Ah, correction; "At that time I stated..."
|
Ozzy, yes, it acts as midrange. Thank you for clarification.
|
Mapman, look at my system. I use big towers habitually. I love violating the rule of big speakers only for big rooms, arrays as well. Seating position changes relatively not so much.. YMMV
LOL spellchecker had you as "madman"
|
Nice to hear from you, jjayctoy. I appreciate your input. It's all good. :)
|
Looking at the first paragraph, I can see why it might be construed as a review. I prefer that it be considered impressions rather than review, because of the lack of immediacy and direct comparison. If I have given the impression that I consider it a review on a par with my other work, I wish to clarify that. I get it when people call these things informal reviews. No problem.
|
I'm shooting for best thread of all time! ;)
|
+1 hilde45 Thanks!
I need to get away from this machine and workout! :)
|
tsushima1, is that a personal picture, that is, did you see those speakers or pull the image from the Net? Either way, it’s a terrific shot! People gawking, the presumed owner beaming with delight shows the evident insanity of the hard core audiophile! My type of guy! :)
The image is small; is that a man’s head behind the uppermost array’s far left side? Now THAT’S a speaker, one you have to CLIMB to adjust!
This reminds me of some of the wonderfully earthy stereos I have seen when traversing the globe. India, China, Vietnam, Africa, Italy, Peru, Ecuador, etc. - I have seen and heard some systems that seem as much contraptions as stereos, but oh do the people love them! I have taken pics of several of them, too. Every now and then I encounter an image and a huge smile comes to my face. Street stereos are not uncommon in many parts of the world.
One of my most precious audio "components" does not even make music. It is a paper facsimile of a boom box that I redeemed with a bit of money from a fate worse than the consignment shop, a religious ceremony meant to send the device to ancestors in the next world who would presumably enjoy it. Callow man that I am, I deprived them of their music!
Come now, I’m not that shallow. It’s not like I took it off a family. It was an example our tour guide brought onto the bus. When we learned of the ritual of burning paper goods to send them on, we had our curiosity satisfied with examples the tour host brought, including a paper dress shirt in packaging with a paper foil gold watch, and some money from the "Bank of Hell". That, too, I found irresistible!
This is the best part, the boom box is Panasonia (not a typo) brand! Clever!
|
Remember Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story?
This is the rest of the story.
My goal here is neither endorsement, nor opposition to the Tekton technology and models I have heard. How about a bit of backstory for your edification?
After hearing the bookshelf at AXPONA and being less than impressed, I was going to write off the company. However, reviewing has taught me to not dismissively judge products. Knowing the novelty of the array, I contacted Tekton about 15 months ago and had a lovely conversation with Eric Alexander, the owner. I contacted in order to arrange for a review of the Encore, a less reviewed model. I had no interest in the bookshelf and small models. Why should I spend my time on such when I can do top line products? That is why I had not much motivation to hear the smaller models. I would not buy any speaker in the past several years of reviewing apart from a home audition.
That was 15 months ago. In the initial weeks that followed the speaker was being prepared. The idea was to review a new design, one with the soft dome tweeter replaced by a ribbon. a new spin, a different flavor. It seemed the delivery would happen in a shorter, not longer time period.
I liked that, because I want to be first, not the sixth reviewer. There would be a delay due to the heavy build schedule. No problem, I have waited several months previously for a manufacturer to catch up. I have been reviewing long enough to know the patterns of relation to manufacturers.
I presume due to the insane build schedule, Tekton's communication dropped off. I presume that business was bustling and little time to pursue the review. I have had this happen previously, and I take no offense at it. Companies can get so busy that they would not wish for another review; they are running at top speed and do not want to push customers further out from their timeline. As a fledgeling reviewer I had to swallow my pride to understand that, but as a veteran I hardly concern myself with such timelines anymore. In my experience most companies will not come out openly and simply tell the reviewer that they do not need another review. The reviewer has to figure it out.
But, theoretically a review should eventually happen. When a company is not getting me the speaker more than a year later, in nearly all cases it is a sign that the review is not much desired due to the above conditions. My perspective is that I awish to be first into the unexplored forrest, not the fifth or eighth. I like bringing a product to the community's attention, not watching five other guys do so. I tend to lose interest when I am at the back of the line. Can I do my own research and arrive at my own conclusions? Of course; I don't even read other reviewers. I get through Absolute Sound and Stereophile in about half an hour. In 95% of the cases for the past few years I don't read the articles, I just glance at potential new products. I could care less what other reviewers think. I may have gone back once in 5 years to read a review. If I want to know a product, I will arrange for it and conduct my own interview with the maker.
