Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[amirm]

I have no idea if these were "overdriven" or not but it does bring up a good point about some feedback for future reviews. When doing the listening session it would be nice to know the SPL levels and at what distance for some perspective. I personally think 85 db at about 2-3 meters is plenty loud for most of us.

I hear you but I use a large playlist with many different average SPL values. There is no way I can standardize on one level.

 

[richard12511]

I have the tower version of this speaker (uni-fi 2.0 UF52) and I am able to recreate the same issue with the Eva Cassidy track. These are being boxed up and returned to Crutchfield. I am not over powering them/ the amp is a 200 watt Monolith. I didn’t care for how dull the speakers sounded to begin with. My measurements confirm the same shelved treble.

Given that 3 different owners can now reproduce the issue really points towards this being a design defect, and not just a problem with the specific sample Amir got.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

I have the tower version of this speaker (uni-fi 2.0 UF52) and I am able to recreate the same issue with the Eva Cassidy track. These are being boxed up and returned to Crutchfield. I am not over powering them/ the amp is a 200 watt Monolith. I didn’t care for how dull the speakers sounded to begin with. My measurements confirm the same shelved treble.

As I recall you mentioned in another thread that you were now using JBL Stage A180 towers and that despite their low price you preferred their performance over Elac and several other brands you had tried.

 

[richard12511]

Its already pretty clear he got a single, faulty unit.

Now that 3 separate owners have been able to reproduce the issue, and one with just 200 watts available, I think we can rule out the “faulty unit” hypothesis. We can also rule out the hypothesis that it was “overdriven”.

It does seem to be related to volume, though, and this is likely still an excellent speaker for folks who don’t listen loud.

Id be curious to know how this speaker would rate if it didn’t have that defect. Measurements look just as good as the DBR62, which rated 5/5. Main difference is that coax driver, which I’m guessing might actually hurt it a bit in a mono setup.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

Of course we're all still just speculating. But If the issue "has something to do with over-tightened screws on that midrange driver" as @joentell mentioned the Elac guys are checking then the volume required to make the issue audible could vary from unit to unit depending on the exact degree to which the screws were tightened. That type of manufacturing tolerance scenario suggests that while some units might be more sensitive to displaying the issue at lower volume some units might not have an audible issue no matter how high the volume.

 

[hardisj]

I'm going back through some of Amir's test to put his data in to a format I use just so I can better compare results. So, here's the results for this speaker.

The mean SPL on-axis is 83.3 dB (300Hz to 3kHz).
Response linearity is -6.05/+1.9 dB (80Hz to 16kHz).

 

[supreme]

I have no idea if these were "overdriven" or not but it does bring up a good point about some feedback for future reviews. When doing the listening session it would be nice to know the SPL levels and at what distance for some perspective. I personally think 85 db at about 2-3 meters is plenty loud for most of us.

85db at 2.5m and i will loose my hearing for sure. Depends on music track or movie, but that is way too loud at that distance. I have mine at 2.5.
Unless person hearing is already bad and has to crank vol up that high.

 

[aarons915]

85db at 2.5m and i will loose my hearing for sure. Depends on music track or movie, but that is way too loud at that distance. I have mine at 2.5.
Unless person hearing is already bad and has to crank vol up that high.

I hear you, that is the absolute loudest I ever go myself and only for very short periods but it seems that our host hits that level and beyond lol...

 

[palmoyas]

Given that 3 different owners can now reproduce the issue really points towards this being a design defect, and not just a problem with the specific sample Amir got.

Well, add me to the list then of those that don't have the issue. I've listened to that specific track at very loud volumes (-8 on my X3500H) and was unable to reproduce the issue.

 

[boselover61]

Well, add me to the list then of those that don't have the issue. I've listened to that specific track at very loud volumes (-8 on my X3500H) and was unable to reproduce the issue.

