The Unifi 2.0 sounds way more revealing in the upper midrange and has better holographic imaging capabilities - the Polk sounds fuller but more boxy in comparison, especially prominent at 7:27
I for one really like the UB52. I think they have a slightly differerent balance than the R200's but not worlds apart, and the Elacs are closer to the Polks in their textural presentation than I expected. I find the tweeter to be airy and revealing, but not too bright or hard at all. They definately have more presence in their upper mids than the Polks. Maybe a touch extra, but I have always felt the Reserves are a touch too 'reserved' there.🙂 They don't have as much bass weight or punch as the R200's, but it's not bad. Not anemic, just a touch light compared to these Polks, but it's very fast and controled. Overall they sound nicely integrated, and musical to me. The best balanced three way design I've heard on this channel so far. For around $500, their current asking price, they're near the top of my list of speakers I've heard in that range, and yep, I think I prefer them to the three times more expensive KEF R3's.The R3's may fill a larger room and with more bass, but these Elacs are smoother and more musicaly honest to me. I think this demo would demonstrate the real sound of these speakers more honestly without that TV there, though. 🙁
@@eleckson No, at that time I had only heard them in this demo. Later when I heard the DBR62'S In person, and on later demos here and elsewhere, they didn't sound as balanced to me, but a bit too forward in the midrange and slightly short of bass weight, as I commented several times on this channel. Some others seemed to feel similar. A demo recording definitely can alter how a speaker comes across.
@williammiebach1798 thanks for following up! I now have to wonder if the UB62's fall short where the UB52's are said to shine. I just got my UB52's and actually have the R200's here as well. Haven't done an A/B test yet, as I'm still breaking them in a bit. Only 1 pair will stay with me!
@@eleckson Well, a live comparison in your listening room,with your gear is the best way to decide wich sounds best to you. Enjoy. Try to give both pairs a bit of easy run in time first, and expect that both may need different positioning set-ups to sound best in the same room, with different port positions and all.
@williammiebach1798 definitely! I don't plan to slouch on the orientation. The R200's seem to have a really narrow sweet spot, while the UB52 is more forgiving.
Was really looking forward to this comparison. Interested in both speakers. Unfortunately, I could not tell what was playing. I am blind so couldn't know what I was listening to. I could hear when something was switched. But, sometimes it happened when there was a change in the track. I would prefer to hear a small gap between switches. It would also help to hear the same passage repeated to really heir the difference. It would also help me if I could find out what I liked the most. Can't tell with this kind of demo. Thanks anyway.
like them both. excellent speakers really! the polk are a bit warmer/fatter in the mid-lows; the elacs are more honest, neutral, and clear. very articulate but not fatiguing. prefer the elacs by just a bit...
Elac puts everything close, like all sounds are together in one, front plane. Polk, beside the great width and height has much more front/back depth than Elac.
Thanks for including Elac Uni-fi 2.0 UB52 speakers in your comparison. I would really like to see this speaker compared with all other speakers, especially JBL Stage A130, Wharfedale Diamond 12.2.
The Polk's sound more muddled to my ear. The Polk's do have a little more thump but having a multi subwoofer set up in my space that cancels that advantage out anyway. I purchased the ub52's and set them at 100Hz crossover and let the subs do the work. The spatial separation at 100Hz crossover blew me away after I switched from 80Hz. The cost difference is also a huge factor when you consider I got all 5 of the Elac's for under $1200. I have a Yamaha A4A powering them and I couldn't be happier.
Good job with recording the 2.0s in near-field, E. Having now listened to the R200s in the flesh, they're not so easy to listen to anymore - very dry. The 2.0s also seem neutral and a little dry but they seem to best the R200s in most regards, especially in vocals, upper mids and treble detail, plus no doubt they sound bigger in real life. Could be a purchase for me. Looking forward to comparisons with a few more speakers on here E, especially the more expesive Metas. They seem like a good bang for the buck.
@@sdrtcacgnrjrc Hi Tom in the end I bought Kef LS50 Wiis with KC62. I've been in the audio game a long, long time so I understand all its vagaries and pitfalls. The Wiis are very good small loudspeakers for a small room. They are very lean , clean and dynamic and heading up into studio monitor territory. But of course they have metal drivers which can sound a bit thin and harsh when played loud and tend to emphasize percussion and transients. But on good, modern pop/rock recordings they can sound very good - if the recording/mastering quality is good enough. Naturally I still like to look around and listen to different gear. For a larger room than mine, the KEF R3s, Polk R200s and Focal 906s (at the right price) are all good choices I think.
