Infinity RC-263 vs 2x Elac DBR-62

[Endo]

Hi,

After binge-reading much of this awesome site, I am fairly convinced I will purchase the Elac DBR-62 for my left and right speakers in my soon-to-be new home theater. I was hoping to purchase a third for the center channel, however Elac confirmed they only sell this speaker in pairs.

After more binge-reading, it looks like a decently reviewed center speaker is the Infinity RC-263 but, it actually looks worse in most measurements than the DBR-62.

I am vascilating between getting the Infinity center or buying a second pair of the Elacs- one would be used for the center, and the other would be extra. I suppose if I can get the Infinity on sale for $150, it is a no-brainer to go with the RC-263. Full price, it costs $499 which is $100 less than the pair of Elacs.

What would you do?

 

[HooStat]

Get the ELAC and try to sell one of the speakers to someone in the same situation as you.

 

[sweetchaos]

Welcome to ASR, I can see it's your first post.

Did you see the "Debut Reference Center Speaker"?
Model: DCR52

The reason that's important is for timber matching. If speakers are timbre-matched, they possess identical tonal qualities, reproducing textures and coloring in exactly the same way. If you choose a speaker company A for left and right, but speaker company B for center, your experience is not guaranteed to be pleasant. There's a reason people recommend purchasing speakers from one lineup from one company.

EDIT:
I realize that "timber matching" is more of a marketing term. When I say that, I'm talking about frequency response. If you can find another company's speaker with a similar frequency response to the rest of your speakers, that would work as well.

 

[Putter]

I would point that the speaker EQ systems found on most AV receivers attempt to make all speakers have a similar frequency response. Also I've mixed and matched different brands of fronts and centers and haven't noticed significant differences. This has been echoed by others in AV forums. This is of course not a universal experience, but different people have varying sensitivities to slightly different speaker frequency responses. In other words your ears are the final arbiter.

Having said this the ideal home theater speaker system would be identical speaker including the center positioned vertically. This would not necessarily follow for Atmos ceiling speakers.

 

[Beave]

Welcome to ASR, I can see it's your first post.

Did you see the "Debut Reference Center Speaker"?
Model: DCR52



View attachment 85800
The reason that's important is for timber matching. If speakers are timbre-matched, they possess identical tonal qualities, reproducing textures and coloring in exactly the same way. If you choose a speaker company A for left and right, but speaker company B for center, your experience is not guaranteed to be pleasant. There's a reason people recommend purchasing speakers from one lineup from one company.

Timber matching isn't so important when the speakers are made with a vinyl wrap instead of a real wood veneer.

 

[Beave]

Welcome to ASR, I can see it's your first post.

Did you see the "Debut Reference Center Speaker"?
Model: DCR52



View attachment 85800
The reason that's important is for timber matching. If speakers are timbre-matched, they possess identical tonal qualities, reproducing textures and coloring in exactly the same way. If you choose a speaker company A for left and right, but speaker company B for center, your experience is not guaranteed to be pleasant. There's a reason people recommend purchasing speakers from one lineup from one company.

EDIT:
I realize that "timber matching" is more of a marketing term. When I say that, I'm talking about frequency response. If you can find another company's speaker with a similar frequency response to the rest of your speakers, that would work as well.

On a slightly more serious note, even the 'matching' center channel isn't a perfect match for the bookshelf speakers. It uses the same tweeter, but that's all - different woofer size, different woofer layout, different cabinet dimensions, etc.

The ideal match is, as mentioned, a third bookshelf. If perfect matching isn't needed or prioritized, then this center - and lots of other ones - will do fine.

 

[KaiserSoze]

It has been a few years since I've even bothered with a (physical) center channel speaker. To my way of thinking the center channel speaker is only important (or even useful) if you normally sit (while watching movies or TV) significantly closer to one R-L stereo speaker than the other, such that the sound that you want to perceive as coming from the TV will instead be perceived as coming from the speaker closer to you. If you are equidistant from both speakers or nearly so, you will perceive the monaural part of the sound as coming from the center. To test whether you really need a center channel speaker, listen to some FM radio with the receiver circuitry on mono mode, and move around the room and listen to get a sense of how much closer you need to be to one speaker than the other before the sound stops sounding like it is coming from the center.

