Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews


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.

1. Speaker pricing.

One ASR review spends an amazing amount of time and effort analyzing the ~$800 US Tekton M-Lore. That price compares very favorably with a full Seas A26 kit from Madisound, around $1,700. I mean, not sure these inexpensive speakers deserve quite the nit-picking done here.

2. Measuring mid-woofers is hard.

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.

erik_squires

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. 

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.

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.

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

Post removed