My Take on the Tekton Array, Experiences to Date

Based on my albeit disparate (different rooms and systems) experiences, as a reviewer of 14 years, and having built hundreds of systems with a wide variety of genres of speakers including arrays and panels, this is my succinct initial critique of the Tekton array technology. I have enough experience with large speakers of many genres that I can grasp the operation of different designs, including arrays in a straightforward manner. If you wish to see the speaker systems I have reviewed, see my bio and reviewing history at

I spent an evening at a new friend’s home hearing his setup with the Tekton Moab speakers. Nice, plenty of positive things to say. However, it was quite obvious that the array adds convolution to the imaging, especially with more complex music. Voices are split in prismatic fashion and I could hear the grouping of drivers’ contributing to that. It does have a more stringent sound, and does not excel in that system at warmth, even though a relatively recent AR preamp and Pass 30.8 Monos were in use. The bass was ok, but certainly not overwhelming in terms of impact or tonality. For $4K some good scale, acceptable presence and impact; reminded me of a low to mid line Magnepan or Vandersteen, a bargain, but with idiosyncrasies. Before I get to my critique, the obvious benefits of the Moab are large scale it has inherently as a big tower, the respectable bass and LF at the price point, and the grandeur of the center image, which is a faux recreation of panel speakers’ splayed center of the sound stage.

The interesting thing is what happened when the owner visited my home and heard my new to me as of two months ago Wharfedale Opus 2-M2 Monitors with the Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subs. In terms of relative soundstage as regards seating position and speakers, my perspective is that the Opus cast as large a soundstage due to the much closer seating position (approx. 2x closer) as the Moab. Frankly, for all the tweeters purportedly giving the Moab such incisiveness, not really. The 3" soft dome of the Opus 2-M2 to my ears in this system was much more precise and elegant, without the smearing of the multiple drivers’ launch. Tonally, I prefer the Wharfedale/Legacy combo from top to bottom. Dynamics favored the bookshelf/sub combo, too.

My new friend’s reaction? Incredulity, stating several times he could not get over the sound quality of the setup. He grokked at the price of the used pair of speakers. From my experience hearing two Tekton speakers now, both times in close succession (one time at a dealer just across the hallway at a show, and the other the same evening in my room following the visit to hear the Moab) to each other, the 3" soft dome of the Wharfedale is more exquisite than the array of tweeters of the Moab, and sacrifices nothing in terms of soundstage when the seating position is forward. I pursued the Opus 2-M2 to achieve a similar result as a pricey ATC or PCM speaker with similar soft dome mid, but at substantial savings. I succeeded brilliantly, based on several previous listening experiences with such speakers. I’m rather more excited about this development than the refurbishing of the pair of Ohm Walsh Model F speakers I worked on last year about this time. I could cough up the Ohm speakers without much problem, but wouldn’t dream of giving up the experience of the Opus and Legacy Subs.

This is not a definitive assessment as I have not conducted direct comparisons in my own room. My opinion could change substantially were I to do so. Am I shocked that the Moab owner was gobsmacked at the performance of the Wharfedale bookshelf speakers and Legacy subs? No. I rather enjoyed telling him that the Opus 2-M2 is a lower end speaker system for me. :)

Imo, a person has fundamental ignorance of the performance characteristics of different genres of speakers if they suggest, or worse boast, the Tekton array of tweeters has better refinement and precision than other genres of speakers when it comes to imaging. Anyone who understands design knows you can’t splay the image with multiple drivers and achieve superior coherency simultaneously. And, no, I do not care what claims are made about it; I have heard the effect twice in near term comparison to dynamic speaker systems, so fans and makers can claim what they wish, but I go with my ears and comparisons, of course with the same music selections.

I have refrained from commenting at length about the Tekton signature until I heard it again. I was absolutely correct in my initial assessment of the Tekton monitor I had heard at AXPONA about two years ago. At that time I sated the Tekton tweeter array did not have the precision, density and purity of center imaging of the Ryan Speaker bookshelf in the room nearby. I had the precise same experience between hearing the Moab and the Opus 2-M2. When I have the same experience twice, I am confident that I am locked in on the reality of the differences of the genres of speakers.

