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.
@amir_asr "If that is the definition of "genius," then I am the sharpest tool in the shed. 😁 Members do indeed donation significant amount of money to ASR." "As an aside, "audition__audio" made it clear from his first post he was a dealer, you need to read more carefully. |
- He is a Harman dealer (Madrona digital). - All his Revel/JBL speakers get "golfing panthers" all day long. They tower over the competition apparently. I bet all the minions run to him, thereafter and buy some sterile lousy sounding Revels in droves. - His company is also posed as an integrator, which implies that he sells AV gear. I would wager that he sells Sound United products (Denon/Marantz), because he he’s been measuring the low sinad and granting happy panthers on Denon products. His minions go wild and feral when they hear the word "Denon". The AV side of his minions don’t just buy 2 speakers, they would be buying 10 for such rigs...So, i would wager that he makes a killing in sales, with the "measurement based" advertising he does on his forum. IMO, it is quite clever how he poses though (as a conveyor of truth through measurements n all instead). He also begs for donations every time he spits out a chart from his garage...A thoroughly indoctrinated minion would also donate a lot, i’d think (no matter if it’s living paycheck to paycheck or if it’s got deeper pockets). Such is the plight of an indoctrinated minion, i’d think. In summary, a few lousy charts from a AP kit has made him a lot a dough, i’d bet.
|
No. No retail sales whatsoever. We bid on large contracts for full system installs most of which have nothing to do with hi-fi.
Again, no. I explained that about half a dozen times someone wants me to source them products. I am fine if they do, or if they don't. It is round off error for Madrona business and probably costs us more than it makes. Vast majority of products I recommend are not handled or sourced by Madrona. If there is, then a full cautionary note is provided to put readers on notice, unlike your posts here.
Nope. I have had a successful career prior to founding Madrona and ASR. I am in need of no income from either. Don't judge me from your vantage point. You are not similarly situated.
Not at all. It wasn't until yesterday that I searched through your posts and landed on one sentence saying you were a dealer. It was a totally improper omission on your part.
By saying he wasn't your favorite designer. You need to make up your mind.
I can't give you their name as that would violate their privacy. Go on ASR and look at people's titles. It won't be long before you see Dealer, Reviewer, Audio Company, Industry Luminary, Technical expert, etc. I just checked and we have 204 members verified to be an Audio company. Examples are KEF, Genelec, RME, Purifi (Bruno Putzeys), Kali Audio/Ex-JBL, Neumann, Hegel, Benchmark Audio, Schiit, Danley Labs, Weiss, etc. We have 21 audio reviewers. Examples are John Atkinson and Kal Robinson of Stereophile. We have four Audio Luminaries. Dr. Floyd Toole, Dr. Sean Olive, James Johnston (ATT Bel Labs and my chief architect in last job), and the late Scott Wurcer of Analog Designs. We also have 40 members of industry that have the special title of "Technical Expert" who have deep understanding of science and engineering.
|
I also gave you example of a member here, MikeL, not being to pass a blind test and thereby, showing that his sighted evaluations were biased by something other than sound. You haven't had an answer to either.
What? Every category of tester was put in the same situation of evaluating speakers blind. Tests were repeated and variance computed. Salespeople like you had very high variance meaning little consistency in their evaluation of speakers.
Is that right? How should we rank the value of random salesman on a forum then? Just believe it?
Already answered pages back. Harman researched what type of content is most revealing of speaker performance. And that is what they use: AES Paper, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products AES Paper, A New Listener Training Software Application AES Paper, Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study*
Some of the tracks: Tracy Chapman, "Fast Car", Tracy Chapman James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here” from “That’s Why I’m Here,” Sony Records. These fall in the #1 and #2 categories above for the most part.
|
