2. speakers
  3. 128578-80822

Tekton Double Impacts

Anybody out there heard these??

I have dedicated audio room 14.5x20.5x9 ft.  Currently have Marantz Reference CD/Intergrated paired to Magnepan 1.7's with REL T-7 subs.  For the vast majority of music I love this system.  The only nit pick is that it is lacking/limited in covering say below 35 hz or so.  For the first time actually buzzed the panel with an organ sacd. Bummer.  Thought of upgrading subs to rythmicks but then I will need to high pass the 1.7's.  Really don't want to deal with that approach.

Enter the Double Impacts.  Many interesting things here.  Would certainly have a different set of strengths here.  Dynamics, claimed bottom octave coverage in one package, suspect a good match to current electronics.

I've read all the threads here so we do not need to rehash that.  Just wondering if others out there have FIRST HAND experience with these or other Tekton speakers

Thanks.
corelli
lmswjm's avatar
lmswjm
62 posts
 
@evolvist:

"Remember, my Linn has Space Optimization, which is a unique room correction that doesn’t use a mic. So, you measure the speakers by distance from various locations in the room, tell it what the floor is made of, the walls, windows, etc, etc, and it takes the room out of the equation, as opposed to getting readings from a much more fallible mic setup."

Please expand on this sentiment. Why would a mic set-up be more fallible? I would be interested in reviewing any reliable source of information that would support this. 
evolvist
167 posts
 
Because you're relying on the quality of the mic, plus the ability to capture the readings in what is often, but not always, a USB interface at worst, or a small pro-audio ADC at best. Because of the above factors, not failing to mention the variable quality of the software in use, I've seen readings taken in the exact same spot of the room have differing curves from one reading to the next. 

Therefore, as audio is a game of inches, where most of us try to squeeze the last bit of sound out of our gear, within our means, this variance can be too much when dealing with small frequencies and time. 

I believe it took a radically different approach to room correction in order to allow the adjustments in the environmental domain as opposed to the theoretical, captured by like software, yet with too many variables to be as precise. 
vitop
221 posts
 
That very same statement surprised me also. There are many variables involved such as reflections off of materials and shapes that simple dimensions cannot possibly take into consideration. Just speaking for myself, I would rather measure how the sound arrives at a certain location via mic rather than just note the dimensions and assume that the sound will reach that measured location perfectly.

Again, just speaking for myself, I would have to do some really critical testing before I would believe a distance based correction system is more accurate than a mic based correction system. Not saying it is not the case, but it is something that I personally would have to be convinced of.
grannyring's avatar
grannyring
6,545 posts
 
@vitop,
Well said and I was thinking the very same thing. This is a big subject however and I am not an expert. 
evolvist
167 posts
 
Off topic, I know, but it's all in the ear of the beholder. It also takes into account furnishings, surface hardness of walls, windows, ceilings, floors, and in a lot of cases Linn has measurements of the speakers in use. Not the DIs, of course. 

Sure, this methodology has caused some controversy, but it must be heard to be believed, first, much like the DIs. 
More to discover