my own experience with Tekton Design

@deep_333: Yes, all else being equal, lower moving mass in a driver is a positive attribute, which is why I suggested an electrostatic. Or a planar-magnetic, for that matter. I own both.

The point I was trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) is that the weight of a, say, string on a musical instrument is not necessarily related to the sound it makes. A 440Hz tone may be made by a very light musical instrument, or a very heavy one. Reproducing a 440Hz tone is just that, regardless of the weight of the object producing that 440Hz tone. Relating a 1/3 gram violin string to a driver whose moving mass is also 1/3 gram is a gross over-simplification.

The moving mass of a driver is not the only factor that influences the "speed" of the driver. There is also motor (magnet) strength, and it is the mass-to-motor strength relationship that determines the speed of a driver. A high mass cone driven by a huge motor can be faster than a lighter mass cone driven by a smaller motor.

Where’s Richard Vandersteen when you need him? 😉

I have to admit my first exposure to Eric Alexander did not make for a positive impression. It was a video in which he explained the development of his patented tweeter array. He said he heard a 440Hz note played by a violin, and then measured the weight of the string the note was played on, which was 1/3 gram. He figured if he used a driver (or drivers) whose moving mass was no more than 1/3 gram to reproduce the sound of the violin, the reproduction would ipso facto surpass that possible from a driver(s) whose moving mass outweighed the violin string.

That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. First of all, if it’s a low mass driver you want, get an electrostatic. Then there is the fact that the weight of a violin string has NOTHING to do with how one goes about reproducing the sound it makes. It’s also inconsistent: Being a drummer himself, Eric surely knows that cymbals weight far more than 1/3 gram, yet produce very high frequency overtones.

Eric then said something which calls into question his technical knowledge: He stated that the first harmonic overtone of a 440Hz note is located at 880Hz, which is of course correct: 440 x 2. But he went on to say that the second harmonic is located at 1760Hz, which is incorrect. The correct number is 1320Hz: 440 x 3. Harmonic overtones are multiples of the fundamental note/frequency. Eric thinks the second harmonic is the first harmonic doubled. It ain’t!

Still, I would very much like to hear the Tekton line of loudspeakers. I’m a dipole planar man, but I’m open-minded.