I’m neither for, nor against Tekton. It’s a different flavor of speaker. As I said about two years ago after the experience at AXPONA, the design will have its idiosyncrasies, as do all genres of speakers. Fanboys may rail, people who have moved on might concur. Whatever. I have zero interest in arguing my impressions. I will not call them conclusions, as that would require a direct comparison. Would I think anything significant might change in my assessment. No, I do not. But, I’m experienced enough and not so presumptuous that I would expect no chance of it.


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. 

Yeah - but there are speakers made using the usual drivers from SB, ScanSpeak (and other higher end drivers) which have more complete specs including distortion measurements.
And some of those driver companies also do runs of speakers for manufacturers with bespoke specifications.

Without some of the measurements it then gets to be more of a listening exercise… But things have come a long ways lately in terms of measurements and software.

Usually when we do not see those more revealing measurements there is reason for it.

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.


On my first post I should have commended you on your nuanced posting. It is a shame that too many postings result into vitriol. Topics like tweaks and Tekton unfortunately are very polarizing. I admit, I have never tried my Wharfedales in my music room and maybe now that I have more time on my hands with the change of seasons I will give it a shot. One of the things that originally attracted me to the Wharfedales was they did not need to be moved several feet into a room to sound good. According to Wharfedale twelve to sixteen inches off the back wall was fine which makes a big difference in an active living room.

Yes the toe-in on my Ulfberhts is a bit much. I have literally spent hours moving them around which isn’t easy with a 220 pound speaker. My goal in the placement of the speakers was to have a sweet spot large enough that two people could sit side by side and get a fairly similar and detailed stereo image. The toe-in helped me accomplish that.The mistake I made was in my selection of chairs which are 37 inches wide with 8 inch arms. The ideal sweet spot is where the two arms of the chairs touch. I have ordered a pair of 28 inch leather recliners which hopefully will allow me to reduce some of the toe-in while making the sweet spot accessible to both listeners.

As I stated previously, I haven’t heard the Moabs but like the Ulfberhts they have the same tweeter array so I have to assume they have a lot of similarities in their sound and probably requirements in their placement to bring out the best in them. Even with the drastic toe-in the soundstage is wall to wall with great depth and height but moving the Ulfberhts or my chairs even just a little changes everything.

Please keep the well thought out postings coming!


I heard the original King Sound King electrostatic many years ago. Too bad they disappeared from the US market (correct me if they are back).  They are not my ideal design, but they are more correct than the curved panels from ML and SoundLab.  Curved panels splay high freq all over the place, causing a mushy mixture of more rolled off HF the further off axis the listener is.  This explains their compromised resolution and bloated images.  Flat panels are better, but I would design panels concave with the radius of curvature equal to the listener distance.  A 1 foot wide x 5 foot tall panel at an 8 foot distance would have a small concave horizontal curvature of 7-8 degrees (a radian is 57 degrees, so 1/8 of a radian is 7 degrees.  The vertical concave curvature would be 35 degrees or so (5/8 of a radian is 35 degrees). Think of this speaker as a slice of a huge round basketball with radius of 8 feet.  It could have multiple hinges to approximate different distances.  This technique is time-coherent, and would produce focused imaging and greatest clarity.  The second best design is my Audiostatic 240 which has 2 straight panels hinged off a center support, which can be rotated to project exactly toward the listener.  It is tough to do, and the ears must be in a fixed position.  Even better is just a single skinny flat panel, although bass extension is very limited.  I use just 1 panel of the 240 per side.  Third best is the King, which uses a skinny tweeter panel which has negligible HF reduction off axis.  Far inferior to the King are all those curved panels.

The upper Wilson models like Alexx, XLF, XVX, Master Chronosonic use time alignment.  While not perfect, this enables excellent clarity and relatively focused imaging.  Wilson is a great example of how time aligned dynamic drivers can have greater clarity and focused imaging than tall curved panels or even tall straight panels.  The taller, the worse time alignment.  Do the math to understand this--much greater distance to the listener from the top and bottom of the panels than the middle.  The inherent superiority of electrostatic or even planar magnetic/ribbons in low mass transient response is severely handicapped by these commercial designs of tall curved or straight panels.

I have enjoyed your writings, and maybe with all your industry contacts, you can get some manufacturers of electrostatic and planar magnetic/ribbon speakers to read this post and improve their designs.