Agreed. Polks sound muddy. I have speakers like the Polks and they sound good with pop and rap, but switch to something with a lot of instrumentation, and it’s a muddy mess. Not a fan of that kind of sound signature at all.
I own these Elacs - they were highly recommended by other youtubers, and they're hooked up to the Arcam SA20, so very similar to this, along with a low-end subwoofer. It's impossible to compare these things because everything sounds like my PC-moniter-TV's small speaker, but I'm very happy with them. There are basically no showrooms anymore. You just have to take your chances and be OK with returning items if they're not agreeable.
Polk sounds fuller, but Elac sounds wider, horizontally and vertically. I already have a pair or R200, and now debating which one to get between UB52 and Evo 4.2. Price difference is also huge - UB52 is $800 and Evo is $1500 (Cdn $).
Polk just seems hollow to me. Mids and deep bass missing. If you like that sound, Polk and Klipsch may be for you. I like Elac and B&W. More real to me. Your mileage may vary.
The imaging of the Polk R200 is so solid that it sounds like dual mono compared to the ELACs. I know it would be fatiguing if a long session was wanted using the ELACs. But they have less roll off over 2K. Do you hear that 3K piercing through on them? I swapped out dacs and speakers to see if it was just my setup. Nope. The right tool for the right job is still true when it comes to small speakers. Particularly when it comes to Polk. I hate to say this but there is such a thing as too good at imaging if you give up listen-ability. They have rolled off too aggressively again and it effects and affects the stage location and presence of the mids and highs. I sold my last Polks for exactly this reason. No matter what room or hardware, they physically are limited to some fictional perfection of a mono stage.
Muito bom esse vídeo. Tem música que preferi as Polk e tem música que preferi as Elac. Mas as Polk tem o som mais refinado e suave. E as Elac tem o som mais energético e rápido. E na última música achei as Elac mais detalhadas. As Elac com assinatura mais quente e as Polk mais frias. Agora compara as Elac com as MA Bronze 100, Diamond 12.2 e KEF LS50 Meta.
Really enjoyed the UB52's, although their clarity sometimes does a good thing, it can also be a bit much. However, I can picture them doing quite well with a subwoofer, for they need some added weight and punch. Still, an excellent performer and system matching may work well. I do think the R200's got them beat in the end, but not by a very large margin and certainly not on all acounts.
The Elacs sound really light on bass, which just accentuates their bright tweeter. I think the 3 way designs like this and the R3 with a concentric mid/tweeter don't do well close mic'd, with the mic on the tweeter axis, and really need to be mic'd further away to get the overall room response from them, or maybe the mic should be in between the tweeter and woofer instead of right on the mid/tweeter axis. But, regardless of that, the Polks sound much better here, as the Elacs sound weak in the bass and too bright on top. Maybe they would fare better with a warmer amp. and, I still think the flat screen needs to go away permanently. It's only causing problems
You really think the tweeters on the Elacs are too bright, but the MA Bronze's aren't? Hmmm. The upper midrange is more responsible for their brighter impression than their tweeter is, it seems to me.
@@williammiebach1798 Whether it's the upper midrange or lower treble, all I know is it sounds too shrill and hurts my ears more than the MAs did. Listen to the cymbals in Boost Your Power. They sound way too splashy and spitty. However, they didn't sound nearly as lean in the bass or as bright to me in other TH-cam videos I've seen, so I think they need a different amp than the Arcam
@@DougMen1 Yes, both that and the flatscreen is reflecting and increasing the top range of these speakers, and screwing up their natural balance and timing there. The Polks have less upper mids so it doesn't hurt them as much. I took that into consideration in my assesment.
Elacs benefit from placement closer to a wall. They were designed that way. I’ve noticed most of these tests have speakers pulled out from wall, which for a lot of people is not a realistic placement.
I prefer the Polks,. I have never understood the need for lower sensetivity hard to drive speakers and what advantage they bring... I will be going with some Paradigm 200B bookshelves, 90DB, 8 ohm...
