Love the clarity that the R200's have with this amp. Perhaps a bit too much on the first track, but on every other track they make the 62s sound muffled in comparison
No comparison at all. The r200 all day every day. The R200 is one of my favourite speakers IRL. The DBR62 sounds like a garbled mess next to the r200 in certain tracks. Veiled, muffled, blunt are the words that come up in my head in this comparison. That difference in clarity will make a bigger difference if you were to use them to watch movies in a 2 channel system. The audiolab, being what it is, shows the true colours of both speakers. Transparancy over 'warmth' in this category for me, no point of having warmth when everything else sounds muffled. I would want warmth only after transparency isnt a problem in higher end models... like the Elysians, Sopras, Confidences.
The DBRs didn't disappoint, always sweet and warm sounding, no thrills, but less neutral. The Audiolab and Polk inform you what's going on in a recording or source, critical at times, no smoothing or beautifying, but never getting harsh, nice tweeter. There's a lot of detail, excellent imaging, punch, transparency, bass is deep and well controlled (nice mix between fast and weighty). Soundstage can be very wide and spatious (good recordings). Where the 6000a is neutral (not sterile), the R200 is slightly on the warmer side of neutral, which works out well, imo. In the demo's some find this combo lean or bright, but IRL it depends a lot (in my experience) on the positioning of the R200 and listening distance to speaker, which can be a real bitch to get right (distance to walls and corners, etc.). Either too much bass or too lean, etc, and def. not set and forget in my room. The 6000a is neutral to input sources (in=out) like DACs, which can be a blessing or curse soundwise. Its internal DAC is quite good, living up well to their marketing 'ooh' and 'aah's' 😄. I attached a cheap 'bitperfect' streamer and it's quite impressive. Large rooms can be a bit too much for the 6000a, especially with low(er) sensitivity speakers and (classical) recordings with a high dynamic range. However, with 'modern' music it will go (very) loud, without hardening up the sound, distortion or beaming. Keeping it in smaller to medium/large rooms, it will perform just fine. At low level listening it's a good combo too and also suitable for HT use. Re. the demo: for me the R200 win by being more insightful, transparent and neutral. You can add warmer amps or sources to customize its sound, whith the DBRs not so much, but thats subjective.. Still, I like the DBRs, but they are less versatile and bound to their warmer signature, imo. This amp suits them well.
I’d be happy with either of these speakers with this amp. There’s a lot I like about both. Hard to choose. I may like the bit warmer sound of the Elac although the Polk seems a bit more open maybe a bit too much in the higher frequency. Could you pair these two speakers up with the AXR85 and the Marantz please? The title states the wrong amp. Thanks for this video.
With AXR 85/100 here: th-cam.com/video/jKm71m2HCUY/w-d-xo.html. Sounds a bit warmer/sweeter to me without the biting leading edges of the 6000A. And the mids sound a bit fuller but not quite the same level clarity as with the 6000A IMHO.
