A fool with a multimeter can apparently measure and test anything.
It's a shame I can hear the difference in gear and cables. I could have saved a lot of money.
ASR is a joke.
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
No but the difference we hear is because of some bias. Expectation, sighted, placebo, you choose. So many biases to confuse us poor fools. But what can you expect from listeners who werent trained by Harman? The same Harman who sells numerous lines, 2 of which Amir owns (very pricey) and may actually sell on a retail basis. He doesnt seem to want to answer this question. Be nice to know if Amir actually paid for this gear and if so how much. All of my equipment that I own or represent was purchased at industry accommodation or dealer cost.
|
@amir_asr"When I asked him how long I can have it, he said whatever I need since he had bought a Topping DAC for a fraction of the price and it sounded every bit as good to him!" Did it last more than a week or did he then have to buy another one? Because as you know their quality control is sterling.
|
I don't know what "make money" means. I have invested $200,000+ in test equipment and heaven knows how many thousands of hours of my own time. Members make donations but it is not remotely enough to offset the cost of the equipment let alone all the other expenses.
If that is the definition of "genius," then I am the sharpest tool in the shed. 😁 Members do indeed donation significant amount of money to ASR.
Not at all. Hate that business on top of that.
There is no relationship whatsoever between Harman and ASR (or any other company as a matter of fact). Despite my friendships with a number of people there, they won't even send me a screw to review! I have bought some of the Harman products out of my pocket and the rest have come from members. I have founded another company called Madrona Digital. That company's business is completely outside of hi-fi and involves custom electronics for very high-end residential and commercial accounts with zero interest in topics we discuss at ASR. Every year about a handful of people ask me to order products through Madrona for them. No attempt is made to solicit any such business on ASR as it is an independent entity. No ads for Madrona. No items offered for sale. Nothing. When someone wants something I can source, product is ordered from Harman and goes to them directly as we don't inventory anything. And again, Madrona's business is completely different.
So you bought products from a designer you don't like? How was he able to produce what you wanted to listen to then?
What "chips?" His amplifier is a discrete design using GaN FET transistors. Do you have any knowledge of electronics? Statements like that make me think you do not.
Oh, you were a dealer and are questioning my motivations? Don't you think you should put a disclaimer of being a salesman in every post you make that relates to this? We mandated this on ASR by the way. Dealers have Dealer tags. Industry members have Audio Company tags. Both are highly encouraged to put their affiliation in their signature so that people are fully aware of any potential areas of bias or commercial interest. Had I known you were a dealer, I would have called you on that way, way earlier in the thread.
Sure. See my show reports:
|
I already have. I will post again in an attempt to see if you will read it this time. Sean. E Olive, "Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study," J. AES, Vol. 51, issue 9, pp. 806-825, September 2003 "J. AES" means Journal of Audio Engineering Society which means all papers are peer reviewed prior to publication. Audio salespeople like you were tested in their ability to consistently rank speakers in controlled, blind tests. They massively failed to do so relative to trained listeners:
From the abstract: "Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over the course of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The groups included 256 untrained listeners whose occupations fell into one of four categories: audio retailer, marketing and sales, professional audio reviewer, and college student. The loudspeaker preferences and performance of these listeners were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic FL, were As noted above, dealers were 3 times less accurate than trained listeners. I have participated with a group of dealers at Harman and watched them first hand fall apart in double blind tests where Sean Olive and I could go way past were they could not. And these dealers are above average by having gone through extensive training at Harman (but not for specific purpose of evaluating speakers). You likely would fall at or below Audio Reviewers who were 5 times worse than trained listeners. If you can't tell the difference reliably between speakers were there is objectively large differences, what hope is there for you tell any difference in electronics? None. If you disagree, please show controlled listening tests that demonstrate your ability to properly evaluate audio fidelity. Outside of that, you are grading your own exam and we know how much such scores mean. |
- 1166 posts total