ELAC Unifi Reference teasers

[abdo123]

It probably isn't port resonance, then. Likely enclosure resonance. I just made a post reply about this subject here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...g-how-the-klippel-nfs-works.13139/post-824417

So basically whenever the Klippel shows 'Port' in the Driver components nearfield it means both the enclosure and the port simultaneously?

 

[hardisj]

So basically whenever the Klippel shows 'Port' in the Driver components nearfield it means both the enclosure and the port simultaneously?

To make sure I understand you:
The Klippel doesn't explicitly state or call out 'Port'. If you're talking about Amir's measurements, that's his own measurement of the port in the nearfield. And, yes, the open port would also show enclosure resonances "leaking" through as well. Make sure to read @restorer-john post above about the "issue" with measuring nearfield components.

 

[Mystical Boar]

If you guys want a true "teaser" for the UBR62, you really should check out the latest Daily Hi-Fi video. Start at the 9:40 mark.

That dip worries me, especially that the rest of the performance looks rock solid.

 

[mtmpenn]

@hardisj -

1. Love what you are doing and I am very interested to see your review of this speaker.

2. Looking at your PIR, could the dip be related to BSC? I do not understand the way the PIR is calculated, but if the speaker was designed to be relatively close to the back wall (closer than the Klippel assumes), wouldn’t there be some reinforcement in that frequency range?

 

[McFly]

I think if anything that dip will be worse due to floor bounce

 

[hardisj]

2. Looking at your PIR, could the dip be related to BSC?

If you watched the video you probably caught my part about where I said I wanted to talk to the manufacturer to ask some questions but at the same time, I am always hesitant to do that pre-review because I don't want people crying "bias" or other nonsense. Well, I figured since that data was already out there then I would go ahead and ask, so I PM'd Andrew Jones yesterday. I talked to him about it a bit. I don't know the exact cause but looking at my nearfield measurements of the drivers and port, it looks like the crossover region between the woofer and the midrange is the culprit. Andrew said he'd get back to me but that doesn't change the result as it is right now. A ground plane test confirmed the result, by the way.

I also received confirmation that my assumption about the on-axis response having a slightly descending nature to it in order to make the in-room response more linear in slope was correct. That, IMHO, is a worthwhile tradeoff. Most speakers with very wide horizontal dispersion and a flat on-axis response tend to have a flat treble response in-room which makes the sound a bit "bright".

 

[MZKM]

it looks like the crossover region between the woofer and the midrange is the culprit

Yeah, I was gonna comment that the crossover is 260Hz, but I deleted that as the issue is a tad lower. If the crossover is the issue, that seems odd to have it messed up. Is it the 4” midrange causing the issue?

I wonder why they chose such a low crossover point. Maybe to have it be a point source for as much of the region as possible? I see the tweeter crossover is 1800Hz, also surprisingly low, the KEF Q350 for instance is 2500Hz.

 

[abdo123]

I also received confirmation that my assumption about the on-axis response having a slightly descending nature to it in order to make the in-room response more linear in slope was correct. That, IMHO, is a worthwhile tradeoff. Most speakers with very wide horizontal dispersion and a flat on-axis response tend to have a flat treble response in-room which makes the sound a bit "bright".

Did you think the Philharmonic BMR was bright?

I think consistency is more important than slope tbh.

 

[hardisj]

I think consistency is more important than slope tbh.

That's my point. The BMR note I made was that I thought the treble was about 1dB too high up until about 10kHz. If you look at the estimated in-room response, you can see why that might be the case for others as well.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/philharmonic-bmr-speaker-review.14781/

 

[abdo123]

That's my point. The BMR note I made was that I thought the treble was about 1dB too high up until about 10kHz. If you look at the estimated in-room response, you can see why that might be the case for others as well.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/philharmonic-bmr-speaker-review.14781/

I would love to have some decent wide directivity speakers that exist outside DIY hobbyists in the US. Wide dispersion is way way more enjoyable than narrow dispersion.

Sure room to room variation is higher but at least it doesn't feel like listening to headphones, it's especially extra boring with coaxial designs.

Also the majority of designs in the 70s and 80s were shoddy wide dispersion designs further adding more nostalgic feel to the experience.

 

[hardisj]

I find I generally prefer wider radiation speakers as well. I'm a sucker for the sidewall reflections that enhance width. For better or worse.

 

[Mystical Boar]

I am both upset and excited over the upcoming ELACs. Upset because I already own DBR62 and these look like their next version, excited because I would welcome an improvement despite 1K USD being a substantial amount of money to me.

What I like about DBR62 is their bassy, lush sound that is very easy on the ear. I wonder if that's still the case with UBR62.

 

[eddantes]

I find I generally prefer wider radiation speakers as well. I'm a sucker for the sidewall reflections that enhance width. For better or worse.

Have you measured any dipoles? I remeber reading somewhere that Dr. Toole ended up with Mirage M1 at one point.

Let me just quickly edit that I've seen Magnepans measured by @amirm, but I was curious about something a bit more conventional.

 

[hardisj]

I have not.