The last speaker purchase I made ended up being between these 2 speakers. I went with the Polk's. The top end was more to my liking compared to the Elac. I wanted to A B them with the Revel M106 but the sale price on the R200's was like $575 and I just couldn't send them back, I liked them a lot. Revel's were almost twice that at the time so I just didn't pull the trigger on having Crutch send them to me. But they did go on sale to $850 the week after my trial period on the Polk's ended. I am very happy with the R200's. I think they are a phenomenal set of speakers. They can handle a ton of volume and never lose composure. At lower power they sound good too, especially acoustic style music. This is all subjective though, just my opinion. Another good video E. I'm liking that amp
@@davidcarr2216 I've tried these speakers with everything I have at home. A Denon s760H which I hate, no pre-outs and just doesn't sound great with the Polk's, but was a gift. On old Yamaha RV-995 which I love the sound of but gets a little loose at real high volumes without an external amp..and then a Lexington MC-8, which I think is a phenomenal machine..So much clarity and detail,like wow. So I haven't been able to use these speakers on a dedicated 2 channel integrated or preamp. I don't think I could find something with the MC-8's quality of sound though in a decent price range. For amps I have a Crown XLS 1002 which I believe is 350x2 at 4ohms Class D. An Emotiva BasX 300x2 at 4ohms and an older but serviced B&K avr5000ii at 185x5 at 4ohms. The Crown surprisingly sounds pretty good. Very neutral and clear which matches well with the Polk's, but it also sounds a little 2 dimensional and the highs sound extremely rolled off,laid back..no match compared to the other 2 amps. The Emo and B&K are much closer to each other but I feel the Emo is a tad pushed forward with the highs. It's not bad, but I hear it when I compare the amps. The bass thru the Emo isn't as tight as the B&K either, but this was when comparing with the speakers at full range. Then the B&K, even with the lowest of output between the 3 at 4ohms sounds louder and more dynamic than the others. I can really hear the differences when using the MC-8, the Yammi not so much. So the simple answer to your question is the B&K amp. It allows me to hook up a center channel without another amp so that's a bonus too. I don't do surround anymore, I'm wired for in wall surround speakers but we recently capped them off. Although that L7 surround music mode is very captivating. 3.1 setup in the living room for T.V., 2.1 for music
I need to add a correction, the Denon I have is the s660h not the 760. That shows how much attention I've paid to it but just wanted to clarify..didn't want to upset any 760 owners by saying I didn't like it when I've never heard that model. And the Emo is a good power amp, I'm just sensitive to higher frequency's..not that the Emo was bad in that aspect as I probably wouldn't have noticed it if I didn't have the B&K to compare it to. My room might have more to do with that than the amp though. I'm currently really looking into these Minidsp's with Dirac..just from working with Denon's in the past I do feel like room correction makes a difference, I'm thinking REW and/or Dirac should be even better maybe. Although I have concerns the minidsp will change the tone of my AVP..I dk, need more insight on that.
@@NosEL34 So glad that you have a match for the R200s you really lke but don't know much about Lexington gear. Hope your experiments wirh mini-DSP work out well 🙂
@@davidcarr2216 Thanks David, I appreciate the kind words. More often than not if you post something about your stereo setup the haters and bashers show up to tell you everything that is wrong with your gear and that it's trash lol..when a lot of this is subjective and different people have different tastes..and what sounds boomy,thin, or high pitched in one home could sound completely different in another home setting. Thanks again David and have a great day 👍
The R200 is one of my favorite speakers on this channel, but not with this amp. It sounds too restrained, flat, and rather dull. The Elac sounds a lot clearer, brighter, and livelier. The Audiolab may just be the best amp for the DBR62 speakers.
The elac sounds wide and more relaxing and non-fatiguing than the polk. While the polk sounds a lot more lean, forward, but having better details than the elac. I guess it just depends whether you want a more lean and detailed listen or a wide more immersive relaxing experience.
I have just bought an ELAC DBR62 2nd hand. Havent installed it as my amp is being getting manufactured by a local boutique firm. A lot of extreme metal (80% of my listening) is so poorly recorded that a revealing speaker in a reflective room can be harsh (which is my case). Think Darkthrone 1st few albums, immolation - here in after, failures for gods, emperor - ..nightside eclipse, Bathory etc. My friend has an awesome revealing speaker that gets a bit harsh on the ears sometimes. Maybe in these cases a less revealing speaker can actually be the right medicine. But the Polk R200 sounds excellent. My friend has this super revealing brilliant speaker from the same local company. It bloody brings out every defect possible e.g. Asphyx - Deathhammer album i could make out the compression in that album. It was because of this which pushed me towards a slightly warmish speaker. Plus I got a good deal.
