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.
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.
I love what Amir is doing with ASR. It gives me more information. I’ve learned lots of useful things there. My system is sounding better than ever, and a lot of that is thanks to solid information on ASR that allows me to make more correlations between measurements and what I perceive as good sound.
The fact that many claim to know what sounds best from years of experience with high end gear is data that is noted, not ignored. Some of those people can't explain what is going on, and don't seem to do well in blind tests. That is noted as well, and never entirely dismissed. It's one thing to note that you perceive a difference, and have a preference. It's another thing to try to explain why that difference is perceived without any substantial evidence. It's the explanation in those cases that's being rejected, not the truth of the perception.
I stopped watching ASR when he did a video on a power cord that he never plugged in. He measured impedance and capacitance and rated the cable and said the cord was snake oil and not to waste any money on it. Again, he never listened to it, let alone plugging it in.
Americans dont pay attention to anything in the outside world... Covid crisis was no exception...Some think that covid was about for Biden or against Trump , I will not go further ...Big pharma has anything to do with science and it is a fact They use science they dont did science it is for PROFIT only ( mass control when it is militarily driven ) .. 😊
For the thread question, it is evident that there is no rosetta stone dictionary between measurements of speakers and a specific room translation of the speakers specs. and our own ears... ( The best solution is optimize our room only for specific speakers and use a Choueiri set of filters, then it is job done )
It is simple to know why when you had played as i did with the acoustic materials content of a room , his size , his geometry and topology , and the many devices we can introduce to improve the relation between ears/speakers/room...Room acoustics can induce change that will dwarf any gear change save extreme change in quality and extreme change in design between speakers or amplifiers...
Acoustics measurements rules audio not electrical measures of the gear which anyway in any good design must be driven and submitted to acoustics and psychoacoustics measurements at the end ...
In acoustics science there is the same debates in a way between ecological theory of hearing and non ecological theory...😊
Ecological theory is gaining success because our body play a role in hearing , the body image of sound from the sound source too, so much a revolution in acoustics is brewing ..
I posted three fundamental articles about this in the thread of bolong ; "the experience of sound is mysticism"
I'm in a sort of no-man's land regarding this hobby. I'm a scientist by training and I believe in testing methodology that removes bias to the greatest possible extent.
I have been able to internalize quite a bit of cognitive dissonance in this hobby. I can't hear the difference between interconnects and power cords but I sure can hear the difference between amplifiers (my speakers are quite difficult to drive).
My feeling is that if people hear dramatic differences that can't be substantiated through scientific means then more power to them. It's their money and they should spend it on things that make them happy. In my case I know that I am susceptable to bias so I try to control it the best I can. IMO ASR provides a valuable perspective to this hobby.
Well said. I agree with your views.
The one thing which gives me pause is people who spend money on gear to make themselves happy only because they have convinced themselves they can hear a difference when they don't go to the trouble you do (which is not strictly scientific but better than nothing) to control variables. It would be better if they said, "I'm doing this on a whim" than, "I'm doing this because it's better based on evidence." They have lied to themselves about what counts as evidence rather than simply owning that they're doing it just because they want to. Which is a valid rationale.
I dont deny most if not all of the Covid numbers. In fact I really havent paid much attention to Covid from the outset. Got the shot/booster and then watched tribalism and politicization occur.
The real problem with this entire fiasco was the reaction of the government to a population that demands immediate, definitive answers and juvenile reassurances. If you dont know admit it. I would even go so far as to say you should divulge just how much you dont know.
ASR is part of the larger community and like all the bits not without imperfections of approach, synthesis and conclusion.
Until very recently, i spent significant time in the Quantum computing world…. Science is not static… Sad when minds are lost thinking it is. The Ear - Brain is not super well understood… while i own and enjoy speakers built and hand tuned by a manufacturer ( since 1977 ) who DO have an anechoic chamber, and do incorporate measurements rigorously into both developm, production and quality control, I still listen….. so so they…..
A book many of you might find of interest… that pesky ear / brain…thing again… is ; This Is What it Sounds Like by Ogi Ogas and Susan Rogers…. read it… and listen to it… but that might activate…. different parts of the brain…
Also note the ability to observe brain activity / intensity is relatively new science…. which isn’t…. static….
1. Good objective reviews are important. That includes measurements decent REPRODUCIBLE measurements. As a trained scientist, that is what writing papers is all about, in professional journals. If one cannot reproduce or get similar results doing measurements - then the person doing the measurements are an issue, possibly. But they should be reproducible with the same equipment.