If you remain convinced that you need a center channel, then there is one particular approach that I recommend, and otherwise I simply would not use a center channel speaker. As several others have pointed out, you absolutely need a perfect match in tonality between the center channel and the main speakers. As Beave wisely pointed out, this almost never happens even when you use the center channel that the manufacturer claims is matched to the main stereo speakers. The only thing it has in common with them is the tweeter. The crossovers are going to be different, and with different crossovers the tonality will not be a perfect match. Someone else mentioned that modern AVRs (Audio/Video Receivers) attempt to make the center channel and the stereo speakers sound the same. I tend to be skeptical. To test this capability, I would use a center channel made by a different manufacturer, i.e., I would make the test challenging, so as to be certain that there will not be a mismatch in tonality when using a center channel that is reasonably well matched to the stereo speakers to start with.

The only way I would personally have a center channel speaker is if it is identical to the main stereo speakers. And to my way of thinking, the only way this works, without significant compromises, is if the center channel speaker has both a tweeter and a midrange, and they are mounted together on a plate that can be rotated 90 degrees, so that the speaker can be stood on end for use as main stereo speakers. This is the only way, in my opinion, that you are assured that the center channel speaker will be tonally matched to the main speakers while avoiding other compromises.

With any center channel speaker that uses only a tweeter, the crossover point is going to be high enough such that the two woofers will be operating at frequencies where interference occurs between the two woofers, for any listener located just a few inches closer to one woofer than the other one. This means that for many listening locations there will be a dip in the response, possibly pronounced, and occurring somewhere between 1 kHz and the crossover point. This effect may or may not be conspicuous, but it is something that is best to avoid if it can be avoided. It is reason enough to prefer a center channel with a midrange, which will bring the crossover point down to where the wavelengths where both woofers operate will be several times greater than the distance separating them.

The RC-263 is likely an excellent center channel speaker, except of course that the midrange and tweeter are not co-mounted on a plate that can be rotated such that it can be stood on end and used as a main stereo speaker. Additionally, the flat-piston midrange that it uses is 4" whereas the flat-piston midrange used in the floor-standing R253 (and R263) is 5.25", which most likely means that the crossover points will be different. Additionally, the woofers in the RC263 are bigger (6.5") than the woofers used in the R253 (the R263 uses 6.5" woofers). In a world of compromises, the combination of the RC263 with either the R253 or R263 is probably a lesser compromise than most of the other alternatives you are likely to find. As such I would be moderately receptive to this combination (with either the R253 or the R263), but only after carefully listening for any evidence of mismatch in tonality.

EDIT: I was thinking all of this over and realized that center channel speakers that use a concentric driver satisfy all requirements with no hassle. Simply stand them on end for use as main speakers, and you're good to go, with perfectly matching tonality. Elac seems to make three center channel speakers of this sort, starting with the UC52 ($400). There are similar designs from Kef, although I can't bring myself to like the idiosyncrasies of their approach. They apparently operate the midrange driver (the one concentric with the tweeter) full range with no high-pass filter. And there is just one woofer, which does apparently use a low-pass filter to avoid interference between it and the midrange. The other thing on the front of the speaker, that looks like a woofer, is a passive radiator. Maybe this approach works well, but only if the midrange has the same Xmax as the woofer. I am inclined to prefer the more conventional design approach that Elac uses.

 

[Chromatischism]

@Endo did you make a decision?

 

[Endo]

I went ahead and purchased two pairs of Elac DBR-62s and are using them for L, C, and R. They sound pretty good to me, although they are in a temporary (and non-ideal) spot until construction is completed on my media room. It is a shame that they will be behind an acoustically transparent screen because they are very good looking speakers. Quite solid, too.

Anyone interested in purchasing a new single DBR-62 (walnut with black baffle)?

 

[Shazb0t]

It has been a few years since I've even bothered with a (physical) center channel speaker. To my way of thinking the center channel speaker is only important (or even useful) if you normally sit (while watching movies or TV) significantly closer to one R-L stereo speaker than the other, such that the sound that you want to perceive as coming from the TV will instead be perceived as coming from the speaker closer to you. If you are equidistant from both speakers or nearly so, you will perceive the monaural part of the sound as coming from the center. To test whether you really need a center channel speaker, listen to some FM radio with the receiver circuitry on mono mode, and move around the room and listen to get a sense of how much closer you need to be to one speaker than the other before the sound stops sounding like it is coming from the center.

