I assume you mean the DBR62?
Without anyone having heard both speakers together, and without both speakers being measured on the same system, it's hard to compare as they're both very good. They're close enough that the small differences are likely a matter of preference rather than one being clearly better than the other. As I usually say when speakers are this close, I'd go for whichever you think is prettiest.
That said, if I
had to choose based on the data (it's impossible to remove my bias of having heard the polk and liked it alot though), I'd choose the R200. My data usually compares reasonably well to amir's with some flexibility in bass amount, and it appears the R200 is a bit more neutral and has a slightly wider soundstage. Although they are close enough that it's questionable how audible that extra neutrality is.
View attachment 132945The DBR62 does seem to be tuned a touch warmer/darker overall though, while perhaps having a slightly more recessed midrange.
Now, I generally feel people here should be looking closer at directivity performance because there's a lot of information in that off-axis data. Looking at horizontal directivity and soundstage performance, I think both speakers are quite similar, the DBR 62 is slightly better in some respects and the polk is better in others. I'd guess the polk might sounds a littttttttlleee wider, based on more energy aroudn 4-6kHz, and maybe the ELAC would be a little more accurate in its imaging but we're
really splitting hairs.
Elac DBR62 off-axis (smoothed to 1/12 octave for clarity):
View attachment 132948
Polk R200 off axis: (you can ignore below 200ish hz, directivity information there is notaccurate
View attachment 132949
By the way, this is another a good example of how a waveguide is not a magical solution to directivity problems. The elac is really barely better than the polk in terms of beaming behavior.
Now the normalized data for the DBR62:
View attachment 132950
Quite a bit of bunching due to the on-axis diffraction. How much this is an issue is hard to know. I really don't like the big 6dB step between 3kHz and 5kHz though. That's too low a frequency for a drop like that imo.
R200:
View attachment 132951
Also a lot of bunching around 5kHz because of the on-axis diffraction but a bit of a smoother step down after that. I'd consider both of these roughly in the same class.
Most people don't listen on-axis for home listening though(plus the R200 is too bright on-axis), so sometimes I like to normalize to an off-axis angle instead, say, 20 degrees.
DBR62 normalized to 20 degrees horizontal:
View attachment 132952
R200:
View attachment 132955
Again, really in the same class.
One more way of looking at the horizontal data is taking the averages that make up the early reflections curve. Here I've compared the listening window and predicted sidewall reflections (40-80 degrees). R200 in Blue, DBR62 in red.
View attachment 132958
Here you can more clearly see that both speakers have a similar amount of bunching/diffraction, but the R200 does so at higher frequencies, which will probably mean larger apparent sources/slightly wider sounder soudnstage. You can also see the R200 beams more in its sidewall reflections, but the DBR62 does have a fair bit of it as well.
Looking at the total horizontal reflections, which includes rear and front wall reflections in addition to sidewalls, and the horizontal early reflections DI, the R200 balances out very nicely while the elac is very close but a little less smooth horizontal DI overall.
View attachment 132959
So there's my super nitty gritty take on directivity. Taking both the direct sound and off-axis into account, I think the R200 just edges out the Elac, but they are both quite good. The R200 also
seems to have slightly more bass extension but it's too close for me to be comfortable making that call given the relative variability of DIY nearfield measurements compared to the NFS.