Based on my albeit disparate (different rooms and systems) experiences, as a reviewer of 14 years, and having built hundreds of systems with a wide variety of genres of speakers including arrays and panels, this is my succinct initial critique of the Tekton array technology. I have enough experience with large speakers of many genres that I can grasp the operation of different designs, including arrays in a straightforward manner. If you wish to see the speaker systems I have reviewed, see my bio and reviewing history at Dagogo.com.
I spent an evening at a new friend’s home hearing his setup with the Tekton Moab speakers. Nice, plenty of positive things to say. However, it was quite obvious that the array adds convolution to the imaging, especially with more complex music. Voices are split in prismatic fashion and I could hear the grouping of drivers’ contributing to that. It does have a more stringent sound, and does not excel in that system at warmth, even though a relatively recent AR preamp and Pass 30.8 Monos were in use. The bass was ok, but certainly not overwhelming in terms of impact or tonality. For $4K some good scale, acceptable presence and impact; reminded me of a low to mid line Magnepan or Vandersteen, a bargain, but with idiosyncrasies. Before I get to my critique, the obvious benefits of the Moab are large scale it has inherently as a big tower, the respectable bass and LF at the price point, and the grandeur of the center image, which is a faux recreation of panel speakers’ splayed center of the sound stage.
The interesting thing is what happened when the owner visited my home and heard my new to me as of two months ago Wharfedale Opus 2-M2 Monitors with the Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subs. In terms of relative soundstage as regards seating position and speakers, my perspective is that the Opus cast as large a soundstage due to the much closer seating position (approx. 2x closer) as the Moab. Frankly, for all the tweeters purportedly giving the Moab such incisiveness, not really. The 3" soft dome of the Opus 2-M2 to my ears in this system was much more precise and elegant, without the smearing of the multiple drivers’ launch. Tonally, I prefer the Wharfedale/Legacy combo from top to bottom. Dynamics favored the bookshelf/sub combo, too.
My new friend’s reaction? Incredulity, stating several times he could not get over the sound quality of the setup. He grokked at the price of the used pair of speakers. From my experience hearing two Tekton speakers now, both times in close succession (one time at a dealer just across the hallway at a show, and the other the same evening in my room following the visit to hear the Moab) to each other, the 3" soft dome of the Wharfedale is more exquisite than the array of tweeters of the Moab, and sacrifices nothing in terms of soundstage when the seating position is forward. I pursued the Opus 2-M2 to achieve a similar result as a pricey ATC or PCM speaker with similar soft dome mid, but at substantial savings. I succeeded brilliantly, based on several previous listening experiences with such speakers. I’m rather more excited about this development than the refurbishing of the pair of Ohm Walsh Model F speakers I worked on last year about this time. I could cough up the Ohm speakers without much problem, but wouldn’t dream of giving up the experience of the Opus and Legacy Subs.
This is not a definitive assessment as I have not conducted direct comparisons in my own room. My opinion could change substantially were I to do so. Am I shocked that the Moab owner was gobsmacked at the performance of the Wharfedale bookshelf speakers and Legacy subs? No. I rather enjoyed telling him that the Opus 2-M2 is a lower end speaker system for me. :)
Imo, a person has fundamental ignorance of the performance characteristics of different genres of speakers if they suggest, or worse boast, the Tekton array of tweeters has better refinement and precision than other genres of speakers when it comes to imaging. Anyone who understands design knows you can’t splay the image with multiple drivers and achieve superior coherency simultaneously. And, no, I do not care what claims are made about it; I have heard the effect twice in near term comparison to dynamic speaker systems, so fans and makers can claim what they wish, but I go with my ears and comparisons, of course with the same music selections.
I have refrained from commenting at length about the Tekton signature until I heard it again. I was absolutely correct in my initial assessment of the Tekton monitor I had heard at AXPONA about two years ago. At that time I sated the Tekton tweeter array did not have the precision, density and purity of center imaging of the Ryan Speaker bookshelf in the room nearby. I had the precise same experience between hearing the Moab and the Opus 2-M2. When I have the same experience twice, I am confident that I am locked in on the reality of the differences of the genres of speakers.
I’m neither for, nor against Tekton. It’s a different flavor of speaker. As I said about two years ago after the experience at AXPONA, the design will have its idiosyncrasies, as do all genres of speakers. Fanboys may rail, people who have moved on might concur. Whatever. I have zero interest in arguing my impressions. I will not call them conclusions, as that would require a direct comparison. Would I think anything significant might change in my assessment. No, I do not. But, I’m experienced enough and not so presumptuous that I would expect no chance of it.