-8 db on the 3500h is barely 90w

 

[palmoyas]

-8 db on the 3500h is barely 90w

Maybe, although these AVRs have been measured at around 120wpc 2ch (I believe Amir got 115). Regardless, in a large room that was VERY loud. I'll have to use a decibel meter next time I try it.

 

[amirm]

Maybe, although these AVRs have been measured at around 120wpc 2ch (I believe Amir got 115). Regardless, in a large room that was VERY loud. I'll have to use a decibel meter next time I try it.

Play one speaker, not two. That would make it half as loud and also easier to hear the artifact.

 

[Beer Budget]

ASR -

My hat is off to Amir, his testing, his graphs, his website, his dedication, his selflessness. Thank you for providing your expertise and professionalism, and using it to better the industry of audio. Imo, audio is similar to coffee, it can be the link that unites all humans of the earth, rich or poor.

I bought and auditioned the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0's before becoming aware of ASR, this website. I fell in love with the Uni-Fi 2.0's , their tonal accuracy, the sound of vocals, cellos, violins, and trumpets. The only ingredient lacking for me was the upper range, the highs were not loud enough or sharp enough or high enough for me. I thought it was on the edge of bland in that area, and just a little bit more of a push in the highs would have made it a truly great speaker, a real keeper, a forever speaker for me. Unfortunately I had to send them back because of the missing ingredient.

Imagine my surprise when I found ASR, and then read Amir's review of the Uni-Fi 2.0. His graph showed a shelving (whatever that means) on the upper frequencies. And then, Amir states, "Likely sound dull". Holy cow! This was my experience! Not terribly dull, just a bit lacking in that area for me. I almost kept the Uni-Fi 2.0's anyway because I really liked them. I wondered if I would get used to the sound, or if my ears would somehow acclimate and then the highs would become more apparent to me. I have to wonder if I have become accustomed to horns and need something brighter than a soft dome. But I had to admit there was not any connection to the performance of the singer, in a dynamic sort of way. It was as if I were listening to a performance as opposed to witnessing a performance. Then I began to wonder if the 2.0 center, with two 5.25 drivers would give me what I am searching for, but again, it's a soft dome tweeter. Perhaps my tinnitus is screwing things up!

I very much appreciate and look forward to all of Amir's reviews before selecting my next speaker to audition!

So anyway, this is just my .02 cents.

 

[Robot]

ASR -
I bought and auditioned the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0's before becoming aware of ASR, this website. I fell in love with the Uni-Fi 2.0's , their tonal accuracy, the sound of vocals, cellos, violins, and trumpets. The only ingredient lacking for me was the upper range, the highs were not loud enough or sharp enough or high enough for me. I thought it was on the edge of bland in that area, and just a little bit more of a push in the highs would have made it a truly great speaker, a real keeper, a forever speaker for me.

I've recently purchased both the UB52 and the DBR62 and have a similar experience.

I have a modest budget; you won't find any multi-thousand $ amps in my house. My daily driver is a Class D amp at ~90 watts @ 6ohms. I use budget stands made of steel with a 24" height and have filled the posts with dried clay (kitty litter). I have a listening setup that maintains the equilateral triangle between speakers and listening position. I love listening to music and take advantage of every tweak and upgrade available to improve that experience, within a modest budget. You could make a strong case that I fall into the target demographic ELAC is courting with these recent releases.

I also purchased the UB52 prior to seeing the ASR review. I've listened to the Eva Cassidy track at moderate levels and didn't notice the artifact, though I probably wasn't driving them as hard as other users.

Subjectively, I loved the imaging and articulation (it's addictive!). I like the experience of soft dome tweeters, and again found a lot to like in this one. It was missing a touch of the airiness that I prefer out of the box, though I found that just a touch of EQ boost at the very high end easily brought it back. I had a similar experience on the lower end; it was present and defined by lacked the impact I was hoping expecting when considering the response curves. Again, an EQ bump on the low side and they suddenly came to life and sounded much more balanced to me (more on that in a bit below). I understand these are power hungry and fully admit I'm probably lacking that "punch" due to my amp.

