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 Dagogo.com.
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.
We think alike. I heard the Eminent Technology LFT8 around the time I read your review. Its midsize is an ideal compromise for realistic imaging + clarity at the same time. Your experience with stacked ET's parallels mine with the Stax F83 which was stacked F81's. Art Dudley was working for Edison Price in the mid 80's and played the F83 for me. He was gracious to let me bring my Audiostatic 240 speaker and compare. Previously I had brought my 240's to another place which had the F81's. My 240 had similar clarity to the F81, with the F81 having more clarity in the midrange and the 240 more HF extension. But the F83 compared to the 240 was much more bass heavy with muddy/smeared midrange and markedly reduced HF energy. That experience taught me that merely doubling panel area, while enabling more dynamics and bass, paid a price for focus/clarity and HF extension. Why is this?
More panel area yields more time smear from worse time alignment. This is due to more summation of time differences from further apart locations on the panel radiating sound to your small ears. Consider even live music. Many orchestra pieces have violin solos from the concertmaster who then rejoins the 1st violin section. The solo part is brilliant and focused, but the violin section is smeared and muddy by comparison. As a violinist, I assure you that the 16 professional violinists in the section are each very competent, and they all play together perfectly. However, the ensemble sound is murky compared to the sound if any one of them were to play alone. This explains how the sound from the stacked ET's was murky, compared to single ET's. You can do an experiment with 3 people. You listen to each of them reciting a sentence, then you listen to the 2 together saying it perfectly together. You will find the same murkiness from the 2 together no matter how perfectly they are together. This is the choir effect vs individual singers.
Aside from orchestra ensembles where there are many players playing one part, most ensembles are composed of lots of players each playing a different instrument or part. Even large instruments like tuba, string bass radiate sound from a relatively small opening, such as the bell of the tuba. Some energy comes from the large body of the tuba, but the focus of the instrument comes from the smaller bell. An ideal acoustical presentation would be like a large sky with many tiny stars as point sources. Less desirable is a large sky with a few nebulous fuzzy nebulas (pun intended). I prefer as few speaker drivers as possible, time aligned, with accurate electronics and recordings using focused cardioid microphones enabling spatial accuracy, The ideal is a point source speaker like a horn. But the horn has colorations, so alternatively the lowest distortion low mass electrostatic driver with that concave configuration and just enough panel area to get enough dynamics is my choice.
I agree that this ideal concave driver would have the maximum beaming, but I am willing to fix my head in the ideal tiny sweet spot. Speakers with a large sweet spot means that several people all hear the same mediocre, muddy, bloated sound, not for me.
Functionally, the concave ESL would have the same pinpoint, accurate imaging as the point source horn. The advantage of the point source horn is no beaming but perfect time alignment, but with the disadvantage of horn coloration. The concave ESL would have the lowest distortion, but with the disadvantage of supercritical listener positioning.
How does this apply to Tekton speakers? The freq above 3000 Hz are handled mainly by the single center tweeter, enabling best focus. The multi-tweeter array circling the central tweeter as used in the Uber/Moab is for 300-3000 Hz. I don't like the double array, which causes smearing from more drivers handling the same freq. This relates to my criticism of the Stax F83 vs the purer F81 and your criticism of the ET stack vs the single ET. I understand that the cheaper models use a single array, which has the disadvantage of covering the range down to only 600 vs 300 Hz in the double array. I have never personally heard any of the Tekton models, and just defer to your observations, which are explained by my analysis above. I suppose that the best Tekton speaker is the small single array monitor with limited bass extension and dynamics. For smaller scale music, this probably captures the heart of the innovative array concept. Remember that the classic BBC mini monitor LS3/5a is champs at what it does, so the small Tekton monitor is in a similar realm.
Pretty sure most post from MC never bring your names up. At least that I can remember.
Since when does it excuse one's behavior when a name isn't brought up? You can't be that obtuse. As for control, I have tons of it. I just respond to idiots posting and that upsets you? Does that mean you're fine with his postings and it isn't until I say something about it that it upsets you?
We've been through this many times and yet most of you still fall back on the same lame excuses. Pitiful.
The three people I have seen at the heart of getting the most threads derailed and deleted here in my 20 plus years are Geoffkaitt, Georgehifi, and you.
And once, again, your words betray you and your intent. MC has not only gotten more threads closed than any other and yet you leave his name out of it. What is he to you, Voldemort?
Your a self fulfilling accident in the making. A slow motion train wreck. Please, continue to derail this thread since you're doing such a smash bang job of it.
More projection and irony at it's finest. The three people I have seen at the heart of getting the most threads derailed and deleted here in my 20 plus years are Geoffkaitt, Georgehifi, and you. You are in some some truly fine company there. The worst of the worst.
Any chance you guys get.. It's just amazing to watch you bunch of clowns talk about someone else. Can't stop, you never get enough. Pretty sure most post from MC never bring your names up. At least that I can remember. What was your contribution to the thread again? You and clown BOY tsushima1? I'm almost embarrassed for the whole bunch.. Almost!