Well TBH I don't think I need either one lol. I think what I already have is fine (elac ub52). Of the two, I'd probably go for the Polk, especially considering the price difference. I think I prefer the added clarity up top as well. I'm pretty sure the elac have an extra mid-range though, correct? That might be worth considering if you find them on sale like they are now. I guess it doesn't really matter, but I generally prefer a speaker with a dedicated mid-range. In fact, I've pretty much made a decision to never go with a speaker again that isn't at least 3 way with a mid-range driver. 2 ways never seem to have the right amount of clarity, they always seem to be lacking, like the mids are sucked out somewhat. So my ears may deceive my rule of thought. But now that I've thought about it, I'd go with the 3 way. I think the Polk sound more open on top because they are lacking in the middle.
This is a very interesting comparison, E Project. The KEF R3s are not the only speakers that make the DBR62s sound a bit overwarmed and a trace oddly colored in the midrange. These Polks do it some too, eh? It's not the Audiolab, I'd say. The R200s sound as crisp and open as I ever remember them.
@@davidcarr2216 I thought the R3's were a bit brighter, but in this demo it's close. Did DM say he thinks the R200s sound dull and the DBR62s are brighter? Wah?
@@williammiebach1798 Listen to the horns on Leroy! If you don't hear it, then I can't help you. It's not the highs. It's the clearer and more open mids on the Elac compared to the flat and more recessed mids on the Polk, which makes the Polk sound thin and screechy with this amp. You can hear it on Boost Your Power too, and on the guitar in Fields
@@DougMen1 I think you're both right, looking at the spin data. The R3 has a a broad peak in the 4-10KHz region but then rolls off whereas the R200 has a dip at 4KHz followed by a rising treble after around 8KHz . Neither are ideal and the irregularities may well be audible.
@@DougMen1 I go along with the R200s sounding a bit flat and compressed and lacking a bit of expressiveness in the midrange. They sound lean and dryer in the mids, but they also sound smoother or less colored through the midrange, and way brighter. I cant agree with saying they sound dull in comparison to the Elacs. It's rather the other way around to me. The R200s sound almost too bright here. It's definately not the Elacs warmth thats a problem to me, it's a lack of tonal transparency, or it's midrange colorations that the comparison to the R200s reveal. And they definately don't sound livelier (or more live) of the two to me. The 6000As not the nest amp for either in my opinion.
I believe the Polks to be more linear ie monitor-like. Quite like the DBR62 with this amp and plenty of others though. I'm pretty sure that I'd go with the R100s/200s because they are the better speaker but they do sound a bit lean in the mids with this amp. Does the amp have enough power for the R200s ? But they don't seem too hard to drive. Is it a driver integration or mic positioning issue? Where's Mike, he's very familiar with this combo ? Questions, questions !!
I perceive things differently than many here. The Elacs sound brighter to me, not because of the highs, but because of the clearer, more open, and more forward midrange. Listen to the trumpet in Leroy and the male vocal in Time Traveling for a couple of examples of what I mean. I hear the same thing from the guitars in Boost Your Power and Fields.
@@DougMen1 On this video, the DBR62s do seem better balanced in the mid-range to me as well. A lot of people say they like the R200s for the bass/treble but not too many mention the midrange and that's where the music's at. Also speaker tonality matterrs as well. Never been sure about what maks a speaker sound warm or dry from the measurements some say things like warmth comes from boosted upper bass or such-like but not convinced, I think its probably very subtle and connected with driver design/materials and cabinet design/materials.
@@davidcarr2216 As you know, I believe it's a combination of many things, tonal balance is one, but also dynamics and timing, texture and character, which may be somewhat influenced by driver materials and crossover components too, image and soundstage, distortion and resonances, horizontal and vertical dispersion, and things measurable and things that aren't yet measurable, all combined to produce a speaker's sound signature.
The polk uses dirt cheap drivers and Xover. If in doubt watch GR Research disassembling one. It’s built like a £200 speaker and even Wharfedales at that price are superior.
woow! the difference with this amp, is HUGE! amazingly, i really liked the Elacs; more round, less fatiguing, more balanced. the high frequencies on the R200 "stick out" way too much!! too thin a sound and even a bit metallic/artificial.
