Tekton Double Impacts

Thank you @tektondesign for your response. I wonder how many others have had to weather such scrutiny?

Very nice of you to come on the thread and answer the questions Eric. I am glad to hear that you have fine-tuned the speaker to exactly where you want it to be now.

I will just assume then that my late August set has pretty much the same design as the crossovers being made today and reflect where you have landed.

@greg22lz
I am not sure if you understand grannyring's point.  He is only pointing out that people should expect to hear different sound opinions from others based on the frequent changes to parts on the DI speakers.  While you seem to have a problem with Bill's scrutiny, which came about because he chose to mod his, we should be grateful and lucky to know this, so that we don't blame people's upstream components so much like it has happened on this thread, when someone complains about what they hear with the DI's. 

For me, I just want this speaker manufacturer to succeed in that he is bringing stellar and affordable speakers to the market. However, I hope he takes this in a positive way, and perhaps allow more time on newer designs, and to settle on parts/ sound before launching them.

Wide-polar is for primarily the in-wall version of the Double Impact for home theater and the folks that want a wider off-axis polar response. Background music, room size, unable to toe-in the speaker are all examples of where the wider off-axis might be preferred.

Regarding all of the chatter about the mods being done on here. Every facet of this speaker was carefully thought through and it concerns me when people say how much they’ve "improved" upon the speaker. I’m not entirely on board with this. Especially, for the ones that do not have access to scientific equipment to show everyone exactly what they’ve done to the speaker.

For example, the swapping out of the 10" woofers... accurate simulations and measurements will prove one 'mod' spoken of on here will sacrifice extreme deep bass extension and yield higher mid-bass output. Therefore, the system is now something much different and some of the original ’spirit’ of the design is compromised. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say the speakers are now different over claiming an outright improvement? Sound is subjective, and I have a hunch not everyone will like it. To be entirely fair... the DSP processing will clean everything up and from that angle about any 10" woofer off the shelf will fit the bill. The problem here is that some of us are pure analog and any changes here will be far more noticeable so extra care is needed when anything is changed.

It’s key to note: good loudspeaker design tends to be primarily about evaluating trade-off’s and what you can do with the sum-total of the parts. I could use the same aforementioned 10" driver in all Double Impacts produced, and have considered it. In my opinion, overall tonal balance, warmth and access to a bit more deep extension all directed me to go with the 10" driver we are using today.

In my professional opinion, it’s more appropriate to for those saying they’ve "successfully completed a ’mod’ to this design" to say they’ve changed the speaker dramatically over "dramatically improving" the speaker.

For those wanting more we have the DI SE. The speaker sounds fantastic and the ’spirit’ of the Double Impact design is intact. All transducers incorporate the biggest improvements possible with drives built to my requested specs; with cast frames for less flux leakage, a bigger motor, reversed venting and a rigid dust cap.

Musicmann, thanks for your comments, and yes... you’re speakers are sounding exactly as I intended them to and they should be sounding really good.

Eric Alexander - audio designer

@muzikmann.  The question was rhetorical, and I actually have not seen posts to this extent evaluating every aspect of a component builders' methods or reasoning! Have you? I think what I really see here is people love the DI's and are thinking about them in a deep way . Exciting, isn't it?