If you remain convinced that you need a center channel, then there is one particular approach that I recommend, and otherwise I simply would not use a center channel speaker. As several others have pointed out, you absolutely need a perfect match in tonality between the center channel and the main speakers. As Beave wisely pointed out, this almost never happens even when you use the center channel that the manufacturer claims is matched to the main stereo speakers. The only thing it has in common with them is the tweeter. The crossovers are going to be different, and with different crossovers the tonality will not be a perfect match. Someone else mentioned that modern AVRs (Audio/Video Receivers) attempt to make the center channel and the stereo speakers sound the same. I tend to be skeptical. To test this capability, I would use a center channel made by a different manufacturer, i.e., I would make the test challenging, so as to be certain that there will not be a mismatch in tonality when using a center channel that is reasonably well matched to the stereo speakers to start with.

The only way I would personally have a center channel speaker is if it is identical to the main stereo speakers. And to my way of thinking, the only way this works, without significant compromises, is if the center channel speaker has both a tweeter and a midrange, and they are mounted together on a plate that can be rotated 90 degrees, so that the speaker can be stood on end for use as main stereo speakers. This is the only way, in my opinion, that you are assured that the center channel speaker will be tonally matched to the main speakers while avoiding other compromises.

With any center channel speaker that uses only a tweeter, the crossover point is going to be high enough such that the two woofers will be operating at frequencies where interference occurs between the two woofers, for any listener located just a few inches closer to one woofer than the other one. This means that for many listening locations there will be a dip in the response, possibly pronounced, and occurring somewhere between 1 kHz and the crossover point. This effect may or may not be conspicuous, but it is something that is best to avoid if it can be avoided. It is reason enough to prefer a center channel with a midrange, which will bring the crossover point down to where the wavelengths where both woofers operate will be several times greater than the distance separating them.

The RC-263 is likely an excellent center channel speaker, except of course that the midrange and tweeter are not co-mounted on a plate that can be rotated such that it can be stood on end and used as a main stereo speaker. Additionally, the flat-piston midrange that it uses is 4" whereas the flat-piston midrange used in the floor-standing R253 (and R263) is 5.25", which most likely means that the crossover points will be different. Additionally, the woofers in the RC263 are bigger (6.5") than the woofers used in the R253 (the R263 uses 6.5" woofers). In a world of compromises, the combination of the RC263 with either the R253 or R263 is probably a lesser compromise than most of the other alternatives you are likely to find. As such I would be moderately receptive to this combination (with either the R253 or the R263), but only after carefully listening for any evidence of mismatch in tonality.

EDIT: I was thinking all of this over and realized that center channel speakers that use a concentric driver satisfy all requirements with no hassle. Simply stand them on end for use as main speakers, and you're good to go, with perfectly matching tonality. Elac seems to make three center channel speakers of this sort, starting with the UC52 ($400). There are similar designs from Kef, although I can't bring myself to like the idiosyncrasies of their approach. They apparently operate the midrange driver (the one concentric with the tweeter) full range with no high-pass filter. And there is just one woofer, which does apparently use a low-pass filter to avoid interference between it and the midrange. The other thing on the front of the speaker, that looks like a woofer, is a passive radiator. Maybe this approach works well, but only if the midrange has the same Xmax as the woofer. I am inclined to prefer the more conventional design approach that Elac uses.

Center channels are useful in home theatre for being able to help with dialog intelligibility. You can, and most people usually do, bump the center channel output up a bit.

 

[Chromatischism]

You can, but a lot more than just dialogue comes from that speaker.

 

[Haint]

It has been a few years since I've even bothered with a (physical) center channel speaker. To my way of thinking the center channel speaker is only important (or even useful) if you normally sit (while watching movies or TV) significantly closer to one R-L stereo speaker than the other, such that the sound that you want to perceive as coming from the TV will instead be perceived as coming from the speaker closer to you. If you are equidistant from both speakers or nearly so, you will perceive the monaural part of the sound as coming from the center. To test whether you really need a center channel speaker, listen to some FM radio with the receiver circuitry on mono mode, and move around the room and listen to get a sense of how much closer you need to be to one speaker than the other before the sound stops sounding like it is coming from the center.

