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.


You DO NOT give accurate assessments of products else you would assess the quality of the workmanship, and as we can all see, Topping's quality control is crap.

Your statement is "crap."  No audio reviewer gives you reliability assessments.  We all focus on performance.  Now, I do perform teardowns which they don't do, and provide that information from time to time.  Indeed, we have a completely subforum for that on ASR: 


As for topping reliability, they have had some issues with some products.  But countless others have been quite reliable.  But let's say you are right.  Where you get that information about reliability of Topping and other similar brands is ASR! 

Secondly only a half wit assesses speakers by testing only one. Spakers are listened to in pairs.

Just today I post that video that provides multiple research papers on why listening to one speaker is more revealing of their flaws than stereo.  I don't know why you all don't let this concept sink in by spending just a few minutes learning about the topic instead of relying on your lay intuition.

Thirdly you are a hypocrite - you throw people off your own site for expressing contrary opinions yet come here and bleat your opinions like a goat.

If you act this unprofessional on ASR, regardless of whether you are in favor our mission or not, we walk you out.  Period.  ASR is a professional organization.  If you cant keep your emotions in check, I don't care how valid your opinion may be.  We don't want you there.

If you are going to show up expressing opinions like you just did, and insisting to be right even though you are wrong as a matter of science and engineering, you are going to get strong pushback.  Don't go to a Chinese restaurant and demand that they make Pizza for you!  We have a mission of trusting data, repeatability, and science and engineering.  If you all you are after is feeling good about what you think is right without the benefit of those, then you are not going to do well on ASR. 


ASR is a professional organization. If you cant keep your emotions in check, I don’t care how valid your opinion may be. We don’t want you there.

That’s a silly claim, easily disproved by just a casual review of your site. You’re not fooling anyone here.


My job as a reviewer is to give you accurate assessments of products and single speaker

Then you’re FIRED! I listen to jazz mostly, so obviously your method of a single speaker is absurd unless a listener is mainly into mono. With older jazz recordings in stereo, certain instruments are often more or less audible in one channel vs the other. Listeners who are familiar with earlier jazz know this because this is very common in many of the older jazz recordings. If I’m listening to speakers, I need to be able to listen in stereo, otherwise certain instruments won’t be audible. If the answer is to change to a more modern recording, then what’s the point.

I sometimes use the Magnepan LRS+ and one panel is purposely designed slightly different than the other. This is why the tie-downs are different with each panel. I don’t know how your single speaker scenario would address this and even if it did, listening to a single speaker is absurd anyway unless one is into mono recordings only. You have too many of these charts scattered in your mind and I would never take your listening advise after that hack job of a review you did on the VTA ST70. You refused to tell your audience what speakers you are pairing. You trashed the LRS and Klipsch The Three as well, all of which I enjoy for their purposes. I don’t need your measurements to tell me what I enjoy.

You are too overly consumed by measurements and you’re a horrible listener as far as I’m concerned. The overwhelming majority of listeners in this forum think your cultist measuring ideology and attitude is absurd. You yourself can’t even decide what you like because you need all these measurements to tell you, even when they’re wrong. There are many products that measure well that don’t sound good and vice-versa and you don’t explain that. You just see everything black & white. I can’t even fathom how a person like you enjoys listening to music. Your head is so polluted with all this nonsense.

It seems my posts fall on deaf ear...

Anyway it seems people speak about something they dont even know they dont understand .

And insulting Amir because he dont even recognise the hearing problem will not go far...

Insults between subjectivist and objectivist about the way and moment to use and test hearing with the gear or test of the gear with hearing are useless😁... What about the fact Amir dont understand hearing for what we know about it( he only understand acuity for spotting digital artefacts, acuity being his main concepts in acoustics )...

What about the fact that most dont understand how to judge and evaluate and modify a system/room for our Ears/brain, i dont means by using a linear frequencies based  computation recipe here i means doing it mechanically by hands, a concrete understanding perception as a piano tuner?

There is two side of musical acoustics : materials acoustics and psychoacoustics.

Even Helmholtz was wrong about hearing because linear Fourier maps dont work to describe human hearing and Amir think he understand using his "acuity" measures and blind test?😊

It is like pretending to solve meaning problem in philosophy of science using grammar...