Just in case if anyone doesnt know what neutral sounds like. th-cam.com/video/sZ7SFCjfhTM/w-d-xo.html You wouldnt know you were listening to a recording. Neutral and flat = boring? Not even close. We strive for this, at least folks that are really after high fidelity. If I had 10k? This would be my first choice. Makes a track sound cold and sterile? Thats because the track actually sounds cold and sterile. You get lost in the music. Speakers disappear. Musicality in spades. Its just you and Anette in the room. Fanbloodytastic.
There's more to a speaker's sound than just the frequency response. A speaker that measures flat and neutral, but that has no dynamics will sound boring, but one that is neutral and linear with superb dynamics will sound heavenly. Genelecs obviously fall into the second category.
@@DougMen1 which brings us to your comment that speakers that measure alike can sound alike in William's comment. No 2 speakers measure exactly the same. This statement generally comes from people that only eyeball the on axis fr and throw all the other precious data away. Erin recently did a video regarding this audiophile myth. Amps that measure the same or below threshold levels (power amps) on the other hand can and will sound the same when level matched on a precise level. Integrated amps that consist of a pre and dac can sound different because of the mentioned variables. And it is impossible to find 2 amps that measure exactly the same either. Any debates can be directed at Erin as he knows WAY WAY WAY better than me.
@@AbsoluteFidelity I always look at all measurements, not just the on axis response, But, I also believe that science isn't perfect, and everything isn't already solved, and there are still things to be learned. That's why there is still research being done in every area of science, because new things are always being discovered. And, I believe that there may be things that we can hear that still can't be measured. Otherwise all SOTA cost no object speakers or amps would all sound the same, which clearly isn't the case. Peter Comeau, who is the head of engineering for IAG, parent company of Wharfedale, Mission, Quad, and Audiolab, and is one of the world's most famous and celebrated speaker designers, has said in several interviews that it took him 170 different crossover designs for the new Mission 770 before he was satisfied, because they all measured the same but still sounded different, so he wasn't happy with the sound until he had tried that many different designs. So, clearly there are things going on that are audible, but still can't be measured, because I'm sure he has the most SOTA measuring tools that are available at his disposal, and it still took listening tests to make the final decision, irrespective of the measurements all being the same. And he clearly knows far more than you, me, or Erin.
I work in TV business for more than 20 years and all the sound control rooms I've seen use Genelec speakers, including ones working with mostly music. Editing rooms use all kinds of monitors like Yamaha, but studio recordings were all done through Genelec. But it's an unfair comparison here.
Where is Polk midrange? Elac again more real. Polk sounds like it did in 1978? A friend got them then. They sound good, but not real. I was playing in a band then and knew what real live music sounds like. I have heard speakers 5x the price of Elac, with no better sound. According to my ears, my taste. Your mileage may vary.
![[Sound Battle] Monitor Audio Bronze 100 vs ELAC DBR62 / Audiolab 6000A Integrated Amp](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IfHwo1-1Xl4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Sound Battle] Monitor Audio Bronze 100 vs ELAC DBR62 / Audiolab 6000A Integrated Amp](/img/tr.png)
![[Sound Battle] Polk Audio Reserve R200 vs KEF R3 Bookshelf Speakers with Arcam SA10 Integrated Ampli](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lLii7yzah0s/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm so undecided, as they have different "signatures", beautifully rendering it... I think I'd get both.
Love the clarity that the R200's have with this amp. Perhaps a bit too much on the first track, but on every other track they make the 62s sound muffled in comparison
Both the R200 and the 6000A have clarity for sure.
The R200 looks like a booming vocal midrange style, and Elac has a balanced, detailed feel. This comparison video is very good.
I believe the R200 is pretty frequency flat but DBR62s are very engaging speakers , I agree.
I like the DBR62 more. The r200 sound tinny to me.