Very high speaker sensitivity is often not the greatest thing for bass response or overall tonal balance, and It's not a substitute for good amplification. Buying efficient speakers thinking you can slide buy with a cheaper, less powerful amp frequently doesn't render the best results.
@@williammiebach1798 Just ordered a Martin logan dynamo sub yesterday.... I'm currently running some Cambridge Minx XL's in my BR with the Arcam, will add the sub, but I really want a pair of Paradigm 200B, larger bookshelves.
@@thomasward00 I havn't heard the Paradigm 200B's yet, or those particular Cambridges, wich are their top model I think. They seem to be similar in driver and cabinette size, but I expect the Paradigms are better. Cambridges tend to be a bit shy in defenition, and Paradigms generaly aren't at all. Interestingly, the 200B's dont have deeper bass according to the manufacturers specs, but those can be misleading. I'll bet it's superior. I assume you've heard them and liked them a lot.
The polk needs nothing less than a 100 watt amp for the r200 the L 200 you need 150 to 200 watt you will here the difference the yamaha s 801 works well with the r 200
The Unifi 2.0 sounds way more revealing in the upper midrange and has better holographic imaging capabilities - the Polk sounds fuller but more boxy in comparison, especially prominent at 7:27
I for one really like the UB52. I think they have a slightly differerent balance than the R200's but not worlds apart, and the Elacs are closer to the Polks in their textural presentation than I expected. I find the tweeter to be airy and revealing, but not too bright or hard at all. They definately have more presence in their upper mids than the Polks. Maybe a touch extra, but I have always felt the Reserves are a touch too 'reserved' there.🙂 They don't have as much bass weight or punch as the R200's, but it's not bad. Not anemic, just a touch light compared to these Polks, but it's very fast and controled. Overall they sound nicely integrated, and musical to me. The best balanced three way design I've heard on this channel so far. For around $500, their current asking price, they're near the top of my list of speakers I've heard in that range, and yep, I think I prefer them to the three times more expensive KEF R3's.The R3's may fill a larger room and with more bass, but these Elacs are smoother and more musicaly honest to me. I think this demo would demonstrate the real sound of these speakers more honestly without that TV there, though. 🙁
Just curious, had you heard these two speakers in person when you wrote this?
@@eleckson No, at that time I had only heard them in this demo. Later when I heard the DBR62'S In person, and on later demos here and elsewhere, they didn't sound as balanced to me, but a bit too forward in the midrange and slightly short of bass weight, as I commented several times on this channel. Some others seemed to feel similar. A demo recording definitely can alter how a speaker comes across.
@williammiebach1798 thanks for following up! I now have to wonder if the UB62's fall short where the UB52's are said to shine. I just got my UB52's and actually have the R200's here as well. Haven't done an A/B test yet, as I'm still breaking them in a bit. Only 1 pair will stay with me!
@@eleckson Well, a live comparison in your listening room,with your gear is the best way to decide wich sounds best to you. Enjoy. Try to give both pairs a bit of easy run in time first, and expect that both may need different positioning set-ups to sound best in the same room,
with different port positions and all.
@williammiebach1798 definitely! I don't plan to slouch on the orientation. The R200's seem to have a really narrow sweet spot, while the UB52 is more forgiving.
Was really looking forward to this comparison. Interested in both speakers.
Unfortunately, I could not tell what was playing. I am blind so couldn't know what I was listening to. I could hear when something was switched. But, sometimes it happened when there was a change in the track.
I would prefer to hear a small gap between switches. It would also help to hear the same passage repeated to really heir the difference.
It would also help me if I could find out what I liked the most. Can't tell with this kind of demo.
Thanks anyway.
Absolutely ! More over, sometimes it changes when the tempo and/or musical envelope also changes, hence we cannot really compare...
like them both. excellent speakers really! the polk are a bit warmer/fatter in the mid-lows; the elacs are more honest, neutral, and clear. very articulate but not fatiguing. prefer the elacs by just a bit...
Elac puts everything close, like all sounds are together in one, front plane. Polk, beside the great width and height has much more front/back depth than Elac.
