Newbie with beginner budget and love for lower bass freqs undecided between BR03 and DBR-62

[Mush888]

Do you get an optical or analogue signal from your TV? if you take an optical signal you need the DAC, otherwise you have your analogue output which can be taken directly to the RCA input of the FOSI.
What sources should and would you like to use? Based on this I can understand what to advise you

Thanks for this. It's a digital out (optical). Looks like I need a DAC then. Does the quality of the DAC matter or any would do?

As sources I would use TV, laptop and mixer. I also care for bluetooth.

I am considering buying the Lintons as you and @staticV3 suggested, albeit I will only have about 15cm from the back of the speakers to the wall. I might up my budget further (sigh) to get a decent amp and dac to match them. I read a thread about amps for the Lintons but am a bit confused now.

Basically I'd like an amp that can fit those sources I intend to use, including bluetooth, is powerful enough to drive the Lintons even at high volume and is fairly neutral. Budget ideally would be half the price of the Lintons for the amp and much less than that for the DAC (if that doesnt affect significantly audio quality). From the reseach I did on the BR03 the IOTAVX SA3 came out as a good value for money, but I am concerned it won't last as long as renowned brands such as Yamaha.

Lastly, I read pretty much everywhere that the Lintons lose clarity at the 1k-3k Hz range, which is a pity for both snares in music and generally movie sounds. Found someone online who managed to find a couple of work mods that could be done in order to partially fix this. I would never do that by myself, but might get a professional to do it if that means having an almost perfect speaker (for that price) in my hands
mod 1
mod 2

thoughts?

Thanks again!

 

[Mush888]

A pair of Kali LP-8 powered monitors and a DAC/pre-amp is a combo to consider, IMO.

Erin's Audio Corner has Klippel NFS results on version 2. F3 is 39 Hz.

I have a pair of version 1 and can say that they have very good bass extension/quality for a largish bookshelf size speaker, and can play as loud as I need without signs of distortion or stress. Audioholics has a review of version 1.

One caveat: I found the RCA inputs to be unusable. They produce a large amount of noise. I tried multiple sources and RCA cables to no avail. This is a YMMV type of thing. The issue does not exist using the XLR inputs.

those Kali look very interesting ngl

 

[jmillar]

At least to me, the BR03 and DBR-62 seem a bit outdated by now.
In the passive world, I'd take a long look at the Wharfedale Linton 85

DBR62: very good and neutral for the price. BR03: wonky resonances and jaggedy FR. Linton 85: they cost twice as much, it's a different tier.

 

[staticV3]

Linton 85: they cost twice as much, it's a different tier.

No doubt about that.
At a similar price to the DBR-62, but with wider and smoother directivity, there's the KEF Q350.
Though interestingly, Amir's listening impression of the Elac was much more positive than that of the KEF.

 

[Talisman]

.Though interestingly, Amir's listening impression of the Elac was much more positive than that of the KEF.

With all due respect to Amir's opinion, his individual listening preferences should be taken for what they are, subjective preferences.
Many have commented that they found the elacs "boring" (I don't own them nor have I ever listened to them so I can't say anything about it). However, I own the Kef Q350 and I found them extremely pleasant and with a solid and deep response even at low frequencies (and this too is just a personal evaluation).
The point is that, as this site teaches us, subjective opinions must always be as such, without being considered gospel and without being used as a reference

 

[Mush888]

With all due respect to Amir's opinion, his individual listening preferences should be taken for what they are, subjective preferences.
Many have commented that they found the elacs "boring" (I don't own them nor have I ever listened to them so I can't say anything about it). However, I own the Kef Q350 and I found them extremely pleasant and with a solid and deep response even at low frequencies (and this too is just a personal evaluation).
The point is that, as this site teaches us, subjective opinions must always be as such, without being considered gospel and without being used as a reference

I am just concerned that being this an audiophile site most attention is directed to the "cleanest", most perfect sound, while I put equal emphasis on "fun", meaning that ultimately I am looking for speakers that try to be engaging as well while being generally balanced - as in not losing out significantly on some ranges. I guess fun would mean bass being well covered even at sub 40hz and generally warm sound with the highs and the high part of the mid range not being recessed either. But i am a newbie so I might be wrong on this. I am not producing music so I dont care too much on the perfect sound, and I bearly listen to classical music and the likes. Tbh seems lintons are hitting the spot, but will check out the Q350s too