No comparison at all. The r200 all day every day. The R200 is one of my favourite speakers IRL. The DBR62 sounds like a garbled mess next to the r200 in certain tracks. Veiled, muffled, blunt are the words that come up in my head in this comparison. That difference in clarity will make a bigger difference if you were to use them to watch movies in a 2 channel system. The audiolab, being what it is, shows the true colours of both speakers. Transparancy over 'warmth' in this category for me, no point of having warmth when everything else sounds muffled. I would want warmth only after transparency isnt a problem in higher end models... like the Elysians, Sopras, Confidences.
The DBRs didn't disappoint, always sweet and warm sounding, no thrills, but less neutral. The Audiolab and Polk inform you what's going on in a recording or source, critical at times, no smoothing or beautifying, but never getting harsh, nice tweeter. There's a lot of detail, excellent imaging, punch, transparency, bass is deep and well controlled (nice mix between fast and weighty). Soundstage can be very wide and spatious (good recordings). Where the 6000a is neutral (not sterile), the R200 is slightly on the warmer side of neutral, which works out well, imo. In the demo's some find this combo lean or bright, but IRL it depends a lot (in my experience) on the positioning of the R200 and listening distance to speaker, which can be a real bitch to get right (distance to walls and corners, etc.). Either too much bass or too lean, etc, and def. not set and forget in my room. The 6000a is neutral to input sources (in=out) like DACs, which can be a blessing or curse soundwise. Its internal DAC is quite good, living up well to their marketing 'ooh' and 'aah's' 😄. I attached a cheap 'bitperfect' streamer and it's quite impressive. Large rooms can be a bit too much for the 6000a, especially with low(er) sensitivity speakers and (classical) recordings with a high dynamic range. However, with 'modern' music it will go (very) loud, without hardening up the sound, distortion or beaming. Keeping it in smaller to medium/large rooms, it will perform just fine. At low level listening it's a good combo too and also suitable for HT use.
Re. the demo: for me the R200 win by being more insightful, transparent and neutral. You can add warmer amps or sources to customize its sound, whith the DBRs not so much, but thats subjective.. Still, I like the DBRs, but they are less versatile and bound to their warmer signature, imo. This amp suits them well.
the real review from Mike. the point is thick in it. from the diffraction problem of the R200 to the small details, subtleties, everything. perfect
I’d be happy with either of these speakers with this amp. There’s a lot I like about both. Hard to choose. I may like the bit warmer sound of the Elac although the Polk seems a bit more open maybe a bit too much in the higher frequency.
Could you pair these two speakers up with the AXR85 and the Marantz please?
The title states the wrong amp.
Thanks for this video.
With AXR 85/100 here: th-cam.com/video/jKm71m2HCUY/w-d-xo.html. Sounds a bit warmer/sweeter to me without the biting leading edges of the 6000A. And the mids sound a bit fuller but not quite the same level clarity as with the 6000A IMHO.
Here's the AXR85 with the Elac
th-cam.com/video/lLZI35cVkbo/w-d-xo.html
The last speaker purchase I made ended up being between these 2 speakers. I went with the Polk's. The top end was more to my liking compared to the Elac. I wanted to A B them with the Revel M106 but the sale price on the R200's was like $575 and I just couldn't send them back, I liked them a lot. Revel's were almost twice that at the time so I just didn't pull the trigger on having Crutch send them to me. But they did go on sale to $850 the week after my trial period on the Polk's ended. I am very happy with the R200's. I think they are a phenomenal set of speakers. They can handle a ton of volume and never lose composure. At lower power they sound good too, especially acoustic style music. This is all subjective though, just my opinion. Another good video E. I'm liking that amp
Always great to hear from someone with ownership experience. What amp do you use with the R200s currently ?
