no. with all due respect.
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
@markwd - I believe you missed the meaning of my comments - 1.i wasn’t referring to Amir’s measurements of speakers, which isn’t even done thoroughly and in context, if you will refer to the original post of this thread. 2.second, your appeal to low level audio frequency’s ‘fairly consistent’ behaviour in relation to ‘simple’ electrical law-like patterns is a far cry from any sort of bedrock on which to determine all of what isn’t known about the effect of magnetic flux on the audio signal - you’re using the tenets of the half science to justify the half science itself. You really haven’t understood my post. It is terribly funny you start with words like quantum mechanics and intuition to end with ‘fairly consistent’ and ‘simple electrical law-like patterns’ in justifying your knowledge of electromagnetism. 3.Finally, your third point throws out nomenclature precisely like a textbook that pretends to resolve all issues of your credibility, quite similar to how Amir attempts to resolve all doubt over his credibility with measurements, when you don’t realise science is not and has never been either about empiricism or rationalism - it has been about both - precisely what most intelligent audiophiles here argue for a balance of. You argue for an Amir-styled rationalism that thwarts the best of science itself. It’s not only half baked, it’s reductionist. Reductionist rationalism is what Amir stands for and indoctrinates with. It is truly even less than a half-science. In any case, I will not continue debate with you - I see you’ve been too indoctrinated to reach, and my earlier post was in hope you might be able to open your mind to the other half of science, being empiricism. This not being the case, I post for others who may read with comprehension but not participate. I wish you well in your journey.
In friendship - kevin |
@kevn , might be better to put this markwd entity on ignore. Looking at post history, it appears to be a recently awakened sleeper cell account. It could be Majidimehr himself on a hidey account (Engage Clone Mode: Thread narrative support)..or just a very feral loyal ASR Habibi. |
@kevn Well, I try to be charitable in my critiques but there is a reaching quality to much of the posting here (combined with hostility, often). In this case it is an "appeal to possibility" and the standard worry over closed-mindedness. I salute your interest in the idea that science is incomplete and there is much more to know, but ask what specific critique you have about what is currently known and applied in the case of ASR testing and how a better understanding of electromagnetism might improve upon that? |
- 1166 posts total