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

You "every DAC sounds the same" guys should watch this video (from the beginning......don’t go to the conclusion first). This is an A/B with a $2700 and a $6000 DAC. He does not tell you which DAC is which until the conclusion. If you cannot hear the difference between the DACs in the first few seconds of the first change.....then you are either deaf or really, really stubborn. Recorded using Schoeps mics and 32 bit recorder. This guy has lots of videos done this way......very easy to hear the difference between DACs and amps. and I am listening through $29 Altec computer speakers. Both of these DACs are way, way more transparent than a Topping DAC.....Do they measure as good?.....probably not.

 

 

Well, it appears that more ASR minions have landed (Sinad Measurement guy must have called for help, called in the reinforcements to flood this site).

Well, as you boys can see (over and over), this guy measures a dac and throws you some sinad numbers, which forms the basis for his ranking system/purchase guide. He will tell you that’s all there is to it....some low IQ sinad (his path to glory).

But, there’s a lot more you could do with FPGA, etc. When you all dump 10k, 20k, etc on your dacs, there are a lot of tricks contained within such a dac. You can deploy algorithms to pull a bunch of spatial info, deploy hrtf filters, create some level of surround virtualization, etc.

When you hear some dacs, all of a sudden, you heard some depth and layering n all? almost sounds like spatial audio, surround effects at times, eh? That’s right, many of these effects can be attributed to what’s hidden away inside fpga, etc. The dac manufacturer isn’t gonna reveal all his in-house secrets to you, but, you can be rest assured that the above mentioned (or similar) is what’s being deployed.

To reiterate, this guy’s IQ is just not high enough to measure anything on the above mentioned for ya (he wouldn’t know about it)...Sinad is all there is w.r.t ASR minions. Hence, if you just look at his low IQ sinad charts and made your purchase decision, you could get fooled.

Good luck to y’all Audigons.

 

P.S. I can train a 12 yr old to operate my AP kit spit out the same charts. Don't get fooled because you saw a fancy lookin chart that isn't something you see everyday (in your regular line of work).

If you properly deal with the things where the data matters first the wires will all work themselves out relatively easily. If you don’t then you are guessing but it still may all work out eventually.

Well informed choices are always best.

At one end, you can pay for good quality affordable wires on Amazon that will get the job done perfectly fine (Mogami for a slight premium is always a solid choice) or take it as far as your imagination and budget might lead you. But if you tell me the wires are responsible for your good sound, my response will be "whatever you say...have fun!".

Disclaimer: I know for a fact that all wires do not sound the same. I also know that wires are not rocket science.....its not hard to produce an affordable wire that does the job well although it will cost more most likely if not made in CHina or similar.

@ricevs Of course it may be possible to hear differences between DACs. If one is poorly engineered and introduces significant noise and distortion while the other is state-of-the-art (SOTA) in terms of SINAD, then SQ may be distinct. Such differences will also be apparent when the two DACs are measured. You may be confusing this with the argument that two SOTA DACs without other specific flaws are not likely to have audible differences.

There is no "one thing" that makes the sound.  It is everything.  Certainly measurements can be counted as one of the infinite things that MAKE the sound.  However, every single part inside a component (and the wires connecting it, and the line conditioning and power cords and the feet used underneath and shelving, etc) all MAKE the sound.  Every single part inside a DAC or whatever contributes to the sound.  I have been doing listening tests since the 70s and this has ALL WAYS been the case.  Measurements alone are laughable.  Audio is not simple.  It is infinite in how things change the sound and most of the things that change sound CANNOT be measured......plain and simple.  All you have to do is listen.....to know what I just said is correct.  Have you every A/Bed resistors and hook up wires and solder brands and capacitors and types of damping material and jacks, etc.??????No, you have not.  I have.  So, you have no information as to whether I am correct or not.  However, there are thousands of posts all over the internet backing up what I just claimed.  The claims that all parts, wires, DACs, preamps and amps sound the same is made by people who NEVER, EVER listen.  For if they listened their poor ego would explode.  Bottom line to all this thread.....if you listen....you KNOW....if you do not listen.....you DO NOT KNOW.  How can you KNOW what something sounds like without listening......even a 5 year old can understand this logic.  It is nonsense to think otherwise.