@@davidcarr2216 I've tried these speakers with everything I have at home. A Denon s760H which I hate, no pre-outs and just doesn't sound great with the Polk's, but was a gift. On old Yamaha RV-995 which I love the sound of but gets a little loose at real high volumes without an external amp..and then a Lexington MC-8, which I think is a phenomenal machine..So much clarity and detail,like wow. So I haven't been able to use these speakers on a dedicated 2 channel integrated or preamp. I don't think I could find something with the MC-8's quality of sound though in a decent price range. For amps I have a Crown XLS 1002 which I believe is 350x2 at 4ohms Class D. An Emotiva BasX 300x2 at 4ohms and an older but serviced B&K avr5000ii at 185x5 at 4ohms. The Crown surprisingly sounds pretty good. Very neutral and clear which matches well with the Polk's, but it also sounds a little 2 dimensional and the highs sound extremely rolled off,laid back..no match compared to the other 2 amps. The Emo and B&K are much closer to each other but I feel the Emo is a tad pushed forward with the highs. It's not bad, but I hear it when I compare the amps. The bass thru the Emo isn't as tight as the B&K either, but this was when comparing with the speakers at full range. Then the B&K, even with the lowest of output between the 3 at 4ohms sounds louder and more dynamic than the others. I can really hear the differences when using the MC-8, the Yammi not so much. So the simple answer to your question is the B&K amp. It allows me to hook up a center channel without another amp so that's a bonus too. I don't do surround anymore, I'm wired for in wall surround speakers but we recently capped them off. Although that L7 surround music mode is very captivating. 3.1 setup in the living room for T.V., 2.1 for music
I need to add a correction, the Denon I have is the s660h not the 760. That shows how much attention I've paid to it but just wanted to clarify..didn't want to upset any 760 owners by saying I didn't like it when I've never heard that model. And the Emo is a good power amp, I'm just sensitive to higher frequency's..not that the Emo was bad in that aspect as I probably wouldn't have noticed it if I didn't have the B&K to compare it to. My room might have more to do with that than the amp though. I'm currently really looking into these Minidsp's with Dirac..just from working with Denon's in the past I do feel like room correction makes a difference, I'm thinking REW and/or Dirac should be even better maybe. Although I have concerns the minidsp will change the tone of my AVP..I dk, need more insight on that.
@@NosEL34 So glad that you have a match for the R200s you really lke but don't know much about Lexington gear. Hope your experiments wirh mini-DSP work out well 🙂
@@davidcarr2216 Thanks David, I appreciate the kind words. More often than not if you post something about your stereo setup the haters and bashers show up to tell you everything that is wrong with your gear and that it's trash lol..when a lot of this is subjective and different people have different tastes..and what sounds boomy,thin, or high pitched in one home could sound completely different in another home setting. Thanks again David and have a great day 👍
The R200 is one of my favorite speakers on this channel, but not with this amp. It sounds too restrained, flat, and rather dull. The Elac sounds a lot clearer, brighter, and livelier. The Audiolab may just be the best amp for the DBR62 speakers.
so what do you recommend for the r200
The elac sounds wide and more relaxing and non-fatiguing than the polk. While the polk sounds a lot more lean, forward, but having better details than the elac.
I guess it just depends whether you want a more lean and detailed listen or a wide more immersive relaxing experience.
I have just bought an ELAC DBR62 2nd hand. Havent installed it as my amp is being getting manufactured by a local boutique firm. A lot of extreme metal (80% of my listening) is so poorly recorded that a revealing speaker in a reflective room can be harsh (which is my case). Think Darkthrone 1st few albums, immolation - here in after, failures for gods, emperor - ..nightside eclipse, Bathory etc. My friend has an awesome revealing speaker that gets a bit harsh on the ears sometimes. Maybe in these cases a less revealing speaker can actually be the right medicine. But the Polk R200 sounds excellent.
My friend has this super revealing brilliant speaker from the same local company. It bloody brings out every defect possible e.g. Asphyx - Deathhammer album i could make out the compression in that album. It was because of this which pushed me towards a slightly warmish speaker. Plus I got a good deal.
I prefer the warmer sound of the DBRs. The R200s sound a bit too bright, and I expect they would be fatiguing over time.
Polk r200 better, I'm just curious the comparison with oberon 3. One day if you have atc scm11mklll a reference.
