The trouble is......that there is no proof that what is stated by the flat earthers is true. There are NO super double blind tests that prove all wires sound the same and that all DACs sound the same and that all amps sound the same (given a certain SINAD or not). Until you prove your point with tests then it remains for us to listen and know for ourself what is real. The "measurement alone method" (without listening tests) is completely scientifically unproven. Just made up words. When you listen.....you know.....now get out there and listen and tell us what you hear. Mommy says, do it now!
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.
- ...
- 1166 posts total
Surely you can understand that the onus to prove a given set of cables improves the SQ rests on the person making that claim. Those that don't believe that cables make a difference have done blind ABX tests to come to that determination. Just in this thread alone there's a link to the test and results from a person who believed that he could 100% tell the difference between his Opus cables and Monster. After a blind test he's rethinking that confidence. But most cable believers, like you just stated, are unwilling to test their hearing by listening blind. |
No one needs to prove something sounds better or different. Only the person who is testing it in their own system knows whether or not it sounds better or different. Obviously, all cable manufacturers say theirs is the best. But they all sound different......so it is up to you to know which is the most transparent or desireable to you. I do not need to prove what I hear. The earth flatters need to prove that I don’t hear what I hear.......and they cannot because what you hear is truth. Certainly you can quote someone who was fooled. However, that does not make a case that everyone is fooled every time they hear a difference. Please get out and listen and you will know the truth......this is not Tom Foolery......this is about trusting your own experience. This is not about theory and measurements......this is about WHAT YOU HEAR.......What the heck to you hear? Tell us what you hear........or do you just want to defend your "position". It sounds better when all cables are off the floor. Can you HEAR that? It is not about a belief. It is a direct experience. Now, if you are so addicted to your "pre judged opinion" that you cannot listen objectively......then your results will be biased. Can you listen with an open mind and an open heart.....and just hear what you hear? This is the basic fundamental question this thread asks. Can you trust your experience?.......Can you listen without prejudice? Are there really many, many levels of transparency or is it all defined by a meter? To find out....you must listen with an open mind. |
Well, the issue is....some of you guys are such "intense purists" in constant pursuit of "intense purity".... "avoid dsp like the plague" type of guys. And yet, all these spatial qualities, surround virtualization type of effects are being delivered to you on your "purist dac" to some degree, as you go up in price...and it just dazzled ya! Yes, yes, just keep hallucinating that it is all because of the purity (the "power supply" kept getting better and better as you went up in price!!, whoop di doo). No worries, you’ll receive your pure dac and continue to retain your sanity. Enjoy the spatial effects, huuugge deeep soundstage with all kinds of layering n and all. Just don’t worry about "how" it happened (All the purists could lose their "purity" sleep if they found out how). We don't want a "FPGA gate" like the "MOFI gate" (i.e., the purest of pure analog pursuit and betrayal), do we now.....
|
- 1166 posts total