I am neutral about the company and product. It's great that so many are finding joy in using it and at a reasonable price. It's actually been quite nice to avoid the rancor about the company and speakers. It tends to be polarizing, like Magnepan and Vandersteen. Woe be to anyone who does not worship at the feet of the designer and nit picks at the sound! I don't have much patience for that. To have quietly recused myself was rather nice! Now that I have no personal motivation and have shared some thoughts, I plan to contentedly bow out of the arena.
I have been largely silent since that time in regard to Tekton. That is because of the pending review and imo the obligation to not muddy the waters with my opinion, nor be in conflict of interest. But, I have cancelled the review. Consider my impressions here (I won't call it a review, as it's pitifully short compared to my normal work and not very in-depth, nor done with a direct comparison in my room) as my contribution to the cause. Take it with however large a grain of salt you wish; just watch that you don't choke on it! ;)
Let no one think that have a grievance or issue with Eric or the company. I am not upset or in distress over any of these developments. My conversation with Eric over a year ago was positive, and I have no reason to think things have changed in regard to his/the company's attitude toward me. I have had only brief contact verbally with the receptionist in the past six months. I was going to cancel the review a few months ago, but she told me they were buried in builds, so I held off. But, it has been another few months and no contact. I do not wish to put thoughts/words into the company's mouth, nor to arouse suspicion. How a company treats a reviewer (i.e. in regard to timely communication and delivery of product) may be somewhat different than how it treats the customers, and I have seen many different variations of that throughout the 14 years. I see it as simply a swing and a miss between a company and reviewer, which has happened to me several times with a variety of companies from small to big concerns. I do not have disdain towards Tekton for being slow in fulfilling the verbal agreement. I do not see it as evidence of a problem at the company. I do not give detractors permission to use my experience as fodder to lambaste the company!
In an effort to be helpful to the company, I in my email rescinding the review I suggested that another Dagogo.com reviewer could take the review. My intent is not to leave them without an article if that is so desired. Perhaps I am excising the most dramatic product I would ever lay hands on. Hmmm... doubtful. I continuously look at, and look past dozens of products. Winners? Losers? Diamonds in the rough? Duds? They're all out there. Which is the Encore? I never got to hear it, so I defer that question to a colleague.
As the Tekton review faded, another novel speaker has come to take its place. Sometimes reviews are a game of musical chairs (pun), with no way of knowing which will be left standing and which will end up in my listening room.
I have not shared in this thread a couple of analytical thoughts in regard to the Tekton array technology. I probably would have discussed them had it been a proper review. I may share them someday, but that is my prerogative.
|
danager, I know you are not arguing with me. I appreciate your call for clarification. I have not looked at measurements to correlate what I am hearing with the specs and measurements. If I were to do so, then I might be able to discuss it from a measured performance perspective. I have shared listening impressions, which is fundamentally different than a review with measurements. I do not typically include measurements in reviews, and all are free to accept or reject my work based on that. :)
The simplest way to understand what I have described is to hear in short order a good traditional dynamic speaker in a comparable system, or ideally the same system in the same room, in comparison to the Moab, or other Tekton speaker. This is the ideal way to intuitively grasp such descriptions and accept or reject them. I do not expect anyone who has not had that experience to have the means to make such a determination. Any given speaker in isolation can sound either perfectly coherent or muddy to any given listener. Lack of comparison between differing technologies is not instructive as to where the speakers reside on the performance spectrum of any given parameter of sound quality. :)
In other words, you would have to hear it to understand, which is why I will answer, but will not argue/debate you about it. BTW, the "convolution" characteristic is part of all arrays, not just Tekton. There is a degree of that with the Legacy Audio Whisper speaker, too, as it has four mid-bass drivers. The effect of the four point wave launch is immediately discerned as one moves from it to another genre of speaker. There are pros and cons to all these idiosyncrasies of speakers, for all genres. :)
|
phcollie, you would likely be best served to gain a more thorough discussion of the idiosyncrasies of dipole speakers by reading some of my reviews:
King Sound King
King Sound King III
Sound Lab Ultimate 545 (at time of review aka U4iA
Magnepan .7
All found at Dagogo.com
I typically prefer electrostatic speakers to magnetic planar speakers. In comparison to all but the largest dynamic and hybrid dynamic speakers panel speakers are worse in terms of image density, center image focus, macrodynamics, and frequency extension. They are favored for their sense of larger scale, enlargement of performer's voices and instruments, enlarged center image, and arguably coherency across the frequency spectrum. I do not find them superior holistically, though claimed by many, in terms of resolution, definition depth of soundstage and micro dynamics.