2. Listening from the buyer’s perspective. I would NEVER buy a speaker without buying them. The way a speaker sounds, to the listener, if very subjective.
Hence, I prefer both objective and subjective - one is not more important than the other.
A fine point that. I watched the moon landing in 1968. Not first hand but as close as most. Sophistry exists but overflow hospital tents and portable morgues are hard to deny. As to Smallpox versus Covid glad the vaccine came out when it did. Future epidemics could/may/will be existential threats due recent irresponsible balderdash.
Wow. Interesting thread. Thank you, @amir_asr for clearly explaining things from your point of view. I visit ASR fairly often and I appreciate the work you do.
I'm in a sort of no-man's land regarding this hobby. I'm a scientist by training and I believe in testing methodology that removes bias to the greatest possible extent. I eat a handful of prescription drugs every day and I'm grateful that they were all evaluated using a double-blind process. I have two neighbors/friends who didn't accept the science on Covid vaccinations and they are dead now from Covid.
I have been able to internalize quite a bit of cognitive dissonance in this hobby. I can't hear the difference between interconnects and power cords but I sure can hear the difference between amplifiers (my speakers are quite difficult to drive). I have three DACs and I suspect I could not tell them apart in a blind test but that didn't stop me from spending a lot of money on them, at least one in particular.
When I compare two pieces of gear, I don't have the capability to do an A/B/X test but I always use a control. For example, when I listen to a new set of interconnects I start by comparing two DACs in my system and I evaluate the differences, if any, using the same brand of cables, typically Blue Jeans. Then I change the interconnects in one DAC and listen again. To be thorough, I leave the new cables in place for a few months so that I can go back again and again to see if I can hear a difference (hey, you never know if maybe the wires had to break in before they bloomed). I have utterly failed to hear the differences between interconnects, even silver ones, using this method. BTW, the DACs sound very similar too.
I am prepared to spend significant funds on a component on the basis of pride of ownership even if I doubt it will sound significantly better than something cheaper. But ASR provides excellent data that helps me make a decision. I look at Amir's work as basically answering the question, "Is this product well engineered?" I'm more likely to buy a product that is designed and measures well than one with obvious shortcomings.
My feeling is that if people hear dramatic differences that can't be substantiated through scientific means then more power to them. It's their money and they should spend it on things that make them happy. In my case I know that I am susceptable to bias so I try to control it the best I can. IMO ASR provides a valuable perspective to this hobby.
This whole saga is about threatening to sue some 'little guy' with a YouTube channel. I doubt most peope are focused on issues surrounding speaker measurements. The thread on ASR stalled out a while back and would've been just another thread on ASR had the little guy on YouTube not been threatened.
Bullying tactics by a manufactuer against a reviewer is nothing new, but this seems to have resonated with the community because of the sheer level of arrogance and disrespect involved on the part of EA. His attempt at damage control evident in his two YouTube videos just added more fuel to the fire.
All that said I think people should move on. It's been a train wreck but it's time to let it go. Life has its way of meting out justice, whether through karma or just the average Joe voting with his feet.
PS - I don't mean 'little guy' disrespectfully towards Erin.
@erik_squiresWhat you say is true, but that doesn't take away the damage that ERIC has done to HIS OWN brand. No one else is doing it. This is self-mutilation at it's finest.
@jhnnrrsBad form injecting politics in an audio forum.
@roadcyklerWhile some gear is like candy, tastes great but poor long-term diet, let's be clear that the science is only worthwhile if it feeds our emotions.
Without emotions, there is really no point in music.
Verses here people are encouraged to listen with their heart (subjective) instead of their brain and emotional decisions often turn out to not be the best.
I like to see measurements before listening to get an idea what the manufacturer "heard" (in a very controlled environment) and see how that compares to what I hear. Measurements are only 1 part of the process.
That is not the point. The point is Eric threatening people with lawsuits is the issue. One would work with people, like Andrew Jones does, not bully people.
If you like Tekton, great, but the behavior of the designer is what is turning off people not the speakers.
I have purchased 3 pairs of better speakers in my 50 year experience. Epicure 20s, Linn Nexus, and Lore Be's. I still have the Linns and still rotate them into my setup. I love the way the Lores deliver mid bass. They sound as good or better than the Linns which were $1200 some 35 years ago.
Bottom line... I care how they sound in my room with my gear, not how they measure.
The whole point of owning audio equipment is to listen to and enjoy music. In evaluating individual components there are objective factors and subjective ones as well. How it tests is important, but how does it sound and how does that make you feel?