 

[bodhi]

I am just concerned that being this an audiophile site most attention is directed to the "cleanest", most perfect sound, while I put equal emphasis on "fun", meaning that ultimately I am looking for speakers that try to be engaging as well while being generally balanced - as in not losing out significantly on some ranges. I guess fun would mean bass being well covered even at sub 40hz and generally warm sound with the highs and the high part of the mid range not being recessed either. But i am a newbie so I might be wrong on this. I am not producing music so I dont care too much on the perfect sound, and I bearly listen to classical music and the likes. Tbh seems lintons are hitting the spot, but will check out the Q350s too

The confusion is understandable, but the clean, sterile audiophile sound is just a meme. What is usually sought here is speaker that has flat frequency response on-axis. This kind of speaker is the best if one wants to hear the recording as it was intended to sound. There are speakers deviating from this that some people (research says they are a minority) find more enjoyable, but there are no speakers that could be said to be generally more "fun".

 

[Ron Texas]

As for Elac vs Borea, go with the Elac's.

 

[Beershaun]

Also, add a subwoofer. No bookshelf will give you satisfactory bass. A subwoofer is the biggest improvement you can make after your main stereo speaker pair. So don't choose your bookshelves based on bass response. Get neutral speakers with good directivity and the set aside money for subwoofer. I'd recommend the Elacs and an svs SB-2000 subwoofer. I ran that setup for many years and loved it.

 

[Mush888]

Also, add a subwoofer. No bookshelf will give you satisfactory bass. A subwoofer is the biggest improvement you can make after your main stereo speaker pair. So don't choose your bookshelves based on bass response. Get neutral speakers with good directivity and the set aside money for subwoofer. I'd recommend the Elacs and an svs SB-2000 subwoofer. I ran that setup for many years and loved it.

Yes, I would normally do it but cant in my new place, it's a terraced house with surprisingly thin walls and I am not gonna go all the lenght of soundproofing the whole side of the house, nor i want to disturb (eccessively) the neighbours.

Might just stick with (very good) bookshelf bass - hence the thread -and go to my local dub soundsystem session when i need my dose of bass, which i do already anyway lmao
it's a thing of beauty btw

 

[wyup]

Also, add a subwoofer. No bookshelf will give you satisfactory bass. A subwoofer is the biggest improvement you can make after your main stereo speaker pair. So don't choose your bookshelves based on bass response. Get neutral speakers with good directivity and the set aside money for subwoofer. I'd recommend the Elacs and an svs SB-2000 subwoofer. I ran that setup for many years and loved it.

I also have the Elacs and can attest for their great natural sound, it is a gem of a speaker. Some call it dull, if you like V-shape go with BR03 but I have put the Elacs to test with different amplifiers and they can give stunning results and a powerful suf-woofer like bass.

I bought a SVS SB-1000 pro subwoofer but returned it. It was nice but I didn't find it improves bass, it just extends it, and integration is tricky, because the subwoofer muddles frequencies over 100 hz which is where bass lives. The sub sounded well with crossover at 80 Hz max, and with fast slopes. It gives oomph, but not much detail. Passhtrough it didn't sound well at all.

Bass is not only in the subwoofer. The Elacs are a bit hard speaker to drive because it has an acute phase degree angle of 50º at 120 Hz region where its lowest impedance of 4.8 ohms lies, as Amir pointed out, and it needs current. A youtube reviewer accounted the total impedance seen by the amplifier accounting phase degree angle and it was around 2.8 ohms. You can have more bass and detail with a powerful amplifier. I for one tested the Elacs with a JCValvular M2 50W hybrid amplifier and I was stunned at the bass punch and detail, they really didn't need a subwoofer. Last week I auditioned a new Musical Fidelity A1 amp and boy they sound phenomenal, even if 25W class A can't give the best bass, but what a natural tonality and beautiful midrange.

 

[dominikz]

I bought a SVS SB-1000 pro subwoofer but returned it. It was nice but I didn't find it improves bass, it just extends it, and integration is tricky, because the subwoofer muddles frequencies over 100 hz which is where bass lives. The sub sounded well with crossover at 80 Hz max, and with fast slopes. It gives oomph, but not much detail. Passhtrough it didn't sound well at all.

