B6.2 every time. Ears of independence matter. Do you like it. That is all that matters unless you are staging in a studio to mix down components. I dig it.
Everything depends which type of music listening. Generally speaking, b6.2 is more musical, but not very precise like ub52. But at the end b6.2 is more pleasant to listen, and much more pleasant for pocket.
I own a UB52's,and heard the B6.2's. Uni-fi is noticeably better sounding, more open, the B6.2 is a bit fuzzy and darker ( both Elac's are darker regarding sound, than Dali's Zensor 1 & 3 for example, but better comparing Dali's ). Also both Elac's benefits hugely from pre/power combo, or high current amp. It's worth it to invest in amps such as mentioned. You get great results, with more full bodied-lush sound.
To my ears (Listening through Hifiman HE4XX, Schiit Modi 3 + Magni Heresy) I sense very similar sound signature. - UB52s seems to be a bit balanced with lush base extension. IRL, these have decent holographic imaging and sound stage as well. (Not perceivable on E's videos, not sure why.) - b6.2 lower mid forward, slightly thin and less lush sounding, slight sparkle on the higher end. High end sparkle feels like these have better detail.
The bass on the B 6.2 sounds deeper and punchier than it did in the video with the Polk. It sounds much fuller, more balanced, more dynamic, and better in every way to the much more expensive UB52, and pairs very well with the Arcam, as well as some much more costly speakers, IMO. This is the best I've ever heard from it.
I think I figured out what part of the problem with the UB52s bass may be. It's the same as what I observed with the bass of the DBR6's in a comparison of them against the QA 3030i's on another channel I think I mentioned to you once. I'm conviced their bass isn't just weak or not deep enough, it actually seems to lag behind a touch in its timing relative to it's high(er) frequency drivers. It's a phase or time domain issue that the B6.2 doesn't seem to have as much. I'm almost positive.
@@williammiebach1798 it's possible. As someone pointed out, the speakers that sound thinner here to me are all the ones that are front ported, so are getting less bass boost from the wall behind the speakers than all the others that are rear ported. And, E saw all our comments about whether he was using analog or digital inputs and read them all, because he put his little red heart next to them all, but he didn't answer our question, lol
@@DougMen1 That's something I didn't even take into consideration. Theyr'e both front ported designs, but that should mean the bass re-enforcement from the front port would be timed ahead of one from a rear port where re-enforcment has to either reflect back or wrap around the cabinette from the back of the speaker before ot gets to you, wich causes more time delay, not less. So, I don't know if where the ports are is a factor, or how.
@@williammiebach1798 I don't think the ports are a factor in the timing, but they are a factor in bass weight, where a rear port will get more boost from the wall behind them than a front port will
These two Elacs sound far more similar than I would have expected from their previous demos. The B6.2s are slightly more balanced overall, but the UB52s sound smoother and less accentuated in the upper mids than they've sounded against anything else. Since the bass of the B6.2s isnt as strong as the R200s or Q350s, they dont make the UB52's bass sound as weak to me as those did. Large contrasts can sometimes exaggerate your impressions. Still neither of these are bass champions, and the UB52s in particular cries out for a sub. It's a bit more refined in the treble particularly than it's brother, but I think the B6.2 may be the better value. To me neither of them sound much better, or much more satisfying and exciting than the XT15s and RB42s in their comparison, or have much stronger bass These designs will fill larger rooms better though, for sure.
😂😂😂😂 You did Not hear that from this video. You are getting that from a review you watched. From someone trying to sell the newer more expensive speaker.
The UB52s are superior. But you have to be careful with the combination of integrated and source so you don't go overboard on the highs. And DBR62 is superior to UB52. A comparison between DBR62 VS UB52 using both Arcam and Yamaha would be interesting. With Arcam better controlling the bass.
@@DougMen1 Just checked their specs, it seems more like a Andrew's playground than the business.....ha...It's interesting they implement all the different materials and different designs for different ranges. I don't know if they are selling good, but Andrew should have much fun to make these........I don't like the sound but I think I'm also not interested to criticize much of them.....
@@zeppzepp1234 I think a lot of it may be that E uses a nearfield recording technique, and they may not integrate well in that situation. I've heard them sound better in other youTube vidoes where the recording had the mics placed further away, and so we hear more of the overall room sound, rather than just the nearfield response
![[Sound Battle]Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 UB52 vs Elace Debut Reference DBR62/Yamaha A-S301 Integrated Amplifier](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/En1_5abY9gU/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Sound Battle] KEF Q350 vs ELAC Uni-Fi 2.0 UB52 Bookshelf Speakers w/Arcam SA10 Integrated Amplifer](/img/n.gif)
Incredibly similar sound signatures! The UB52 has better instrument separation thanks to that 3-way design.
Something going on E. The B6.2s are now officially the best best budget speaker, tee hee.
JBL A130 also falls into that category
B6.2 every time. Ears of independence matter. Do you like it. That is all that matters unless you are staging in a studio to mix down components. I dig it.
Everything depends which type of music listening. Generally speaking, b6.2 is more musical, but not very precise like ub52. But at the end b6.2 is more pleasant to listen, and much more pleasant for pocket.