Take a piece of classical piano music that has been recorded many times such as Bach's Goldberg Variations. There are pianists who play it with perfect virtuosity - technical brilliance - but their interpretations are lacking in feeling. Subjectively something important is missing. Others convey the music with similar technical brilliance but with a whole level of subjective interpretation that transports the listener to a better place. Both interpretations would 'test' equally well if you were measuring how fast and accurately they were playing the notes, but the subjective interpretations would be vastly different - and that you cannot measure.
The same applies to audio gear. It can test perfectly but sound sterile, or at the other extreme test imperfectly but sound musical and engaging.
Think of all the steps and equipment involved between the pianist playing in the recording studio to my listening to those same notes from a cd reproduced in my living room audio system.
ASR emphasizes how it measures and not how it sounds, which is missing the subjective musicality in the equation. I would encourage their members to go to concerts and recitals and listen to more live music and well recorded and well interpreted music as these are important dimensions beyond test measurements. Don't just test the car, but look out the window and enjoy the journey it takes you on.
ASR is using that comprise their accepted model of what a high fidelity item of whatever type should do and not do to be rated well. The discovery and validation of some hitherto unrecognized mechanism by which perceived listen quality could be more closely aligned with measurable phenomena would be warmly received. ASR uses the Flo
The ASR CFO is still a Revel dealer (Madrona digital), right? Has he managed to put most of his herd on the Revel train (boost sales a bit)? They sound kinda dry and sterile to my ears though the panther always golfs when it sees Revels apparently.
After he got banned on the various forums, does he continue to maintain multiple hidey accounts on the same forums? Or is he finally busy with his followers on his own forum?
We have imperfect gear, environments, ears and tastes. What gear appeals (subjective) in each circumstance isn’t reliably predicted by numbers generated in a perfect environment (objective) and what gear measures best isn’t reliably predicted by what sounds best at home.
Nothing to argue about. So what is the problem? It’s an attention starved rogue or two visiting the opposing site under the guise of "education". Arrogance and ridicule and the ensuing battles are their childish self entertainment. Are we not adults? Let’s ignore the children.
I hold views that Amir would dispute (well, has disputed above), eg, re significant audible differences in PCs. I nonetheless greatly appreciate ASR and the work that Amir does. I think it’s an important part of the audio community that deserves respect. Perhaps significant in my sense of all this is that I don’t expect to agree with anyone 100%, and I don’t need them to agree with me. I’m looking for pieces of the puzzle, not answers.
I have a choice, I can either argue about what the definition of "nit picking" is, or the definition of "quasi-anechoic." Stepping back I'm not sure either argument is worth having.
Bringing lawsuits or threatening such is a bridge too far
Pretty sure 90 percent of us would agree with that.
As to audio science and engineering there is too much much marketing, so independent measuring by the "unbiased" is welcome. And then subjective evaluations by the masses.
BTW, the majority of our founding fathers decided to vaccinate against smallpox due to first hand experience. I also did so as my eyes saw tremendous suffering and death each night on television and direct discussions with nurses on the front lines convinced me of that prudence. Was the science 100% correct? Of course not. How can it be in a such a scenario? Like war....many bad decisions during its course lead to many senseless deaths.
Far more people appreciated my posts than anything from Michal. He would keep repeating the same marketing stories without a single fact backing them. I was impressed to see Roon members not appreciate that and valuing specific data, references, etc. that demonstrated his claims to be wrong.
It took me about two weeks to read the majority of that Roon thread. There was a small group of members on Roon that repeatedly backed up Amir. “Far more people appreciated my post than anything” is a little thick and is nothing more than a bias interpretation of events; perhaps even self-serving. Just because two to four members are repeatedly more vocal than the thousands of members on a forum (many of which chose not to participate) does not equate to a majority.
I am not so sure I would call resistance to public health policy anti-science. I guess if you consider public health the paramount consideration of public health policy. My concern lies not so much with the science, but rather with the scientists.
Is that how you talk about your doctor? That all of them follow medical science and insist on that type of approach to your health, they are now guilty of group think and narcissism???
I think a large number of people do exactly that, as evidenced by the resistance to public health policy we witnessed during the COVID pandemic. Anti-science is not limited to the healthcare sphere.
