2. speakers
  3. 189477-20253

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
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,284 posts
 

@coralkong

"use my brain/ears to judge how a product sounds to me.."

That’s your ’personal’ opinion. You can use your brain to conclude 1+1=3. But we don’t use your brain but use the measurements data/results to develop/analyze circuits/products. What we electrical engineers do at work modeling/simulation/measurements.

Sorry but acoustics is a science as electrical engineering is, And electrical engineering receive order from psychoacoustics and acoustics discovereies not the reverse : acoustics experience quality is not determined by few electrical sets of measures but by acoustics physical parameters and psychoacoustics parameters...

In my experience and experiment about good sound my ears experience and acoustics experiments to create what is "timbre" and "dynamics" and the spatial qualities of sound in my speakers/room matter more than a % of measured distortion to the xth decimals ...

i dont need ABX Double blind test circus either . Single blind tests as working tool is enough to tune a speakers/room to my liking...

Then claiming that using our ears/brain is not "science" is one thing but claiming that we must replace all along our ears/brain by some limited set of electrical measures is "ideology" or techno cultism ...

Then you do simulation rooted in human hearing universal abilities as measured in acoustics and this acoustics parameters gave electrical designer some frame to work with ...

This does not means that human hearing of the consumers cannot be used in acoustics and in gear design choice... Synergy between pieces is also related to the room and ears of the owner not only to electrical specs of each separate piece of design ...

Then accusing audiophile using their ears to be deceived is as preposterous as someone claiming that electrical set of specs measures had no value...

Objectivist tool ideology and subjectivist tastes gear obsession are marketing ideologies not acoustics science ...

 

In a word i dont want to buy what and only what ASR measuring Amir recommend and claim that all other recommendation based on subjective takes had zero value ...

Synergy exist, room exist, my ears/brain exist....

If i had done so as seems to recommend some ASR zealot i will be a credulous believer...

I believe only in my acoustics experiments and basic concepts with the relatively synergetical gear i choose because i can play with them and change my acoustics parameters .... Sorry ... 😎

By the way thanks to Amir who tried the Fosi SK1 preamplifier and headphone amplifier with his own ears and with his headphone too not only with electrical measures set and without double blind ABX test and liked it, i bought one and it is for the price a very good purchase, he was exactly right ! ... 😉

audition__audio
1,629 posts
 

Only an improperly functioning brain concludes that 1 + 1 = 3. Convincing yourself of this would be psychotic. 

So all posts extoling the virtues of cables, conditioning and the like come from trolls? And you conclude this because these are all components that make no or little difference.  This makes no sense, but then begins to make sense when you mention what you do for a living. Never ceases to amaze me that engineers think they have some extra level of credibility by virtue of their education and choice of career. Actually you have less credibility because you are often victims of your education and your desire to quantify everything. Unanswerable questions scare the stuffing out of people who typically do what you guys do. 

Check out the different types of distortion that are created by solid state and tube amplifiers. Also check out at what levels of these distortions the brain begins to react negatively. Not all distortion is the same nor are these distortions processed by the human brain in the same fashion as they are detected by measurements. Lower distortion is always better but not when a higher distorting piece gets others things right.  No more likely that we talk ourselves into liking a product that measures poorly or is "colored" than you guys convince yourselves into preferring a product that measures well. Once again the only meaningful tests are ones that result from listening and thoughtful comparison. 

I have listened over the last 40 years to all types of speakers, amps, preamps and cables and then drawn my conclusions. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt you have ever compared cables, amps of different architectures, etc over decades. If you havent it is probably because you know there will be no difference and certainly not enough difference to justify spending large amount of money on such accessories/snake oil. If you dont listen and compare your position is untenable.

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,284 posts
 

If you dont listen and compare your position is untenable.

Absolutely right!

We all listen and compare in specific acoustics environment ...

For ASR zealot 1+1= 0

Electrical specs measures +acoustics environment and psychoacoustics parameters cancel each other.

Or acoustics and psychoacoustics individual experience taken alone = -1 as a deceitful experience , if we speak about sound quality...

All there is to say is in the gear design as measured by ASR...

These specific acoustics parameters of the environment of our speakers/room are ONLY deceitful and reliable ONLY after ABX double blind test of each separate piece of gear ...😊

Comical!

 

 

 

 

 

 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,284 posts
 

4 years ago, i discussed here with an engineer in a respectful but very hot way for a week . He argued that the "timbre" experience acoustic variation using different acoustics conditions was only an added color or distortion, a deceitful experience of our ears/brain added  to the Fourier map of the sound.

( the fact that our ears/brain can directly perceive something true about the vibrating sound source physical invariant dont struck him as true)

It seems he had no idea what "timbre" is in acoustics save a trouble maker for scientific gear design 😊 ...

At the end after one week of discussion , in desesperation he send me in private his curriculum, a very impressive one, as argument ..

I felt at the same time humbled but proud ...

If an ignorant as i am could learn something anybody can ...😁

 

 

 

nonoise's avatar
nonoise
11,094 posts
 

The word is not the thing.
The symbol is not the thing symbolized.
The map is not the territory.
The flag is not the nation.
The measurement is not the sound.
Gee, what do they all have in common? 
(hint) They are all approximations of sorts, a shorthand for reference, analogous at best and most definitely not the final or best say. To say they are is hubris from someone who wants to sell you a bridge.

All the best,
Nonoise

 

More to discover