I own a UB52's,and heard the B6.2's. Uni-fi is noticeably better sounding, more open, the B6.2 is a bit fuzzy and darker ( both Elac's are darker regarding sound, than Dali's Zensor 1 & 3 for example, but better comparing Dali's ). Also both Elac's benefits hugely from pre/power combo, or high current amp. It's worth it to invest in amps such as mentioned. You get great results, with more full bodied-lush sound.
More mid-range clarity and refinement on the UB52’s? Otherwise seems a little more sparkle on the top on 62’s.
Could you please compare Debut Reference DBR62 vs Elac Debut B6.2?
The title says Yamaha, but the picture shows Arcam?
The difference is so marginal that I'll pick the one that's cheaper.
To my ears (Listening through Hifiman HE4XX, Schiit Modi 3 + Magni Heresy) I sense very similar sound signature.
- UB52s seems to be a bit balanced with lush base extension. IRL, these have decent holographic imaging and sound stage as well. (Not perceivable on E's videos, not sure why.)
- b6.2 lower mid forward, slightly thin and less lush sounding, slight sparkle on the higher end. High end sparkle feels like these have better detail.
🤔🎧🎶🎶🎶🎶UB52 👍👍👍👍😊🇵🇱
What is this intro tune called?
The bass on the B 6.2 sounds deeper and punchier than it did in the video with the Polk. It sounds much fuller, more balanced, more dynamic, and better in every way to the much more expensive UB52, and pairs very well with the Arcam, as well as some much more costly speakers, IMO. This is the best I've ever heard from it.
I think I figured out what part of the problem with the UB52s bass may be. It's the same as what I observed with the bass of the DBR6's in a comparison of them against the QA 3030i's on another channel I think I mentioned to you once. I'm conviced their bass isn't just weak or not deep enough, it actually seems to lag behind a touch in its timing relative to it's high(er) frequency drivers. It's a phase or time domain issue that the B6.2 doesn't seem to have as much. I'm almost positive.
@@williammiebach1798 it's possible. As someone pointed out, the speakers that sound thinner here to me are all the ones that are front ported, so are getting less bass boost from the wall behind the speakers than all the others that are rear ported. And, E saw all our comments about whether he was using analog or digital inputs and read them all, because he put his little red heart next to them all, but he didn't answer our question, lol
@@DougMen1 That's something I didn't even take into consideration. Theyr'e both front ported designs, but that should mean the bass re-enforcement from the front port would be timed ahead of one from a rear port where re-enforcment has to either reflect back or wrap around the cabinette from the back of the speaker before ot gets to you, wich causes more time delay, not less. So, I don't know if where the ports are is a factor, or how.
@@williammiebach1798 I don't think the ports are a factor in the timing, but they are a factor in bass weight, where a rear port will get more boost from the wall behind them than a front port will
Where is Yamaha? I can see Arcam in the video 🤷♂
These two Elacs sound far more similar than I would have expected from their previous demos. The B6.2s are slightly more balanced overall, but the UB52s sound smoother and less accentuated in the upper mids than they've sounded against anything else. Since the bass of the B6.2s isnt as strong as the R200s or Q350s, they dont make the UB52's bass sound as weak to me as those did. Large contrasts can sometimes exaggerate your impressions. Still neither of these are bass champions, and the UB52s in particular cries out for a sub. It's a bit more refined in the treble particularly than it's brother, but I think the B6.2 may be the better value. To me neither of them sound much better, or much more satisfying and exciting than the XT15s and RB42s in their comparison, or have much stronger bass These designs will fill larger rooms better though, for sure.
difference is huuuge! ub52 are way more refined, articulate, open, honest. B6.2 are a bit "grainy" and quite muddy.
😂😂😂😂 You did Not hear that from this video.
You are getting that from a review you watched. From someone trying to sell the newer more expensive speaker.
@@JesusSavesSinners i heard it from jesus himself, on the cross, listening to beethoven's fifth...
I don't think the 6.2 can push the 2.0s away..
Why? Nothing from this video would make me believe that.
I couldn't tell any difference
The UB52s are superior. But you have to be careful with the combination of integrated and source so you don't go overboard on the highs.
And DBR62 is superior to UB52.
A comparison between DBR62 VS UB52 using both Arcam and Yamaha would be interesting. With Arcam better controlling the bass.
No bass…. unfortunately bad recording quality
Anyone who can't hear the difference between these two boxes must be deaf. Huahuahua!!
May be they just need to upgrade their listening gears.
Yes it's very obvious and with just phones on, the 2 0s win here.
@@robertwoodward9231 if you seriously think the 2.0s sound better then the ub52s you need to get your hearing checked
Why is the B6.2 sounding more like a point source speaker more than the UB52? LMAO!
The UB52 is seriously flawed, and is clearly not Andrew's best effort
@@DougMen1 Just checked their specs, it seems more like a Andrew's playground than the business.....ha...It's interesting they implement all the different materials and different designs for different ranges. I don't know if they are selling good, but Andrew should have much fun to make these........I don't like the sound but I think I'm also not interested to criticize much of them.....
@@zeppzepp1234 I think a lot of it may be that E uses a nearfield recording technique, and they may not integrate well in that situation. I've heard them sound better in other youTube vidoes where the recording had the mics placed further away, and so we hear more of the overall room sound, rather than just the nearfield response
UB52s indeed have a good holographic imaging and decent soundstage. May be thats lacking in B6.2?
@@zeppzepp1234 Well said