured. A simple listening test would have shown the same issue or not.

 

[hardisj]

I just watched Steve Guttenberg's video on the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0. He made a comment about the DBR62 as comparison and said the DBR62 had too much of a "laid back" sound and that he wanted more "detail, resolution" from the DBR62 and in contrast, the 2.0 has it. Now, with that in mind, let's look at the data...


DBR-62 from Amir's test:

and now the Uni-Fi 2.0 (again, from this thread):

TBH, I'm not sure what in the data is saying there would be a big difference in detail/resolution between the two. And THIS, my friends, is why subjective words suck... because, TO ME, "detail/resolution" indicate a high(er) frequency characteristic. But, looking at the two results back to back, there's not a huge difference in treble, when you look at the overall trend. In fact, they are more alike than they are dissimilar when you look at the overall trend (and ignore the peak/dip patterns; IOW, mentally smooth the data ). Notably, the minor shelf in response between 1-4kHz. Heck, even between 600-1kHz, they show the same general trend. So does Steve mean something other than treble when he says “detail”?

The real difference I am seeing in these two data sets is more from the smooth directivity in the 2.0 (as would be expected thanks to the concentric design) and the sensitivity. But, generally, the two tend to have a bit of a HF shelf down in response. Naturally, this leads me to questions about the "voicing" or "intended target curve" (depending on what method was used primarily for the design). The fact these two speakers are very similar in overall trend response seems too coincidental and makes me wonder if Elac is targeting a particular response. But, maybe this is just coincidence.

I wish Mr. Guttenberg was more distinct with his subjective feedback. Frequency ranges would help. This is the exact issue I have with subjective reviews. Stating a frequency range would go a long way toward a) proving you're not just making crap up and b) promoting the notion of using objective data to make correlations with subjective evaluations. But, this paragraphs is another OT rant in itself and we already have enough OT going on here so I'm gonna pass for the time being.

 

[celroid]

I just watched Steve Guttenberg's video on the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0. He made a comment about the DBR62 as comparison and said the DBR62 had too much of a "laid back" sound and that he wanted more "detail, resolution" from the DBR62 and in contrast, the 2.0 has it. Now, with that in mind, let's look at the data...


DBR-62 from Amir's test:

and now the Uni-Fi 2.0 (again, from this thread):

Part two of this post?

 

[whazzup]

I just watched Steve Guttenberg's video on the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0. He made a comment about the DBR62 as comparison and said the DBR62 had too much of a "laid back" sound and that he wanted more "detail, resolution" from the DBR62 and in contrast, the 2.0 has it. Now, with that in mind, let's look at the data...


DBR-62 from Amir's test:

and now the Uni-Fi 2.0 (again, from this thread):

Sounds like when 3.0 comes around, 2.0 would've been 'a bit too sparkly'? Which 3.0 will fix of course.

 

[BN1]

Hey all, first post here. I can try some Sound clips with my earthworks mics and Zoom F8N and see what happens if that’s of any help? I’ve listened to the track a few times and cannot hear what Amir is describing. Let me know and thanks! Ron

Welcome aboard Ron, glad to have you here. Same problem, I can't hear it either but I'm old and have damaged hearing.

 

[amirm]

It's tough to tell listening to your recording since the phone mics typically aren't great. I have a hard time distinguishing the speaker from the room. Since you know your room, and you've listened to the speakers, it's probably easier for you to tell.

It has nothing to do with the room as the artifact is well above bass frequencies where room is dominant. Regardless, I have given you a specific hint as to what to look for. You should be able to listen past other factors and detect it. Your youtube video actually makes it easier since you have a comparison of the original versus the one I submitted.

A critical listener can listen past extraneous factors and find impairments. While the fate of this speaker is not important in grand scheme of things, learning to hear these small artifacts is important.