Imo, they are nice, but certainly not the last word in every parameter of performance. One reason the Tekton array finds so much acceptance is that for a bargain one gets the scale and larger voice and instrumentation of a panel, but with macrodynamics of a dynamic speaker. It's an unusual combination and while subject to shortcomings, is the right combo for a certain number of listeners.
Imo, those who are arguing about driver quality divorced from actual comparisons with the same speaker are wasting their time. Unless you plan on pulling a speaker apart and replacing drivers, your commentary has no relation to the actual product's performance relative to other products. Such arguments might be fun for some, but in terms of actual system building, they are moot.
danager, I suggest you seek discussions by manufacturers about the extensive comparisons they conduct in regard to driver selection, wherein they often will build mock up speakers and plow through a dozen or more drivers in a search for the appropriate one. Better drivers will have a perceived superior sound quality over the entire frequency range. Sweet spot is largely a function of system setup, not frequency response. The parts and quality of the crossover vastly influences the sound quality of the driver. Often when the driver is changed to another, the crossover needs to be reworked if the goal is optimal performance.
I'm not rifling through my review history on this question, but some manufacturers I have reviewed who try many drivers are Salk Sound, Legacy Audio, and Aspen Acoustics. Some who cannot find the appropriate driver have their own made to their specifications. I presume that any manufacturer who is not making their own driver is testing a lot of theoretically equivalent drivers, at least in terms of specs.
|
lwin, thank you for your comments; some nice input on the topic. :)
Some thoughts based on your invitation to view your system.
First, kudos, you obviously have a passion for the hobby! You have some beautiful equipment and it is obvious you have worked to achieve a desirable sound. :)
May I presume that you have conducted a comparison in your main system between both sets of speakers? You said you have the Wharfedale speakers in the living room, not the primary rig. Imo, that is not a valid comparison between the two speakers. Placing the Wharfedale speakers into the primary rig (along with sub/subs) would be a form of an apples to apples comparison. If you do so, I suggest you do not adjust the sub(s) so as to hear only the difference between the primary speakers as they integrate with the sub.
A system may reside in the same house, but the performance with a different set of gear and in a different room is usually substantial. Were you to swap both speakers (or gear, allowing for the speakers to reside in the same room; granted, this is a lot of work, but it is on the level of comparisons through moving gear that I do regularly) you may hear the attributes I discuss in my first post. Putting about $40K MSRP of gear ahed of the Moab should make them wake up and improve their performance. However, it would do the same, within expectations about tonality, limited LF, etc., for the Wharfedale speakers. If you have never run the Opus speakers with the primary rig, it might be instructive for you to do so.
Yours is one of the most extreme near field listening setups and extreme toe in I have seen. It reminds me of the system I saw where there were two huge Martin Logan speakers placed nearly parallel to the ears, like an enormous headphone set. With subwoofers, you may find the Wharfedale speakers enchanting in similar position and using the subs. You might find an unexpected result.
Given what you have said, I am not surprised that you prefer the Moab speakers. If I had them in my room and could tune each system, I likely would also prefer the Moab, too. I doubt, however, that I would change my mind on matters of center image density and focus, and coherency of the driver set. But, that is conjecture and would need to be supported by actual comparison. However, I no longer have a desire to do so.
If you disagree, it's all good. I appreciate your consideration in your remarks, and realize you have good taste, as I do, by owning the Wharfdale speakers! ;)
|
Holmz, possible driver choices are selected via specs, but they demo many drivers for their builds. They wouldn't dream of finalizing the drivers based on specs alone.
|
hlomz, this is uninteresting to me. (Just being honest). Nearly everyone who is serious about speakers’ drivers knows what you pointed out.
Some here are all worked up over the drivers used in the Moab. My reaction is meh. Fiscal constraints obviously prohibit top notch drivers from being used, surprise, surprise. The end product is what it is. Unless someone is willing to pull drivers and replace, and rework the crossover if necessary, what’s the point? The user compares speakers, not naked drivers. Argument by these people about such things is moot. Unless one has compared the array with cheap drivers to the array with expensive drivers, there is little point in debating the cost of drivers. YMMV It’s something I would probably take up in a review, but I’m not going to spend my time on it ongoing here.
I answered your question re: manufacturers who use specs and their own mock ups to design speakers. If you wish to turn it into a debate over the specs of certain driver makers or the OEM products of manufacturers, I’m not interested. There are plenty of places at this site to do that. The topic of the thread is my impressions of the Moab and Tekton, not how manufacturers select drivers. I have no interest in spending time on the latter in this thread.
|
lwin, nice explanation of your priorities in setup. The extreme toe in would explain, I think, some of the discrepancies between our experiences in hearing the Tekton array. Ah, Ulfberhts; mea culpa for calling them Moab. Go big or go home! ;) Bill Dudleston of Legacy Audio sets up speakers such as the Whisper similarly, with the axis of the L/R crossing before the ears, though not as extreme. I get why you are doing so, to share the sweet spot. Hopefully your new seating will resolve the issue.