Although, if you're talking about atypical designs, I did, however, measure a little Mirage speaker with an omnidirectional design. Not full-blown. Before I had the NFS. Just a series of quasi-anechoic measurements gated to about 3ms or so. But I never even looked at the results. I listened to them... they were different. Same for the Bose 901 Series V I reviewed.

 

[eddantes]

I have not.


Although, if you're talking about atypical designs, I did, however, measure a little Mirage speaker with an omnidirectional design. Not full-blown. Before I had the NFS. Just a series of quasi-anechoic measurements gated to about 3ms or so. But I never even looked at the results. I listened to them... they were different. Same for the Bose 901 Series V I reviewed.

Ahhh you're probably talking about the Mirage Omni series wiith the "upwards" pointing drivers and some sort of dispersion "lens" like this:

I was thinking more along the lines of their older designs or any of the other mfgs that have a rear firing full-range or a combo tweeter mid.

Anyways - it'd be intersting to see the results, but I think probably kinda pointless as we know more and more of what makes a good speaker, and this aint it.

 

[Hotwetrat]

I find I generally prefer wider radiation speakers as well. I'm a sucker for the sidewall reflections that enhance width. For better or worse.

Oh man is that why when I am watching something like a TV show I sometimes think JEEZ that sounded like it was about 3 feet to the right of the speaker!! I hear it and it's like crazy wow factor for me - it's probably a bad thing I guess but it's very cool when watching stuff.

 

[richard12511]

If you guys want a true "teaser" for the UBR62, you really should check out the latest Daily Hi-Fi video. Start at the 9:40 mark.

Wow! That's an incredible looking PIR. Looking forward to the review.

 

[richard12511]

That dip worries me, especially that the rest of the performance looks rock solid.

The dip is sub-optimal for sure, but that's still one of the best PIRs we've seen.

 

[MrPeabody]

If you watched the video you probably caught my part about where I said I wanted to talk to the manufacturer to ask some questions but at the same time, I am always hesitant to do that pre-review because I don't want people crying "bias" or other nonsense. Well, I figured since that data was already out there then I would go ahead and ask, so I PM'd Andrew Jones yesterday. I talked to him about it a bit. I don't know the exact cause but looking at my nearfield measurements of the drivers and port, it looks like the crossover region between the woofer and the midrange is the culprit. Andrew said he'd get back to me but that doesn't change the result as it is right now. A ground plane test confirmed the result, by the way.

I also received confirmation that my assumption about the on-axis response having a slightly descending nature to it in order to make the in-room response more linear in slope was correct. That, IMHO, is a worthwhile tradeoff. Most speakers with very wide horizontal dispersion and a flat on-axis response tend to have a flat treble response in-room which makes the sound a bit "bright".

Erin, please pardon my ignorance while I sort of think out loud here. I watched your video on the NFS, and I appreciated it. I might completely misunderstand, but if I understand correctly, you inform the NFS system of the location/height of the horizontal reference plane (which is defined by that point since the horizontal plane is horizontal), but this does not affect the microphone positioning, only the post-processing of the data in order to produce the graphs. Of particular relevance is that the horizontal response plots (i.e., the plots that reveal the horizontal directivity), are valid only for the horizontal reference plane. If you choose a different horizontal reference plane, the horizontal response plots won't look exactly the same, and this includes the on-axis plot. The interference and comb filtering effects, evident in the on-axis plot, will have different appearance for different horizontal reference planes. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

What I'm wondering is whether that dip is particular to a particular horizontal reference plane. If by chance I am correct in surmising that the reference point/plane affects only the post-processing and plot generation, not the microphone positioning, then maybe there is a way to tell the NFS software to move the reference point lower (or higher) by a few inches, and then generate a new plot. Obviously I'm venturing into territory where I know precious little, but perhaps this is possible in spite of my not having any real knowledge of whether it is or isn't possible.

When the two distances, the distance from the mic position to the midrange vs. the distance from the mic position to the woofer, are different, this affects the relative phase for the two acoustic sources. If the microphone is closer to the midrange than to the woofer, this introduces time lag to the woofer relative to the midrange. If the difference between the two distances is small, the introduced time lag will be small; if the difference between the two distances is large, the introduced phase lag will be large. Destructive interference occurs when the phase lag associated with the time lag is 180 degrees; the wavelength at which this occurs depends on the difference in the two distances. When the time lag is small, it equates to a 180 degree phase shift for a short wavelength; when the time lag is great, it equates to a 180 degree phase shift for a long wavelength. Thus, the frequency at which destructive interference occurs depends on the difference between the two distances, and therefore depends on where the horizontal reference plane is located.

On the other hand I probably completely misunderstand what the reference plane actually does in NFS. But if my understanding of what it does is close to what it actually does, then I think it is likely that that dip will have a different appearance for different placement of the horizontal reference plane, and will even shift up and down in frequency as the horizontal reference plane is moved to different heights.

I always look forward to your excellent speaker reviews and videos. Thank you!

 

[Mystical Boar]

The dip is sub-optimal for sure, but that's still one of the best PIRs we've seen.

This is why it bothers me, ironically. If the curve was mediocre I would be like "whatever", but now I'm like "If only it was slightly, slightly better".

I'm a bass head and I love drums with double kicks, so I'm always especially interested in the performance of the gear at low frequencies.