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.
He is not banned from ASR. A number of others have started to measure equipment and they do so on ASR. And I routinely promote their content as long as it is not for monetization. When Tekton threatened to sue Erin, it was me who came to his rescue, offering $10,000 personally and getting him lawyers. The latter helped him get out from under Eric at Tekton. |
Amir you completely distorted what i said and Van Maanen said... i was not thinking about measurements... Van Maanen and all the other articles you dare to forgot i used here (5) are about the context of listening psychoacoustics measurement not about specific gear measurements ... I spoke of the reason why in psychacoustics concerning what we hear and the information we retrieve in any sound phenomenon your measures of the gear so good they can be and i never contest this point, as others here did, so good they could be cannot be used to predict the quality of sound aqnd it is YOUR MARKETING CLAIM ... Your answer draw the fish beside the side attacking psychacousticals question you dont ADRESS here in all 5 or 6 articles by different scientists all ;pointing in the same direction about hearing : an ecological theory of hearing..With psychoacoustics measurements in each one... You distorted what Van Maanen said and only adressed him as you adress an amateur reviewer with no measures when he spoke psychoacoustics science consequence for design and hearing music... not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ? All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation. It is easier for you to not answer anything but distort and drown the psychoacoustics fishs.. And most people here do not understand anyway, not one comment ... Three of the articles i cited in psychoacoustics are research of the last year and one from few years ago by an acoustician , which book i own, demonstrated right by 2 new research of this year, i cited above but you never adressed you did not adressed nothing save distorting Van Maanen suggesting that he is an "amateur"... Anybody can verify he is not, you are an amateur in acoustics physics and psychoacoustics..
|
you came back answering me without sarcasm this time or insults as one year ago with laoman and few others... These small gang harasseed me this year with no post content in many threads.. They go and come back... it is true i answered their harassment instead of staying mute... I apologize when i am wrong...i did not apologize to them... They never apologize for their sarcasms.. Why did i adressed you here and during a year now if not politely and i even congratulate you nonoise? Who put a non sensical sarcasm here adressing me like one year ago about a rational discussion here suggesting two chikens cacklings : Amir and me ? i spoke of "hate" when people are unable to apologize, unable to forgot past discussions, and go on gangstalking one and going back again and again... Then i am not patient because i answer about what you forgot easily : harassments, sarcasms, no arguments save AD HOMINEM attack by 3 or 4 people you know well ... Enjoy ...
|
People should get their facts straight before posting. Speaking as a professional engineer now for almost a good 40 years, like him or not, right or wrong, Amir is clearly an experienced engineer and that is what he is selling. Engineering is based on math and science. That’s how our hifi gear gets produced and no two pieces are exactly the same in that regard. So I think it is often a challenge for many to understand how engineers must think and operate in order to be successful. Some engineers can lose that mold and adapt to being able to communicate better with others who do not have that background. Others not so much. Communication is a key ingredient in pretty much everything...including engineering. It’s perhaps the main ingredient in successful marketing including of one’s engineering accomplishments. People need to speak a common language to communicate effectively. That’s hard and something we all probably need to work on, including many engineers like myself and others I work with. The best engineers seldom make for the best marketing reps. Two different mindsets and ways of communicating in order to be successful. Even the best engineers make mistakes and will work to correct them. The very best engineers I’ve worked with know what they do not know as well as what they do and operate accordingly.
|