Did you use REW to validate integration and negative PEQ to remove remaining bass resonances?
I find that well-integrated subs don't really stand out in any negative way - they smooth out the mid-bass response (if placed correctly) and provide extended low frequency response. A bonus is that they can also offload the main loudspeakers (thereby reducing distortion somewhat).
Without subs it can IME be quite a challenge to combat SBIR effects in 'small' rooms (especially bass suckout in the 70-100Hz range)!

 

[renaudrenaud]

I spend some time with the Elac and the experience was convincing. For the budget I was very happy and even it is a bookshelf thing, mmm... very impressive!

@VintageFlanker came some time to time and maybe can share his thoughts.

There was some room mode and bought the Umik-1 for some measurements and produced some EQ for solving the issue.

If I should go for a new pair of speakers in this price range, today I think I should go to Focal.

 

[wyup]

Did you use REW to validate integration and negative PEQ to remove remaining bass resonances?
I find that well-integrated subs don't really stand out in any negative way - they smooth out the mid-bass response (if placed correctly) and provide extended low frequency response. A bonus is that they can also offload the main loudspeakers (thereby reducing distortion somewhat).
Without subs it can IME be quite a challenge to combat SBIR effects in 'small' rooms (especially bass suckout in the 70-100Hz range)!

Hi, I don't think this subwoofer smoothens mid bass. Its bass doesn't have texture, it's a 12'' inch driver most for movies and HT than music. It detracts from the Elac response.

It has a point extending sub 80Hz bass with a tight slope, but it's no use for upper bass. Maybe a Rel, but certainly not this sub. I much prefer a better and more powerful amplifier that controls the Elacs' woofers and provide texture instead.

 

[VintageFlanker]

@VintageFlanker came some time to time and maybe can share his thoughts

Oh, I did back in the day:

Elac Debut Reference DBR-62 Speaker Review

@VintageFlanker and @daftcombo where at home yesterday and it was a real pleasure! My wife and I we have spend a really good time. ASR forum is wonderful, but in IRL the experience is different (and I like it). What a good time spend talking about audio, listening to music and trying few...

audiosciencereview.com

@Mush888

undecided between BR03 and DBR-62​

I can't understand the hesitation to be honest. DBR62s are just vastly superior speakers in any regards. Just in another league.

 

[dominikz]

Hi, I don't think this subwoofer smoothens mid bass. Its bass doesn't have texture, it's a 12'' inch driver most for movies and HT than music. It detracts from the Elac response.

It has a point extending sub 80Hz bass with a tight slope, but it's no use for upper bass. Maybe a Rel, but certainly not this sub. I much prefer a better and more powerful amplifier that controls the Elacs' woofers and provide texture instead.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this It is almost certain that any audible bass issues would be easily visible from in-room measurements made by REW, and could be resolved (or at least greatly improved) by subwoofer/loudspeaker repositioning and EQ. Though I appreciate this is not trivial so I can understand that most people decide not to pursue it.

"Bass texture" exists in the recordings and shouldn't be a feature of a subwoofer - it is not a musical instrument but a sound reproduction device. If two different subwoofers were integrated in an equivalent way and EQ-ed to the same in-room target I strongly doubt there would be a significant difference in perceived "bass texture" in direct comparison - assuming both were working in normal operating conditions (no overload / reasonably low distortion, level-matched and with equivalent LF extension).

Subwoofers are defined mainly by their LF extension and SPL capacity (usually measured according to CEA-2010) - in other words any subwoofer matching the required max SPL and LF extension requirement should work well. SVS SB-1000 Pro is no exception to this.

Lastly, subwoofers operate in spectral region where room modes and SBIR effects dominate the in-room response, and where human hearing cannot differentiate the direct sound from room effects - i.e. what we hear and what we measure correlates strongly in the bass region.
This means that care needs to be taken to achieve as smooth as possible in-room bass response at the listening position, and this is normally done by optimizing the subwoofer and loudspeaker positions (to minimize SBIR-induced dips in their operating range), as well as crossover settings. Afterwards negative PEQ should be used to knock down bass resonances.

Here's some examples on how much improvement adding a subwoofer and PEQ can bring to a pair of Revel M16:

L+R without a sub and without EQ:

The resonances/peaks in 50-200Hz region are clearly audible. Also, the response falls off pretty quickly below 50Hz.