I recently received a pair of DBR62s after listening to the UB52s for about a week in a half. Subjectively, the tonality of the DBR62s without a modified EQ were on point with what I was hoping to hear from the UB52s. The "airiness" was present by default and that low impact was quite present; I found the difference to be significant and quite noticeable. With regards to imaging and articulation in the mids, I found the DBR62s to be decent at both but trailing in both behind the UB52s. This was expected given the 3-way vs. 2-way designs; no surprises here.

I'm now torn though: I love the articulation of the mids and imaging of the UB52s but find the out-of-the-box tonality of the DBR62s to be on point for my listening tastes. I can do some minor EQ adjustments on the UB52s to make them similar but not equivalent to the DBR62s, and I find the imaging on the DBR62s good but not captivating like the UB52s. I think both speakers make a strong showing assuming you don't experience the artifact identified by Amir, and I think the strengths of what Andrew Jones was striving to achieve are evident in both products. I expect I'd be very happy keeping either one, though now it's a classic evaluation of trade-offs between each and which strengths I value more.

For my personal taste, if I could pair the imagining and articulation of the UB52s with the tonality of the DBR62s at the same price point, my search would be over. Regardless of which speaker I end up selecting, I expect my next upgrade will be a higher quality amp

 

[AdamG]

I've recently purchased both the UB52 and the DBR62 and have a similar experience.

I have a modest budget; you won't find any multi-thousand $ amps in my house. My daily driver is a Class D amp at ~90 watts @ 6ohms. I use budget stands made of steel with a 24" height and have filled the posts with dried clay (kitty litter). I have a listening setup that maintains the equilateral triangle between speakers and listening position. I love listening to music and take advantage of every tweak and upgrade available to improve that experience, within a modest budget. You could make a strong case that I fall into the target demographic ELAC is courting with these recent releases.

I also purchased the UB52 prior to seeing the ASR review. I've listened to the Eva Cassidy track at moderate levels and didn't notice the artifact, though I probably wasn't driving them as hard as other users.

Subjectively, I loved the imaging and articulation (it's addictive!). I like the experience of soft dome tweeters, and again found a lot to like in this one. It was missing a touch of the airiness that I prefer out of the box, though I found that just a touch of EQ boost at the very high end easily brought it back. I had a similar experience on the lower end; it was present and defined by lacked the impact I was hoping expecting when considering the response curves. Again, an EQ bump on the low side and they suddenly came to life and sounded much more balanced to me (more on that in a bit below). I understand these are power hungry and fully admit I'm probably lacking that "punch" due to my amp.

I recently received a pair of DBR62s after listening to the UB52s for about a week in a half. Subjectively, the tonality of the DBR62s without a modified EQ were on point with what I was hoping to hear from the UB52s. The "airiness" was present by default and that low impact was quite present; I found the difference to be significant and quite noticeable. With regards to imaging and articulation in the mids, I found the DBR62s to be decent at both but trailing in both behind the UB52s. This was expected given the 3-way vs. 2-way designs; no surprises here.

I'm now torn though: I love the articulation of the mids and imaging of the UB52s but find the out-of-the-box tonality of the DBR62s to be on point for my listening tastes. I can do some minor EQ adjustments on the UB52s to make them similar but not equivalent to the DBR62s, and I find the imaging on the DBR62s good but not captivating like the UB52s. I think both speakers make a strong showing assuming you don't experience the artifact identified by Amir, and I think the strengths of what Andrew Jones was striving to achieve are evident in both products. I expect I'd be very happy keeping either one, though now it's a classic evaluation of trade-offs between each and which strengths I value more.

For my personal taste, if I could pair the imagining and articulation of the UB52s with the tonality of the DBR62s at the same price point, my search would be over. Regardless of which speaker I end up selecting, I expect my next upgrade will be a higher quality amp

Welcome Aboard @Robot. I feel like I’m in an episode of Lost in Space!

