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

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/images/docs/AmplifierIssues.pdf

 

Why do amplifiers sound different?

By Hans Van Maanen

 

«Power amplifiers are an essential part in the sound reproduction chain. And although semiconductor amplifiers have been around for over 60 years, there is still a lot of development going on. Nowadays, the distortion figures of high-end power amplifiers are very impressive (e.g. < 0.001% harmonic distortion) and easily outshine those of microphones and loudspeakers. Yet, when it comes to listening, differences are noticed between amplifiers and their distortions can be heard in spite of the use of loudspeakers with much higher distortion figures. In this note I will discuss some aspects which play a role in this –at first sight incomprehensible- phenomenon, albeit that I will address a part of the puzzle, not all noticeable differences can be explained by the points I will bring up, partly
because I don’t know everything there is to know and partly because not all causes have yet been identified, I think. So please see this as a contribution to the discussion, not as the final word on it.

Therefore, I welcome contributions of others as “two know more than one”, as an age-old Dutch expression says.
One of the basic problems is that we try to “catch” distortion in a single number. But
one could pose the question whether this is feasible.
To take a simple example: would the audible effect of say 1% harmonic distortion of only the second harmonic be just as noticeable or annoying as 0.1% of harmonic distortion of each of the second to the eleventh harmonic? Or be equivalent to 1% harmonic distortion of the tenth harmonic only? I don’t know the answer (because I never tried such a comparison as it is rather hard to do) but there is another example: valve (tube) amplifiers are often highly rated for their musical quality,
even though their distortion figures are horrible, compared to those of semiconductor amplifiers. Could there be a similarity between loudspeaker properties and valve amplifiers, distortion wise? Well, there is: both produce mostly lower harmonics (up to the fifth) with virtually no harmonics above that as is illustrated in fig. 1. Semiconductor amplifiers, however, tend to generate harmonics up to very high numbers as can be seen in fig. 2. In literature, there is agreement that our hearing tends to mask frequencies close(r) to the
exciting tone than those further away. Or, in other words, the lower harmonics are easily masked by the exciting tone whereas the high harmonics are not, as is shown in fig. 3. On top
of that most mechanical musical instruments generate only harmonics up to the fifth of the basic frequency, so distortion products introduce only a small change in the ratio of the harmonics, usually less than is caused by the linear distortion of loudspeakers. So the disSo it is not
really surprising that components which generate only lower harmonics are not so much experienced as annoying than components which generate more higher harmonics, even at a lower level.
So the distortion figure of an amplifier is in itself of little use. A spectral specification would be more useful, but is rarely given.

...............................................

for the rest of the article go to the adress above

 
 

 

 

@mahgister Hey magister! 

You, if anyone, are not polite. You explode with anger all the time and when confronted with your behavior, you apologize. You've done that many, many times. 

As for infestation of threads, that seems to be your forte. You've done it for years. Practically everything you've said in this thread, you've brought up before to the point of boring the heck out of members. You go off on your tangents demanding that others must respond and when one or two do respond, you claim vindication and insult other members when they complain of your tactic of highjacking a thread. 

You post multiple times in a row but no one answers and it spoils the thread and intention of those who want to  participate. Like others have already said, they (we) just pass over what you write hoping you lose interest (at least I do).

If you're of the mind, why don't you go over to ASR and start posting there and let us know how that goes.

By the way, if you really think members here are "gangstalking" you, reflect for a moment as to why and you'll discover it is because of you and your manner.

All the best,
Nonoise

@mahgister , You could move over to ASR, but i highly doubt they would be as open minded or patient with you. It might end quite rough for you there.

Do the following exercise. Scan your own posts spanning the past 6 months and examine the sheer magnitude/number of times you've repeated the same lines (over and over) in every thread attempting to discuss different topics. Does that seem "normal" to you, clinically speaking? Imagine for a moment that it was someone else doing it (because your defense for yourself would be coming in pronto). Would you consider that "normal"? 

I would suggest that you visit with a healthcare professional, especially one who specializes in mental health and maybe say something along the lines of, "Hey doc, i think my mind gets caught in repeat loops all day". Thereafter, he could further examine you and provide a diagnosis/treatment. There are various conditions that respond well to certain types of medication. Good luck.

 

Insulting people posting content , articles and rational arguments, will not do...

I dont like that anywhere...

But instead of criticizing my arguments with the many articles i posted you attack me...

pathetic!

 

by the way i posted in classical music thread and in jazz thread and in thread about acoustics and music very different content ...

By contrast you send few posts suggesting i am "nut"...

Find a post of me where i attack someone which had never harass me as you just did for the second time ?

I am interested by music and acoustic and i intent to spoke about that here ...

In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...

*I wait ...

 

As a test of your understanding if my posts are only simple loop from a nut brain, explain to me what means for you dude "an ecological theory of hearing perception "...

if what i spoke is only non sense i think it will take you few second to point toward his meaninglessness?

Go i wait instead of writing two insulting paragraph...

i will see if you understand or if you are here to throw insults...

Perhaps you read too much time the word "acoustics" in my post and your brain concluded that it was a loop ?

Answer rationally now, why an ecological theory of hearing matter for audio ? or did not matter...

And explain to us why Amir is not in a loop predicting sound qualities from his narrow set of measures...

Answer instead of insults or stay mute as the perfect brain you claim you  are with no noise inside ....😊

After all this set of insults prove to us that you are able to think by yourself...

 

 

 

 

 

In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...

You have 125 posts on  this thread alone, most within the last month. In the last year you've referenced Van Maanen 64x. This is the very definition of a loop. 

@mahgister I've read most of this literature, including the new (for me) Kunchur paper (his previous paper on cables is neither relevant nor well-designed). I'm not certain, however, as to how to parse your long digressions on these topics.

For instance, if we can measure noise and distortion in audio equipment, it is valuable to reduce or eliminate it in the reproduction chain regardless of whether there are potentially complex heterodyning/non-linear ultrasonic interactions or whether hearing capabilities can be shown to have greater sensitivity than assessable via Fourier analysis.

If there is an additional claim that perhaps cables and other tweaks that are measurably irrelevant to the signal reproduction can actually be heard, it is still in the best interest of general epistemic humility to remain skeptical until such measurements/ABX hearing results (with the LTM/STM refractory suggestions in Kunchur maybe) can be found.

So, in the meantime, we just get great measurements from ASR and can merely speculate that something might be missing, not that it demonstrably is missing.