The hallmark of proper scientific pursuit is a willingness to adapt accepted models to accommodate conflicting data when the data is validated appropriately. To some, that process of looks dodgy, but it is essential. In the present context, we have a set of measurements ASR is using that comprise their accepted model of what a high fidelity item of whatever type should do and not do to be rated well. The discovery and validation of some hitherto unrecognized mechanism by which perceived listen quality could be more closely aligned with measurable phenomena would be warmly received. ASR uses the Floyd Toole NRC approach to speaker evaluation, and if I am not mistaken, Amir uses Revel Salon 2 as his speakers, as they are the exemplar of that approach…I would guess he has bridged Benchmark ABH2 amps, with super low noise, distortion, and negligible load interaction. A lot of us would enjoy such a rig.
For one ASR imo has no credibility ,there are tons of youngsters that know -0 about real time experiences ,and the way they measure.
a perfect example I had mentioned for the money how good the Denafrips Terminator 2 dac was for the money ,and they are giving a comparison just how much better the $800 Topping measured , sonically the Denafrips is light years better sounding, and I ripped into them and all their childish antics . Myself have been an Audiophile-over 40 years and travel and listen to a lot-of gear ,and having-owned a audio store for a decade I have a pretty good grasp on sonics and reality .
I got banned for telling it like it is and their measurement based logic .most of these
guys have budget audio systems and comments like your dac is not a true R2R .most have never listened to many things they can’t afford and they go by someones measurement stats. If this were the case the Vacuum tube amp would have been gone many decades ago for a good solid state amp measures better. Your ears and how well it’s built has a lot to do with the final result. Banning me was good I no longer have to waste my time on their petty behavior !!
I think the original post is educational in that it explains that data should be obtained in a more lifelike situations 1 inch away most people don't listen that close.sometimes the car dyno sheet does not equal how the overall car performes.sorry I missed the expo in Chicago even though it may not be the best rooms for speakers it give you an idea to listen to alot and compairs with your own ears and tastes.there are many car manufactures because not everyone likes 1 choice.and they have reviewers too.enjoy the music.t
The problem I have with ASR and its followers is the routine contempt heaped on anyone with a different POV from ASR gospel.
We are not a church and don't have gospel. We follow establish audio science and engineering. And rely on what we can prove.
If you say there are qualities in a speaker wire that can't be measured, then we are at odds with each other. This violates both factors above.
Contrary to claims of people, we hugely value listening tests. We just ask that they be bias controlled for the same reasons. This means anecdotal statements that this and that sounds better to your "ear" while you had your eyes wide open, don't get a positive reception.
Mind you, you can have all of these views and be just fine in ASR. We have plenty of subjectivists that way. The issue comes up is when you take on the membership and try to tell them how it is done. Naturally you get strong pushback. But that is something you are bringing onto yourself.
1. How does a given measurement translate into something I might be able to hear (or perceive), and what words would I use for the subjective experience?
At the risk of stating the obvious, frequency response variations of a speaker are pretty audible. Too much bass would bring boominess. Too much treble would sound bright. Midrange can cause vocals to become forward or recessed.
Traditional frequency response measurements only showed direct/on-axis sound. Across some 40 years of research, we have learned that reflections (off-axis) sounds contribute to the tonality that we hear and hence, also help set preference. As such, we want to see speakers that have off-axis response that is similar to on axis. A standardized set of measurement axis exist that makes such analysis easier (so called CEA/CTA-2034).
Measurements can also tell you optimal listening angles, both vertically and horizontally.
Further, the beam width or amount of spread you get at mid to high frequencies can predict whether the soundstage will be more diffused and wider, or more pinpoint.
Harder to assess are distortion measurements although all else being equal, you do want a speaker with less distortion. Ultimately though, I use my ear to determine the level of impairment here with specialized music tracks that stress speakers, especially in bass and sub-bass where they have most distortion.
Finally, things like impedance measurement together with speaker sensitivity tell us how easy it is to drive the speaker, how much power you may need, etc.
All in all, speaker measurements are about 70 to 80% instructive. As such, I recommend using them to weed out the bad products and create a short list to listen and select from. We do however have many who buy by measurements alone and have had great success.
I admit only casually having looked at ASR and I don't recall but wonder if they include measurements relating to dynamic linearity, how linear relative to input level changes(from micro to mini to midi to macro changes) and this should also relate to these changes versus frequency. I find this type of change may be the most significant(should never be the only one) factor in a speaker producing the illusion of reality.
Interesting exchange, mostly. Bashing ASR seems like a ridiculous thing to do. Nice to see Erik taking a swing at some rational elements in play and Amir for correcting what he considers false or inaccurate claims.