Well TBH I don't think I need either one lol. I think what I already have is fine (elac ub52). Of the two, I'd probably go for the Polk, especially considering the price difference. I think I prefer the added clarity up top as well.
I'm pretty sure the elac have an extra mid-range though, correct? That might be worth considering if you find them on sale like they are now. I guess it doesn't really matter, but I generally prefer a speaker with a dedicated mid-range. In fact, I've pretty much made a decision to never go with a speaker again that isn't at least 3 way with a mid-range driver. 2 ways never seem to have the right amount of clarity, they always seem to be lacking, like the mids are sucked out somewhat.
So my ears may deceive my rule of thought. But now that I've thought about it, I'd go with the 3 way. I think the Polk sound more open on top because they are lacking in the middle.
This is a very interesting comparison, E Project. The KEF R3s are not the only speakers that make the DBR62s sound a bit overwarmed and a trace oddly colored in the midrange. These Polks do it some too, eh? It's not the Audiolab, I'd say. The R200s sound as crisp and open as I ever remember them.
Both the R3 and the R200 are quite monitor-like but I think the R3s are a little warmer than the R200s.
@@davidcarr2216 I thought the R3's were a bit brighter, but in this demo it's close. Did DM say he thinks the R200s sound dull and the DBR62s are brighter? Wah?
@@williammiebach1798 Listen to the horns on Leroy! If you don't hear it, then I can't help you. It's not the highs. It's the clearer and more open mids on the Elac compared to the flat and more recessed mids on the Polk, which makes the Polk sound thin and screechy with this amp. You can hear it on Boost Your Power too, and on the guitar in Fields
@@DougMen1 I think you're both right, looking at the spin data. The R3 has a a broad peak in the 4-10KHz region but then rolls off whereas the R200 has a dip at 4KHz followed by a rising treble after around 8KHz . Neither are ideal and the irregularities may well be audible.
@@DougMen1 I go along with the R200s sounding a bit flat and compressed and lacking a bit of expressiveness in the midrange. They sound lean and dryer in the mids, but they also sound smoother or less colored through the midrange, and way brighter. I cant agree with saying they sound dull in comparison to the Elacs. It's rather the other way around to me. The R200s sound almost too bright here. It's definately not the Elacs warmth thats a problem to me, it's a lack of tonal transparency, or it's midrange colorations that the comparison to the R200s reveal. And they definately don't sound livelier (or more live) of the two to me. The 6000As not the nest amp for either in my opinion.
R200 more clarity. DBR62 is good too, would like to hear in person
I believe the Polks to be more linear ie monitor-like. Quite like the DBR62 with this amp and plenty of others though. I'm pretty sure that I'd go with the R100s/200s because they are the better speaker but they do sound a bit lean in the mids with this amp. Does the amp have enough power for the R200s ? But they don't seem too hard to drive. Is it a driver integration or mic positioning issue? Where's Mike, he's very familiar with this combo ? Questions, questions !!
I perceive things differently than many here. The Elacs sound brighter to me, not because of the highs, but because of the clearer, more open, and more forward midrange. Listen to the trumpet in Leroy and the male vocal in Time Traveling for a couple of examples of what I mean. I hear the same thing from the guitars in Boost Your Power and Fields.
@@DougMen1 On this video, the DBR62s do seem better balanced in the mid-range to me as well. A lot of people say they like the R200s for the bass/treble but not too many mention the midrange and that's where the music's at. Also speaker tonality matterrs as well. Never been sure about what maks a speaker sound warm or dry from the measurements some say things like warmth comes from boosted upper bass or such-like but not convinced, I think its probably very subtle and connected with driver design/materials and cabinet design/materials.
@@davidcarr2216 As you know, I believe it's a combination of many things, tonal balance is one, but also dynamics and timing, texture and character, which may be somewhat influenced by driver materials and crossover components too, image and soundstage, distortion and resonances, horizontal and vertical dispersion, and things measurable and things that aren't yet measurable, all combined to produce a speaker's sound signature.
