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
ricevs
1,543 posts
 

markwd

You are assuming that our current measurements can detect all distortions, noise and differences in sound. That is an assumption that has NEVER EVER been proven. So, your basis is basically a fantasy......a made up bunch of words. You might as well say the moon is made up of green cheese. There is no.....I mean no proof that measurements = all sonic differences.....NONE. You just want to believe in the tooth fairy. This is not science to hold a made up belief and assume everything follows your belief. You want to prove your "theory"? Then you need audio listening tests (serious ones).....plain and simple. I listen......therefore I KNOW. Do you listen or are you just making up stuff?

markwd
97 posts
 

@ricevs Actually, you are inverting the way science and logic works. We have theories like linear and non-linear distortions, as well as noise, are introduced into the transfer function of a system due to a range of thermodynamic and quantum interactions in stuff like semiconductors. The effects of these distortions and noise manifest as producing spectral spray, overtones, harmonics, etc. in the output signal. This spectrum can be measured with some accuracy using methods like Amir applies.

There is no evidence for the presence of other types of unmeasurable phenomena. We can never prove that there are no other distortions, noise, etc. We just have no evidence for them.

It is the positive task for a researcher who creates a theory that there are other measurable phenomena to prove that they exist.

I listen, but I doubt you know.

amir_asr
777 posts
 

I bet that at home in a more relaxed atmosphere more people could tell the difference.

MikeL’s speaker wire testing was done at his own home on his system costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Many people couldn’t tell the difference between coke and Pepsi in a blind test, but there is definitely a difference in taste.

More reason to believe that people’s senses are not remotely as good as they think they are. But read this other study.

"A similar study from 1983 (not currently on JSTOR, but you can read the abstract here) found that participants couldn’t tell when they were given Coca-Cola in a Pepsi bottle or vice versa. Interestingly, though, when surreptitiously given two cups of the same drink—one cup marked with the letter “L”, the other with the letter “S”—participants overwhelmingly preferred the latter. Why? In a different part of the study, participants indicated that they simply preferred the letter “S” (6.8/10 on a likeability scale) to the letter “L” (6/10), presumably because the former is more frequent, and people tend to like what they know. Whatever the explanation, this preference for “S” cola over an identical “L” cola is a particularly powerful demonstration—as if one were needed—that, in the cola wars, branding is everything."

So easy to fool human senses. Identical testing to above has been done in audio with same results. And many of us can report the same happening to us. That is, we think we have made a change to the system, perceive a difference, but then find out that the change was not made!

Until such time that you allow yourself to be tested at least once in this way, you will live in fog of mistaken conclusions.

amir_asr
777 posts
 

You are assuming that our current measurements can detect all distortions, noise and differences in sound. 

Nothing in life is measured 100%.  Yet we successfully live. If you are sick, your doctor runs some tests and then using his knowledge and experience, guess correctly most of the time what is wrong with you.  Do you challenge your doctor that he has not testing every part of your body in every which way?  You don't.  Same with audio.  We measure and then combine that with our knowledge of audio, engineering, science, etc. and arrive at a high confidence conclusion.

You don't like the conclusion?  Come back with a controlled test that proves you are hearing something that we say our analysis is wrong.  Since you don't have that, our conclusion stands.

Remember, we can't measure what doesn't exist.  You can't ask us to count the number of aliens landing in your backyard and when we say we can't, say, "look, your measurements are no good."  Prove to us first that with your ears alone, and with all other conditions equalized, your listening tests are valid.  Without it, you just want to be right, not be right.

amir_asr
777 posts
 

I listen......therefore I KNOW. 

You listen and look.  You haven't presented any results where only your ears were involved. So you don't know.

You also don't know that other factors impact fidelity such as levels not being the same.  And the fact that there is such a thing as "lucky guess."  All such tests need to be repeated until we are sure they are not by chance.

Again, when we subject you all to controlled testing, you fail to hear these things. As I showed with MikeL situation.  He was sure.  He talked about how his MIT cable expanded soundstage by some 50%.  Yet that large difference disappeared in testing where only his ear was involved. 

More to discover