Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews

I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.

As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.

Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.

1. Speaker pricing.

One ASR review spends an amazing amount of time and effort analyzing the ~$800 US Tekton M-Lore. That price compares very favorably with a full Seas A26 kit from Madisound, around $1,700. I mean, not sure these inexpensive speakers deserve quite the nit-picking done here.

2. Measuring mid-woofers is hard.

The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.

a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.

b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.

For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.

Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.

In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.

3. Crossover point and dispersion

One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.

Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.

Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.

In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response.  One big reason not to is crossover costs.  I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range.  In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies.  Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.

I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.


What we measure when we hear a music piece is only a Fourier map of the sonic event. the "waves" associated with the sound qualia. The sound qualia is not interpreted yet by the ears/brain/body.

This sonic fundamental event is a "timbre" among other acoustics factors revealing to our consciousness the qualitative information coming from this vibrating sound source states ( empty full, peirced with holes, in wood , in metal the list goes on ).The sound source in vibration can be a ripe fruit or a violin anything .

But also the timbre affect our own emotional and physical body in precise location which are universal among cultures independant of the music styles we are all affected in the same way as humans in our own body. See the artcles.

What is the relation of this with Amir ideology ?

For Amir the Fourier maps of the "waves" tell all the story and with his few set of electrical measures all the audio story is told about sound qualia...listening is delusional and illusory to the point any claims by an audiophile is pure hallucination with no objective value ...

This techno cultism evacuate any qualitative information and emotions as secondary and superfluous to evaluate sound , a tool overcome our body/brain /ears value ...

The 4 articles above which are pure science research , not audio magazine marketing, contradict this ideology which is techno cultism reduction of man power and his control in the case of Amir to sell something in the case of big corporations to control humanity ...

i stay short to spare the patience of some ... 😊

Guess what your own brain body will detect if on a sound vibrating element in the chain of the physical events implied by the sound experience i put a piece of shungite or alternatively a piece of quartz ?

A qualitative new state informing us of a change in the audio system not measured by Amir but existing objectively though for anyone brave enough to do experiments ...

The subjective and the objective are not completely separable in the sound phenomena ...if we did it for the sake of science or for our pleasure we loose something : the object of acoustics science.😊




Audiophiles needs to understand a bit acoustics, objectivists as subjectivists to stay less ignorant and understand what to do to improve greatly any system at any price without upgrading blindly when it is not necessary ...

It all still boils down to that oh-so-common Achilles heel of N = 1. For listening pleasure, that’s all any audiophile needs.

Pretty sure this horse is dead, rotten and skeletonized at this point.

Probably time to quit beating it.



What is the relation between Fourier Map and Timbre perception?

Enlighten us if you know everything and post only to criticize ?

We all wait ? Go and explain it because for you it is a well known dead horse ..

a clue : you must not only read the 4 articles but understood the link between them ..

We all wait for your glorious easy  next post ...

because for you i stuck a dead horse anyway ...


Pretty sure this horse is dead, rotten and skeletonized at this point.

Probably time to quit beating it.

"We all wait for your glorious easy  next post ..."

So, you are the spokesperson for this community 🙄.