Tekton DI Monitors


Finally got to see the measurements for the Double Impact monitors. I’m a little disappointed.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-impact-monitor-loudspeaker-measurements

This woofer - tweeter - woofer configuration is similar to the style named after the esteemed Joseph D’Appolito. Done well this configuration functions like a single large woofer in terms of dispersion. Less floor and ceiling bounce yield better detail at the listening position. 

Interestingly, the Audiogon craze of criticizing the tweeter array for possible comb filtering is not what I’m sad about. In fact the array appears to be the least of the issues. Look at figure 4. The horizontal plots are superbly clean. Any comb filtering from the tweeter array would be displayed here, and it’s not. Those critics going nuts about the array’s poor performance can apologize for their uninformed criticism right now.

The problem is really the vertical response. It is terrible. Here we do have evidence of comb filtering! See the plot closest to the viewer in figure 5? See the regularly occurring hills and valleys completely absent from figure 4? That my friends is comb filtering. However it’s not coming from the tweeter array, but from the two widely placed woofers. There’s also a great deal of hash above 5kHz on this same plot. This makes me so very very sad.

Part of this is fixable. As Dr. D’Appolito discovered, the designer should have used a higher order crossover slope, which would have taken care of the hash above 5 kHz. However the comb filtering below this is not easily remedied. The issue has to do with how far away the two woofers are from each other. They are so far, and cut in so high that they can’t help but interfere with each other and this woofer to woofer distance is ultimately controlled by the size of the tweeter array.

Should you buy this speaker? I think you should listen to it. See how it sounds to you as you move around your listening space. If you find yourself enamored of the mid-treble resolution and detail, I would encourage you to listen to other Tekton designs that don’t attempt a D’Appolito design, because I'm afraid that the main benefit of this type of design, narrow mid-woofer dispersion, is lost.  A simpler 2-way would avoid these issues and be as good at detail and resolution 
erik_squires
You keep referring to the DI Monitor as a "quasi' D'Appolito design" , however I politely disagree with this statement

@teajay 

If the monitors are not attempting the same dispersion control that D'Appolitos bring, then it is just bad speaker design.  Spreading out the woofers around a central array without taking into consideration the crossover point is sad indeed. 

On the other hand, if I think of the designer attempting to extend the focus of the tweeter array to the woofers then the intentions were good, but the execution incomplete. 

Either way, as good as they may sound, this seems like only a partial success. 

Best,

E
P.S. I reserve the right to coin a new phrase, in this case quasi-D'Apollito to mean speakers which use a

Woofer - (something) - Woofer

array when that (something) shares a similar crossover point that could be expected wiht a D'Appolito, around 2-5kHz. 

By my definition and for the purpose of this argument, the Tekton DI Monitors qualify.
It seems to me the overwhelming goal of a speaker (or any audio product) is to sound good. Two professional reviewers and numerous listeners confirm they sound very good. IMO this is simply the bottom line objective. In an academic sense I get the isolated measurement concern and driver arrangement issue.  It is however a moot concern if the speaker sound quality is of a high standard which it certainly appears to be. 

The focus on an aspect of the speaker that in the end doesn't detract from the overall sound seems irrelevant.  Now if this speaker had flawless measurements across the board  yet produced poor/mediocre sound quality,   there's a legitimate problem.  This is audio so we listen and judge.
Charles 
Post removed