Thanks for including Elac Uni-fi 2.0 UB52 speakers in your comparison. I would really like to see this speaker compared with all other speakers, especially JBL Stage A130, Wharfedale Diamond 12.2.
The Polk's sound more muddled to my ear. The Polk's do have a little more thump but having a multi subwoofer set up in my space that cancels that advantage out anyway. I purchased the ub52's and set them at 100Hz crossover and let the subs do the work. The spatial separation at 100Hz crossover blew me away after I switched from 80Hz. The cost difference is also a huge factor when you consider I got all 5 of the Elac's for under $1200. I have a Yamaha A4A powering them and I couldn't be happier.
Good job with recording the 2.0s in near-field, E. Having now listened to the R200s in the flesh, they're not so easy to listen to anymore - very dry. The 2.0s also seem neutral and a little dry but they seem to best the R200s in most regards, especially in vocals, upper mids and treble detail, plus no doubt they sound bigger in real life. Could be a purchase for me. Looking forward to comparisons with a few more speakers on here E, especially the more expesive Metas. They seem like a good bang for the buck.
I think the R200s are are more accurate and would make excellent studio monitors
did you get something you were happy with in the end?
@@sdrtcacgnrjrc Hi Tom in the end I bought Kef LS50 Wiis with KC62. I've been in the audio game a long, long time so I understand all its vagaries and pitfalls. The Wiis are very good small loudspeakers for a small room. They are very lean , clean and dynamic and heading up into studio monitor territory. But of course they have metal drivers which can sound a bit thin and harsh when played loud and tend to emphasize percussion and transients. But on good, modern pop/rock recordings they can sound very good - if the recording/mastering quality is good enough. Naturally I still like to look around and listen to different gear. For a larger room than mine, the KEF R3s, Polk R200s and Focal 906s (at the right price) are all good choices I think.
@@davidcarr2216 thanks for the info David 👍🏼
I love the thump on the Polk, the Elac is so honest . I would have to hear both in real life .
Those 2.0s jumping all over the 200s..
Every time it switched to the Elacs the sound just opened up. The Polks sound like they have a blanket over them by comparison.
Agreed. Polks sound muddy. I have speakers like the Polks and they sound good with pop and rap, but switch to something with a lot of instrumentation, and it’s a muddy mess. Not a fan of that kind of sound signature at all.
at list for my taste UB 52 are slightly more listenable
I own these Elacs - they were highly recommended by other youtubers, and they're hooked up to the Arcam SA20, so very similar to this, along with a low-end subwoofer. It's impossible to compare these things because everything sounds like my PC-moniter-TV's small speaker, but I'm very happy with them. There are basically no showrooms anymore. You just have to take your chances and be OK with returning items if they're not agreeable.
I can see the appeal of the clarity of the Elac, but going back to the Polk is always a relief.
Huh?... Why a "relief"? Now that's weird 🤣...
Elac❤❤❤
Just wondering what volume these were recorded at, low, medium or high?
Thanks for a great comparison video 🙏
Polk sounds fuller, but Elac sounds wider, horizontally and vertically. I already have a pair or R200, and now debating which one to get between UB52 and Evo 4.2. Price difference is also huge - UB52 is $800 and Evo is $1500 (Cdn $).
I think the Polk R200 is the closest competitor to the Elacs in your comparison videos. All the others are outclassed by the Uni-fi 2.0
Polk just seems hollow to me. Mids and deep bass missing. If you like that sound, Polk and Klipsch may be for you. I like Elac and B&W. More real to me. Your mileage may vary.
The imaging of the Polk R200 is so solid that it sounds like dual mono compared to the ELACs. I know it would be fatiguing if a long session was wanted using the ELACs. But they have less roll off over 2K. Do you hear that 3K piercing through on them? I swapped out dacs and speakers to see if it was just my setup. Nope. The right tool for the right job is still true when it comes to small speakers. Particularly when it comes to Polk. I hate to say this but there is such a thing as too good at imaging if you give up listen-ability. They have rolled off too aggressively again and it effects and affects the stage location and presence of the mids and highs.
I sold my last Polks for exactly this reason. No matter what room or hardware, they physically are limited to some fictional perfection of a mono stage.
Thanks for comparison. Now I was able to tell the tonal balance sound between the two, very helpful, thank you.
prefer Polk, more natural mid range
I can hear the difference, but couldn't really say from this which is better. What did you (the reviewer) think?