I think you will have a lot of fun trying the Wharfedale speakers in the big rig. It's always a learning experience to set up a new rig. It is one of the greatest joys of the hobby for me, like cooking with sound, a unique feast served each time!
viber6, I wish I had that kind of sway, that I could urge and manufacturers jump into action on a new build. That has only happened one time, with the Legacy Audio Whisper. I wanted to review the Whisper, but it was an active speaker requiring triple everything (cables, amp channels, etc.), which was prohibitive for me. I said to Doug Brown, Bill's business partner at the time, can't Legacy make a speaker that can switch so I can listen to it with a stereo amp and try-wire, and also use it as built. Doug said, "You challenge Bill to make it!" I said, "I'm not going to challenge a designer to make a product!" He said, "Then, I will!" And they did! The result was the Whisper DSW, originally named after me; Doug Schroeder Whisper. It has 12 sets of binding posts because it is what I call in the review a "crossover speaker", for it allows 3 configurations; fully active with six channels of amplification, hybrid with active bass and passive mid/treble, and fully passive with as little as two channels of amplification and try-wiring! I LOVE it! I have built SO many amazing systems with it! Legacy has incorporated the hybrid element into several of their speakers, where an owner can select the operating mode.
Later, I also requested Bill to work with me on a review in which an assessment of the efficacy of upgraded internal parts was the topic. The speakers were returned to Legacy, where it was rewired with 10AWG Clarity Cable throughout and caps replaced with Clarity Caps (no relation to Clarity Cable). It was called the Clarity Edition. So, the speaker now is the Whisper DSW Clarity Edition. I have reviews of the entire process at Dagogo.com
In regard to your dreaming of a concave ESL speaker, it sure sounds fascinating and I would love to review such a speaker if it was built! But, though I am not a designer, nor proficient in the math, something tells me it might be untenable. I ran stacked Eminent Technology LFT-8 speakers for a while, and though it was terrific fun and huge sounding, It was less coherent than other designs/setups. I'm wondering if the concave stereo effect might be too beamy for its own good.
|
mijostyn, "splay" is my term for what I perceive to be an unnatural stretching of the images on the soundstage. When a voice is stretched to encompass the entire area between the speakers so as not to be easily distinguishable as emanating from a location of approximate size of a human, then it is splayed. When a sax or guitar takes on the dimensions of a refrigerator, then it is splayed. etc. That is my perception of the matter when listening to panels.
A speaker like the PureAudioProject Quintet15 as a radically different soundstage and center imaging than a panel. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum in those parameters of sound. It's quite obvious when one hears the speakers in the same room with the same system. The horn has a compact center image and the panel has a spread center image.
Note that I am not against panels; I review them, have owned several and now have the King III as a reference ESL. So, I am perfectly willing to accept these idiosyncrasies as part of the dipole package.
My experience with panels is that they do not spread the instruments farther apart, but actually merge them together more. They are widened to occupy more space such that they merge into each other more so than with a good dynamic speaker. An even more extreme form of such splaying and widening is the omni, which blasts the images into a mushroom cloud soundstage, as I call it. There is some generalization here, but I find these characteristics consistent enough to make generalizations about them.
To some effect of the wider and more merged voices and instruments is the ultimate expression of the realism of music. Obviously, not for others. I appreciate pretty much all the genres of speakers and enjoy as many as I can, each with it's peculiarities. My opinion is that a dynamic speaker is going to focus and shrink the center image much closer to actual size in terms of the scale of the performer to the venue, and create it with more density, or palpability, relatively and locate the performers on the sound stage more narrowly in their location and with proper dimensions. Some may disagree, but I have no desire to argue my conclusions about it. Technical discussion won't change my mind, because I build these systems all the time. I hear them constantly, so I have a firm grasp of what they do. YMMV
The benefit of the Tekton array is creation of a wider image similar to a panel. However, it suffers from the multiple radiating points and cannot bring the wave uniformly forward as a dipole can. Such things are discernible in listening - IF you have the different genres of speakers available (typically in your own room and with the same system). lwin has avoided this by his extreme toe in, wherein the speakers' cross each other well before the listener's head, so the group effect of the wave launch is not readily heard. But, the downside is that it convolutes the L/R channel separation. A person I know who uses Vivid speakers also crosses them prior to the ears, and I don't care for it. Imo, it wastes a lot of the speaker's precision, and Vivid speakers are tremendously precise when set up as I prefer.
|