If you remain convinced that you need a center channel, then there is one particular approach that I recommend, and otherwise I simply would not use a center channel speaker. As several others have pointed out, you absolutely need a perfect match in tonality between the center channel and the main speakers. As Beave wisely pointed out, this almost never happens even when you use the center channel that the manufacturer claims is matched to the main stereo speakers. The only thing it has in common with them is the tweeter. The crossovers are going to be different, and with different crossovers the tonality will not be a perfect match. Someone else mentioned that modern AVRs (Audio/Video Receivers) attempt to make the center channel and the stereo speakers sound the same. I tend to be skeptical. To test this capability, I would use a center channel made by a different manufacturer, i.e., I would make the test challenging, so as to be certain that there will not be a mismatch in tonality when using a center channel that is reasonably well matched to the stereo speakers to start with.

The only way I would personally have a center channel speaker is if it is identical to the main stereo speakers. And to my way of thinking, the only way this works, without significant compromises, is if the center channel speaker has both a tweeter and a midrange, and they are mounted together on a plate that can be rotated 90 degrees, so that the speaker can be stood on end for use as main stereo speakers. This is the only way, in my opinion, that you are assured that the center channel speaker will be tonally matched to the main speakers while avoiding other compromises.

With any center channel speaker that uses only a tweeter, the crossover point is going to be high enough such that the two woofers will be operating at frequencies where interference occurs between the two woofers, for any listener located just a few inches closer to one woofer than the other one. This means that for many listening locations there will be a dip in the response, possibly pronounced, and occurring somewhere between 1 kHz and the crossover point. This effect may or may not be conspicuous, but it is something that is best to avoid if it can be avoided. It is reason enough to prefer a center channel with a midrange, which will bring the crossover point down to where the wavelengths where both woofers operate will be several times greater than the distance separating them.

The RC-263 is likely an excellent center channel speaker, except of course that the midrange and tweeter are not co-mounted on a plate that can be rotated such that it can be stood on end and used as a main stereo speaker. Additionally, the flat-piston midrange that it uses is 4" whereas the flat-piston midrange used in the floor-standing R253 (and R263) is 5.25", which most likely means that the crossover points will be different. Additionally, the woofers in the RC263 are bigger (6.5") than the woofers used in the R253 (the R263 uses 6.5" woofers). In a world of compromises, the combination of the RC263 with either the R253 or R263 is probably a lesser compromise than most of the other alternatives you are likely to find. As such I would be moderately receptive to this combination (with either the R253 or the R263), but only after carefully listening for any evidence of mismatch in tonality.

EDIT: I was thinking all of this over and realized that center channel speakers that use a concentric driver satisfy all requirements with no hassle. Simply stand them on end for use as main speakers, and you're good to go, with perfectly matching tonality. Elac seems to make three center channel speakers of this sort, starting with the UC52 ($400). There are similar designs from Kef, although I can't bring myself to like the idiosyncrasies of their approach. They apparently operate the midrange driver (the one concentric with the tweeter) full range with no high-pass filter. And there is just one woofer, which does apparently use a low-pass filter to avoid interference between it and the midrange. The other thing on the front of the speaker, that looks like a woofer, is a passive radiator. Maybe this approach works well, but only if the midrange has the same Xmax as the woofer. I am inclined to prefer the more conventional design approach that Elac uses.

By far the largest issue with centers is the effectively unavoidable differences in the vertical axis and boundaries (i.e. by necessity much closer to the floor or ceiling and much further from side walls than the mains). With a large TV you can't really match the LCR's in the vertical axis unless you mount the TV on the ceiling or something. This has a FAR larger impact on the FR and tonality than the crossover differences or horizontal woofers on the matching center within the same line. Even with 3 identical bookshelves the center is likely going to sound radically different than the mains due to the vertical axis and boundary differences.

 

[richard12511]

Best way I’ve found to get better dialogue intelligibility is to use speakers with a more narrow dispersion pattern. If you’ve got wider dispersion speakers already, absorbing more reflections can help if you don’t want to raise the level of the center channel.

 

[HooStat]

Best way I’ve found to get better dialogue intelligibility is to use speakers with a more narrow dispersion pattern. If you’ve got wider dispersion speakers already, absorbing more reflections can help if you don’t want to raise the level of the center channel.