Those horns sound more lifelike through the elac
Muito bom esse vídeo. Tem música que preferi as Polk e tem música que preferi as Elac.
Mas as Polk tem o som mais refinado e suave. E as Elac tem o som mais energético e rápido. E na última música achei as Elac mais detalhadas. As Elac com assinatura mais quente e as Polk mais frias.
Agora compara as Elac com as MA Bronze 100, Diamond 12.2 e KEF LS50 Meta.
Really enjoyed the UB52's, although their clarity sometimes does a good thing, it can also be a bit much. However, I can picture them doing quite well with a subwoofer, for they need some added weight and punch. Still, an excellent performer and system matching may work well. I do think the R200's got them beat in the end, but not by a very large margin and certainly not on all acounts.
Ub 52 best on mid range
8.55 is the decision maker for me. Hands down for R200
8:55 true, the Polk sounds much better with that one
They Can't Drive (below) _55!!_
Couldn't agree more on that. I went back and heard it again. Indeed it was key differentiator.
Both same sound
The Unified has better midrange presence. The R200 seems scooped in the mids
The Elacs sound really light on bass, which just accentuates their bright tweeter. I think the 3 way designs like this and the R3 with a concentric mid/tweeter don't do well close mic'd, with the mic on the tweeter axis, and really need to be mic'd further away to get the overall room response from them, or maybe the mic should be in between the tweeter and woofer instead of right on the mid/tweeter axis. But, regardless of that, the Polks sound much better here, as the Elacs sound weak in the bass and too bright on top. Maybe they would fare better with a warmer amp. and, I still think the flat screen needs to go away permanently. It's only causing problems
You really think the tweeters on the Elacs are too bright, but the MA Bronze's aren't? Hmmm. The upper midrange is more responsible for their brighter impression than their tweeter is, it seems to me.
@@williammiebach1798 Whether it's the upper midrange or lower treble, all I know is it sounds too shrill and hurts my ears more than the MAs did. Listen to the cymbals in Boost Your Power. They sound way too splashy and spitty. However, they didn't sound nearly as lean in the bass or as bright to me in other TH-cam videos I've seen, so I think they need a different amp than the Arcam
@@DougMen1 Yes, both that and the flatscreen is reflecting and increasing the top range of these speakers, and screwing up their natural balance and timing there. The Polks have less upper mids so it doesn't hurt them as much. I took that into consideration in my assesment.
No room being equal in geometry, materials and obtrusive elements, personally I prefer comparisons where the room itself is not a factor.
Elacs benefit from placement closer to a wall. They were designed that way. I’ve noticed most of these tests have speakers pulled out from wall, which for a lot of people is not a realistic placement.
I prefer the Polks,. I have never understood the need for lower sensetivity hard to drive speakers and what advantage they bring... I will be going with some Paradigm 200B bookshelves, 90DB, 8 ohm...
They often have deeper bass for the same driver size.
@@quananginh9446 Yep, that's one of the tradeoffs, bass extension vs. sensitivity
Very high speaker sensitivity is often not the greatest thing for bass response or overall tonal balance, and It's not a substitute for good amplification. Buying efficient speakers thinking you can slide buy with a cheaper, less powerful amp frequently doesn't render the best results.
@@williammiebach1798 Just ordered a Martin logan dynamo sub yesterday.... I'm currently running some Cambridge Minx XL's in my BR with the Arcam, will add the sub, but I really want a pair of Paradigm 200B, larger bookshelves.
@@thomasward00 I havn't heard the Paradigm 200B's yet, or those particular Cambridges, wich are their top model I think. They seem to be similar in driver and cabinette size, but I expect the Paradigms are better. Cambridges tend to be a bit shy in defenition, and Paradigms generaly aren't at all. Interestingly, the 200B's dont have deeper bass according to the manufacturers specs, but those can be misleading. I'll bet it's superior. I assume you've heard them and liked them a lot.
My god. The Polks aren’t even in the same solar system as the Elacs. The UniFi’s far outclass the Polk Audio speakers.
The polk needs nothing less than a 100 watt amp for the r200 the L 200 you need 150 to 200 watt you will here the difference the yamaha s 801 works well with the r 200