@@DougMen1 You missed out P.R.A.T., or is that just amps and vinyl rigs or flat Earthers (ie Linn/Naim/Rega guys themselves) ?😛
@@davidcarr2216 What is PRAT?
Ilike the polks more than the Elacs
I like DBR62 more than R200 in this comparison.
In this combination I pick the Polks.
The polk uses dirt cheap drivers and Xover. If in doubt watch GR Research disassembling one. It’s built like a £200 speaker and even Wharfedales at that price are superior.
woow! the difference with this amp, is HUGE! amazingly, i really liked the Elacs; more round, less fatiguing, more balanced. the high frequencies on the R200 "stick out" way too much!! too thin a sound and even a bit metallic/artificial.
please compare elac unifi reference to r200
Just in case if anyone doesnt know what neutral sounds like. th-cam.com/video/sZ7SFCjfhTM/w-d-xo.html You wouldnt know you were listening to a recording.
Neutral and flat = boring? Not even close. We strive for this, at least folks that are really after high fidelity. If I had 10k? This would be my first choice. Makes a track sound cold and sterile? Thats because the track actually sounds cold and sterile. You get lost in the music. Speakers disappear. Musicality in spades. Its just you and Anette in the room. Fanbloodytastic.
There's more to a speaker's sound than just the frequency response. A speaker that measures flat and neutral, but that has no dynamics will sound boring, but one that is neutral and linear with superb dynamics will sound heavenly. Genelecs obviously fall into the second category.
@@DougMen1 which brings us to your comment that speakers that measure alike can sound alike in William's comment. No 2 speakers measure exactly the same. This statement generally comes from people that only eyeball the on axis fr and throw all the other precious data away. Erin recently did a video regarding this audiophile myth. Amps that measure the same or below threshold levels (power amps) on the other hand can and will sound the same when level matched on a precise level. Integrated amps that consist of a pre and dac can sound different because of the mentioned variables. And it is impossible to find 2 amps that measure exactly the same either. Any debates can be directed at Erin as he knows WAY WAY WAY better than me.
@@AbsoluteFidelity I always look at all measurements, not just the on axis response, But, I also believe that science isn't perfect, and everything isn't already solved, and there are still things to be learned. That's why there is still research being done in every area of science, because new things are always being discovered. And, I believe that there may be things that we can hear that still can't be measured. Otherwise all SOTA cost no object speakers or amps would all sound the same, which clearly isn't the case. Peter Comeau, who is the head of engineering for IAG, parent company of Wharfedale, Mission, Quad, and Audiolab, and is one of the world's most famous and celebrated speaker designers, has said in several interviews that it took him 170 different crossover designs for the new Mission 770 before he was satisfied, because they all measured the same but still sounded different, so he wasn't happy with the sound until he had tried that many different designs. So, clearly there are things going on that are audible, but still can't be measured, because I'm sure he has the most SOTA measuring tools that are available at his disposal, and it still took listening tests to make the final decision, irrespective of the measurements all being the same. And he clearly knows far more than you, me, or Erin.
I work in TV business for more than 20 years and all the sound control rooms I've seen use Genelec speakers, including ones working with mostly music. Editing rooms use all kinds of monitors like Yamaha, but studio recordings were all done through Genelec. But it's an unfair comparison here.
R200 very bright, rough, fatiguing.
Track chemtrails sounds beutiful
The title here says Rotel, but it's really the Audiolab, lol
It's always about the Audiolab, ha ha, E's favourite
and now I don't know what to choose
Elacs here won
12:12, death metal?? I would hardly even classify that generic guitar pop as metal at all. 🙃
R200s are a bit shouty IMO
Where is Polk midrange? Elac again more real. Polk sounds like it did in 1978? A friend got them then. They sound good, but not real. I was playing in a band then and knew what real live music sounds like. I have heard speakers 5x the price of Elac, with no better sound. According to my ears, my taste. Your mileage may vary.
There you go, the Elac sheep again.