 

[BN1]

I've recently purchased both the UB52 and the DBR62 and have a similar experience.

I have a modest budget; you won't find any multi-thousand $ amps in my house. My daily driver is a Class D amp at ~90 watts @ 6ohms. I use budget stands made of steel with a 24" height and have filled the posts with dried clay (kitty litter). I have a listening setup that maintains the equilateral triangle between speakers and listening position. I love listening to music and take advantage of every tweak and upgrade available to improve that experience, within a modest budget. You could make a strong case that I fall into the target demographic ELAC is courting with these recent releases.

I also purchased the UB52 prior to seeing the ASR review. I've listened to the Eva Cassidy track at moderate levels and didn't notice the artifact, though I probably wasn't driving them as hard as other users.

Subjectively, I loved the imaging and articulation (it's addictive!). I like the experience of soft dome tweeters, and again found a lot to like in this one. It was missing a touch of the airiness that I prefer out of the box, though I found that just a touch of EQ boost at the very high end easily brought it back. I had a similar experience on the lower end; it was present and defined by lacked the impact I was hoping expecting when considering the response curves. Again, an EQ bump on the low side and they suddenly came to life and sounded much more balanced to me (more on that in a bit below). I understand these are power hungry and fully admit I'm probably lacking that "punch" due to my amp.

I recently received a pair of DBR62s after listening to the UB52s for about a week in a half. Subjectively, the tonality of the DBR62s without a modified EQ were on point with what I was hoping to hear from the UB52s. The "airiness" was present by default and that low impact was quite present; I found the difference to be significant and quite noticeable. With regards to imaging and articulation in the mids, I found the DBR62s to be decent at both but trailing in both behind the UB52s. This was expected given the 3-way vs. 2-way designs; no surprises here.

I'm now torn though: I love the articulation of the mids and imaging of the UB52s but find the out-of-the-box tonality of the DBR62s to be on point for my listening tastes. I can do some minor EQ adjustments on the UB52s to make them similar but not equivalent to the DBR62s, and I find the imaging on the DBR62s good but not captivating like the UB52s. I think both speakers make a strong showing assuming you don't experience the artifact identified by Amir, and I think the strengths of what Andrew Jones was striving to achieve are evident in both products. I expect I'd be very happy keeping either one, though now it's a classic evaluation of trade-offs between each and which strengths I value more.

For my personal taste, if I could pair the imagining and articulation of the UB52s with the tonality of the DBR62s at the same price point, my search would be over. Regardless of which speaker I end up selecting, I expect my next upgrade will be a higher quality amp

Nice comparison, thanks Robot. Your subjective comments are informative. As I recall, the freq response curves are very similar between these two speaker lines.

 

[amater]

ELAC Uni-Fi 2.0 UB52, up to $ 1000 it's the best speaker I've heard, I can listen to it for hours and hours, incredibly good

 

[amater]

after every hour of listening he gets better and better ,for me much better than Debut Reference DBR62

 

[palmoyas]

The SVS Merlin tool (https://www.svsound.com/pages/merlin) recommends a crossover frequency of 80Hz with this speaker. Fine, but then I see they recommend a low pass frequency setting of 60Hz!

Is this a new thing? I've always seen 120Hz as the recommended LPF setting. I'm always willing to try something new, but wonder how much this will affect my Audyssey calibration. Wondering if I'll need to re-run Audyssey with this new LPF setting (or does Audyssey ignore that and default to 120?).

 

[wric01]

Flaw on mine:400-600hz tone buzz distortion on tweeter and you hear it as low as 40db without hitting 90db as amir and others pointed out. Defect maybe but both speakers? i think a whole lot of them out there have this problem. Normal music won't notice it, but i use meditation 528hz music thus annoys me. And no it's the not the nut tightening as elac support points to, support don't even continued support/conversation after i pointed it out to them. Thus return.