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

In general some forms of distortion are more undesirable than others. I suppose the Amygdala has something to do with that. It’s good to understand why and how we respond the way we do (each differently to some extent). So it’s true there is more to what appeals to us in sound than low distortion, but that does not change the fact that distortion exists and it’s also a good thing to understand that as well in each case. Distortion does matter. There are several pieces to every puzzle. 

mapman you cannot understand something if you dont read about it and study few minutes.. i posted many articles above ...😊

Amygdala dont explain acoustics...

my Amygdala dont explain my books choices or my musical preference nor what i detect in sound speech no more that the way i appreciate a good system in a good room .

A word as amygdala explain nothing ... It is not false using it as i remark above , it is true it play a central role in our memory and emotion controls but this cannot explain sound qualities perceptive evaluation by itself alone ...

Yes acoustics are obviously important but this thread is not about acoustics. 

For the record here are the things one has control over that I think matter most for good sound. 

1. Good quality well engineered gear designed to work well together from source to speakers.    Good quality  implies gear has a good handle on distortion. Many speakers will qualify here. You choose. 

2. Amplification that can get the most out of the speakers.  

3. Room acoustics.  You can do some treatments to help.   Then after that smart application of DSP can help adjust for the rest, tailor the sound to personal preferences as needed, and help one get off the merry go round of changing gear.  

4.  Choose your tweaks from there.  

Unfortunately the Human is only coming to terms as a modern population that they are not in control and all influences on the individual are not from their choices.

There is much much more, and survival / self preservation is one, where attractive Stimulus is the reward for putting oneself in an environment the Mind interprets as secure and safe.

Ambient noise/sound are indicators to the Brain and effects the chemistry that follows. All 10K - 12K chemical reactions per second.

This is not a bitter pill to swallow, it is quite liberating when willingness to accept develops. 

I’m a great admirer of Amir and the work that he does at ASR. Even if one is a subjectivist and judges everything based on their hearing alone, it’s still interesting to hear how the scientific measurements compare. It strikes me as odd that subjectivists whose favorite components get a negative ASR review become angry. They enjoy what they are listening to so why care? I have Larsen 6.2 speakers that Amir would most likely pan, but I would still appreciate hearing his opinion. I’m also very distrustful of anyone who tells me that human sensory perception is the ultimate source of knowledge (opinion, perhaps) but that is a purely philosophical issue.