Interesting -- I would have assumed that a wider dispersion would be better so that everyone gets good sound. At least for the center channel. Can you clarify this for me?

 

[Lorenzo74]

Welcome to ASR, I can see it's your first post.

Did you see the "Debut Reference Center Speaker"?
Model: DCR52



View attachment 85800
The reason that's important is for timber matching. If speakers are timbre-matched, they possess identical tonal qualities, reproducing textures and coloring in exactly the same way. If you choose a speaker company A for left and right, but speaker company B for center, your experience is not guaranteed to be pleasant. There's a reason people recommend purchasing speakers from one lineup from one company.

EDIT:
I realize that "timber matching" is more of a marketing term. When I say that, I'm talking about frequency response. If you can find another company's speaker with a similar frequency response to the rest of your speakers, that would work as well.

I would carefully avoid center speaker 2way. Poor horizontal directivity. Floyd toole clearly explain that. For central channel best is tweeter mid (one over the other) and laterally the woofer.
or the coaxial unifi uc5... in your case.
best

 

[richard12511]

Interesting -- I would have assumed that a wider dispersion would be better so that everyone gets good sound. At least for the center channel. Can you clarify this for me?

That’s actually also true, at least IME.

IME, wider dispersion gives you a wider sweet spot, which means it sounds better for more people. Also gives you a more enveloping sound, due to a higher % of reflected sound.

Narrower dispersion gives you a sweeter sweet spot, but it’s smaller. You also get a clearer sound(which helps with dialogue clarity), due to a higher % of direct sound.

That said, I had an Infinity Beta(wide dispersion) HT setup before I had the JTRs, and while it wasn’t as stunningly clear, I still never really had issues understanding dialogue. I think dialogue intelligibility issues often have more to due with the room than they do the speakers, though different speakers can certainly help.

Caveat is this is anecdotal, and based on my speakers and experience . It’s possible that there are other attributes of my speakers/room that are responsible for these differences. Dispersion width seems like the most logical explanation though(IMO), and it’s consistent with what I’ve heard from others.

 

[thewas]

IME, wider dispersion gives you a wider sweet spot, which means it sounds better for more people. Also gives you a more enveloping sound, due to a higher % of reflected sound.

Like you say that is in your experience but cannot be generalised, in my new house and new unfortunately more reflective listening room (single listener) loudspeakers with more narrow dispersion sound better to me, as wide radiating ones have very vague imaging and do not sound as clean due to high reflection and reverberation. Also I think that the preference wide vs. narrow is not universal and can differ between different listeners.

 

[Chromatischism]

Like you say that is in your experience but cannot be generalised, in my new house and new unfortunately more reflective listening room (single listener) loudspeakers with more narrow dispersion sound better to me, as wide radiating ones have very vague imaging and do not sound as clean due to high reflection and reverberation. Also I think that the preference wide vs. narrow is not universal and can differ between different listeners.

Yeah, I recommend bringing the speakers in further from the walls than usual, and closer to your seat. So if you used a 9x9x9 triangle before, try 8x8x8 or 7.5. You will start to hear a lot more clarity by altering the ratio of direct to reflected sound.

 

[thewas]

Yeah, I recommend bringing the speakers in further from the walls than usual, and closer to your seat. So if you used a 9x9x9 triangle before, try 8x8x8 or 7.5. You will start to hear a lot more clarity by altering the ratio of direct to reflected sound.

Yes, I also prefer listening inside the recommended limits of nearfield monitoring where direct sound dominates which can be found for different loudspeaker sizes at sites like Neumann, Genelec etc.

 

[richard12511]

Like you say that is in your experience but cannot be generalised, in my new house and new unfortunately more reflective listening room (single listener) loudspeakers with more narrow dispersion sound better to me, as wide radiating ones have very vague imaging and do not sound as clean due to high reflection and reverberation. Also I think that the preference wide vs. narrow is not universal and can differ between different listeners.

As someone with no significant other, my preference has shifted towards more narrow dispersion over the years, for the same reasons you mention. “Vague” is a good way to describe it. A couple years ago, during a blind shootout, a friend of mine described the narrow dispersion speaker - without knowing that’s what he was listening to - as “like listening with contacts on”. While it makes no literal sense, I immediately knew what he meant, and I thought it was a good metaphorical way to describe the difference.