There are many things about measurement I don’t understand, but I don’t dismiss their general relevance.
Two things stand most in the way for me about the usefulness of measurements:
1. How does a given measurement translate into something I might be able to hear (or perceive), and what words would I use for the subjective experience?
2. How important is a measurement, overall, for a piece of equipment’s performance -- and in what ways would I be able to hear (perceive) that measurement’s impact?
Complicating (1) and (2) of course is the lack of a common and accurate vocabulary for what we perceive and also our room’s contributions. (And I’m not even mentioning taste/preference.)
The above problems I have with measurement are, in part, my lack of understanding; the other part of the problem is the lack of a "Rosetta stone" connecting the vocabularies of objective measurement and subjective description of perception. But these two problems are not with measurement, per se.
And yes, there are those who want to avoid the whole complicated mess by *just* going with measurements or *just* going with description (stories), but to my mind this just amounts to an obstinate refusal to engage with the complexities. (And neither Amir nor Erik do this, N.B.)
I just don’t see the value in a site that constantly throws shade on high end gear. IMHO
I have no such position on high-end gear. My speakers alone cost $25,000 a pair. Give me the performance and you can charge whatever you want. Give me poor performance and charge a lot of money and we show data to demonstrate that. The choice is that of manufacturer.
Now, if you value status and marketing of audio products more than fidelity, then sure, we are at odds with your goals.
I think that ASR has chosen an extreme stance not for any particular reason except to incite an even greater amount of tribalism in this hobby.
Nope. The "stance" I have taken is follow proper science and engineering. This uses to be the norm in 1970s and 1980s. Sometime later, folks started to abandoned this and instead, started to tell stories about products. Audiophiles bought them and this allowed the market to deliver all manner of products that when tested, don't seem to perform. Instead of doing their best to produce high fidelity gear, a lot of audio companies rely completely on marketing and informercials pretending to be reviews.
As consumers, you need to be more critical and ask for proof. Don't equate expense with fidelity. That equation has long been thrown out the door.
But I agree regarding the culture over at ASR and Amir. He came into the Roon forum to debate Michal Jurewicz from Mytek. Some of the other members became involved and Amir was quite arrogant and condescending.
Far more people appreciated my posts than anything from Michal. He would keep repeating the same marketing stories without a single fact backing them. I was impressed to see Roon members not appreciate that and valuing specific data, references, etc. that demonstrated his claims to be wrong.
"Arrogance" in my view is claiming something and demanding to be believed. I never do that.
The ASR crowd was probably never much of a market for his speakers, and as we can see here, lots of people are not very impressed with the way ASR does reviews.
That is a misstatement. Tekton advertises the M-Lore has having very linear (flat) response which would definitely appeal to ASR membership:
Problem is that it doesn't deliver on that:
But you are right that if Eric Alexander had stuck to the story that measurements don't matter, all would be well. Instead, he complained about the measurements so here we are.
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.
As I explained above, Klippel NFS fully computes the 3-D sounfield of a speaker. It does NOT suffer from baffle step issues you mention. Stereophile measurements though, have this error and hence the reason you routinely see a false bass hump in their frequency response graphs.
Please watch this tutorial video to get proper understanding of ASR speaker measurements:
There is no attempt at "nit-picking." You can't analyze a speaker properly without the full suite of measurements I show from various frequency responses to distortion and directivity. Only then you have a picture of a speaker performance and can compare it to others.
Believe me, I would love to take shortcuts given how much work it is to test a speaker but I can't.
Running the same set of measurements also eliminates the accusation of bias. Everything is tested the same way regardless of who makes it, how much it costs, etc.
Finally, $800 is fair bit of money for a speaker. Even if i were inclined to reduce the number of test, it would be for something far cheaper.
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.
Your intro is incorrect. Klippel Near-field scanner produces full anechoic measurements of the speaker. It is not at all "quasi." In my testing, it uses over 1000 measurement points to then solve the radiation patter of the speaker. In addition, it makes a secondary set of scans which using phase analysis, allows it to extract all effects of the room reflections. The output then is fully anechoic down to lowest frequencies -- something you can’t even do with any realistic anechoic chamber (most stop being anechoic below 80 Hz or so). There is a reason the equipment costs $100K.
I think that ASR has chosen an extreme stance not for any particular reason except to incite an even greater amount of tribalism in this hobby. Who knows how they really feel or what they believe? What they have done is succeeded in getting members of this forum to discuss a truly forgettable and irrelevant site.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