L+R without a sub but with bass EQ (based on in-room response):

This sounds much better because the bass resonances are tamed and some of the dips are restored with positive PEQ (but this unfortunately means less headroom and resonances elsewhere in the room). Also, the response falls off pretty quickly below 50Hz.

L+R+sub without EQ:

Now were getting somewhere! We have much less severe dips in the bass so we don't need positive PEQ, but we still have resonances in the 50-200Hz range that are very audible ("boomy bass") and need taming (with negative PEQ). We also have significant energy down to almost 20Hz.

L+R+sub with PEQ (bass corrected based on in-room response and loudspeakers corrected based on anechoic data):

This simply sounds good! No boomyness and no bass suckout, sub-bass is audible and cleanly reproduced (in tracks that contain it).

In conclusion, in both my systems adding a subwoofer definitely helped to retrieve energy and achieve a smoother response in the critical 60-100Hz region, and PEQ was similarly important to resolve audible bass resonances in the 50-200Hz region ("bass bloom", "boominess"...).
Anyway, just my 2¢ - hope it helps!

 

[wyup]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this It is almost certain that any audible bass issues would be easily visible from in-room measurements made by REW, and could be resolved (or at least greatly improved) by subwoofer/loudspeaker repositioning and EQ. Though I appreciate this is not trivial so I can understand that most people decide not to pursue it.

"Bass texture" exists in the recordings and shouldn't be a feature of a subwoofer - it is not a musical instrument but a sound reproduction device. If two different subwoofers were integrated in an equivalent way and EQ-ed to the same in-room target I strongly doubt there would be a significant difference in perceived "bass texture" in direct comparison - assuming both were working in normal operating conditions (no overload / reasonably low distortion, level-matched and with equivalent LF extension).

Subwoofers are defined mainly by their LF extension and SPL capacity (usually measured according to CEA-2010) - in other words any subwoofer matching the required max SPL and LF extension requirement should work well. SVS SB-1000 Pro is no exception to this.

Lastly, subwoofers operate in spectral region where room modes and SBIR effects dominate the in-room response, and where human hearing cannot differentiate the direct sound from room effects - i.e. what we hear and what we measure correlates strongly in the bass region.
This means that care needs to be taken to achieve as smooth as possible in-room bass response at the listening position, and this is normally done by optimizing the subwoofer and loudspeaker positions (to minimize SBIR-induced dips in their operating range), as well as crossover settings. Afterwards negative PEQ should be used to knock down bass resonances.

I agree in that equalisation for room response, resonances and to complement the main speaker is important to obtain a linear response but that is not what I'm talking about.

What I meant is that a subwoofer is not a substitute for poor bass from a speaker due to improper amplification, a subwoofer is to extend bass in the frequency range that the main one wasn't designed to produce. A suitable amplifier for a hard to drive speaker like DBR62 may work better with bass than a subwoofer. This is my opinion and my experience. I've realised that the DBR62 are capable of better bass and midrange body when properly amplified.

Sound texture is feature of the quality of a subwoofer as well as of a main speaker. Speakers reproduce musical instruments, so replicating a texture is how close they can reproduce in their designed frequency range. Some subwoofers sound more boomy than others, irrespective of their crossover range or integration.

Room modes and resonances do not prevent me from realising if I need or want a subwoofer. I could perfectly integrate the SVS in my room and still not like it, because I'm not getting good bass above the subwoofer range because of a improper amplifier for the speaker. Bass is not only from 20 to 80 hz.

Leaving apart room eq, resonances and modes for a moment, I can integrate a subwoofer pretty well by ear by ajusting its crossover fequency and slopes, without a need for REW measurements.

I guess there are subwoofers like REL that overlap the main speaker range to help bass with texture and harmonics. To me, the SVS subwoofer didn't provide this, because its frequency response over 80 Hz was awful, this is a subwoofer optimised for sub bass and home theatre, and according to SVS database for speaker intengration, with my Elac DBR62 their recommended crossover settings were like 70-80 Hz and 19 db/octave slope, (quite abrupt) which at suitable volume sounded right and integrated, (curiosly I came up to these same settings by ear) but didn't give me much texture in its frequency range, even if restricted in harmonics and not as directional. A double bass has texture. That SVS sounded boomy. I'd rather have a sub with more up-frequency extension and accuracy. But I've realised that a powerful and good enough integrated amplifier can improve and extend the Elacs response not to need a subwoofer.

 

[dominikz]

I agree in that equalisation for room response, resonances and to complement the main speaker is important to obtain a linear response but that is not what I'm talking about.

What I meant is that a subwoofer is not a substitute for poor bass from a speaker due to improper amplification, a subwoofer is to extend bass in the frequency range that the main one wasn't designed to produce. A suitable amplifier for a hard to drive speaker like DBR62 may work better with bass than a subwoofer. This is my opinion and my experience. I've realised that the DBR62 are capable of better bass and midrange body when properly amplified.

Sound texture is feature of the quality of a subwoofer as well as of a main speaker. Speakers reproduce musical instruments, so replicating a texture is how close they can reproduce in their designed frequency range. Some subwoofers sound more boomy than others, irrespective of their crossover range or integration.

Room modes and resonances do not prevent me from realising if I need or want a subwoofer. I could perfectly integrate the SVS in my room and still not like it, because I'm not getting good bass above the subwoofer range because of a improper amplifier for the speaker. Bass is not only from 20 to 80 hz.

Leaving apart room eq, resonances and modes for a moment, I can integrate a subwoofer pretty well by ear by ajusting its crossover fequency and slopes, without a need for REW measurements.

I guess there are subwoofers like REL that overlap the main speaker range to help bass with texture and harmonics. To me, the SVS subwoofer didn't provide this, because its frequency response over 80 Hz was awful, this is a subwoofer optimised for sub bass and home theatre, and according to SVS database for speaker intengration, with my Elac DBR62 their recommended crossover settings were like 70-80 Hz and 19 db/octave slope, (quite abrupt) which at suitable volume sounded right and integrated, (curiosly I came up to these same settings by ear) but didn't give me much texture in its frequency range, even if restricted in harmonics and not as directional. A double bass has texture. That SVS sounded boomy. I'd rather have a sub with more up-frequency extension and accuracy. But I've realised that a powerful and good enough integrated amplifier can improve and extend the Elacs response not to need a subwoofer.

I disagree once again with a lot of the points, but we don't really have to reach an agreement anyway
It is great that you enjoy the Elacs!

 

[bodhi]

I guess there are subwoofers like REL that overlap the main speaker range to help bass with texture and harmonics. To me, the SVS subwoofer didn't provide this, because its frequency response over 80 Hz was awful, this is a subwoofer optimised for sub bass and home theatre, and according to SVS database for speaker intengration, with my Elac DBR62 their recommended crossover settings were like 70-80 Hz and 19 db/octave slope, (quite abrupt) which at suitable volume sounded right and integrated, (curiosly I came up to these same settings by ear) but didn't give me much texture in its frequency range, even if restricted in harmonics and not as directional. A double bass has texture. That SVS sounded boomy. I'd rather have a sub with more up-frequency extension and accuracy. But I've realised that a powerful and good enough integrated amplifier can improve and extend the Elacs response not to need a subwoofer.

You will find that not many here agree to these conclusions and as far as I know they aren't supported by theory either.

A subwoofer is a subwoofer, it either plays some frequencies or it doesn't. Any "texture" can be found in the frequency response. Amplifier has the speakers play the frequencies they are capable of with desired volume if it has enough power, it doesn't "extend" speakers response as such. Boominess is the most common problem with subwoofers caused by in-room boost to lower frequencies, regardless of if you feel you fixed those by ear (and you can find this out yourself by measuring).

By all means, you can do whatever you feel best. Any advice or attempted corrections are mostly for anyone else wandering around, maybe having same kind of problems.

 

[wyup]

Amplifier has the speakers play the frequencies they are capable of with desired volume if it has enough power, it doesn't "extend" speakers response as such.

I didn't say an amplifier "exteded" a speakers response, but "improve" its bass both in quantity and quality. I believe a subwoofer may not necessarily be a fix for lack of bass from a speaker. A subwoofer extends a speaker response when properly amplified, but it can't improve the bass from a speaker.

Has anyone cared to measure a speaker response from two different amplifiers? Because theoretically you may end up with better correction/linearity/subwoofer integration depending on which amplifier you use. I have experienced different bass response and extension on the Elacs with different amplifiers, and this may be enough not to need a subwoofer for me. My idea of a subwoofer wasn't to linearly extend to 30 Hz with room correction, but to improve the actual speaker bass, and I found it didn't.