When you cannot control yourself in a situation and you are driven by compulsion it's time for some self-awareness. This is right there with NA, AA, Gamblers Anonymous, and Travelers Anonymous. We need to add a new class MillerCarbon Anonymous. Just so you know, you only have to use your first name at the sigh in.
I was on subject until you posted this little nugget. I mean, you were clearly on topic here, right?
Round eye Shiller got stop pretend he tubefluffer and stay way from maid brothers all eat buffet. He scare wife.
I was on subject both before and after. Just a little comment on your off topic post. Trust me, I don't like him any more than you. You do realize that there is a possibility that people exist that think you are both idiots.
Clearly, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. What a double talking tool you are. And in the end you will try to spin this back.
Message user grannyring. He had a pair of Double Impact that he extensively modified the crossovers on. He could probably tell you how the array is wired.
@douglas_schroederYeah I am not too interested in a debate about speakers.
(I was initially responding to @danager.)
However, if you can advise on how they are putting those tweeters in parallel it would be interesting to me. (I assume that there are some in series and some in parallel to present something like a 4 ohm load through their passband??)
What is the most comical is that nonoise is one of the people that was supportive and thought the tubebuffer posting style was clever and a breath of fresh air, at least until he figured out who it really was. ROTFLMAO. Well played.
I like the term "splayed" as it puts a name to what I heard with my first big speaker purchase: a used pair of Magnapaner Tympanis (the 3 panel per side ones) from Roger Sound Labs back when they were on Van Nuys Blvd in the San Fernando Valley. They were Rogers personal pair and I was totally immersed in their sound.
Immersed as in drowning in that wall of sound. Everything came at you from everywhere with no attention to staging. Being my first big speaker purchase, they bowled me over with what I thought was that wall of sound and it being the goal of high end audio. Boy, was I mistaken.
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.
Cheap Chinese drivers? Do your homework man before spreading lies. The Electron SE uses Wavecore tweeters that sell for $75 each. So lets see-that's over $1000 in tweeters alone. The high quality SB acoustics drivers add nearly $700 dollars. And then there is the cabinets, crossovers--oh, and, will throw in free shipping.
Show me one other speaker out there that has this kind of value in terms of final cost to parts cost ratio. Please, name just one.
But here is one other reality. Eric Alexander can take an inexpensive driver in implement it in a way so that it way outperforms it's modest price. I have owned speakers using top end Scanspeak drivers that offered less musical enjoyment than Tekton designs using lesser drivers.
Interesting...how do you know these facts about the tekton business?....or is that something someone with a vested interest in the company would know ie customer satisfaction numbers..Secrete is out on you,we all know what your about now..shillercarbon or tubebuffer..whatever user your using today..lmao
Cheap Chinese drivers? Do your homework man before spreading lies. The Electron SE uses Wavecore tweeters that sell for $75 each. So lets see-that's over $1000 in tweeters alone. The high quality SB acoustics drivers add nearly $700 dollars. And then there is the cabinets, crossovers--oh, and, will throw in free shipping.
Show me one other speaker out there that has this kind of value in terms of final cost to parts cost ratio. Please, name just one.
But here is one other reality. Eric Alexander can take an inexpensive driver in implement it in a way so that it way outperforms it's modest price. I have owned speakers using top end Scanspeak drivers that offered less musical enjoyment than Tekton designs using lesser drivers.
Yes. We know. And they disappear with pinpoint imaging in a 3D sound stage like nobody's business. Award winning, with many, many professional reviewers praising them, and a customer satisfaction rate in the (very) high 90 percent range.
But, can't you tell? This is a sour grapes bash Tekton discussion. Let them have their fun. Don't crash the party.
Soooo … Shiller And The Gang , any comment ? Presumably you are too busy trawling through the archives looking for any prior historical record to discredit the poster as a Tekton Hater 😉
Pretty close to my impression sonically although I am not as kind. The imaging IMHO is terrible. The problem is that at high frequencies the treble is being radiated only by the domed center of each tweeter which puts them to far away from each other. They have to be not more than a wavelength away from each other and at 20 kHz that is something like 1/2". So at high frequencies instead of speaking with one voice the moab is speaking with a choir. It is hard to pick an individual voice out of a choir. It is very tough to get tweeters close enough together to get this to work. The magnet structures get in the way. I would also think it better to use one good tweeter and one or two good midrange drivers than 15 cheap ones. The only advantage is the loss of one crossover point.
Doug, what do you mean by "a panel speaker's splayed center sound stage"? could you describe that better for me. Do you mean the instruments are spread wider apart than they should be? How does a speaker do this in a "faux" fashion?
Iwin a friend of mine from Illinois , I think he heard your Ulfbert Tekton, He likes the sound you have. I’ve heard those ULFs at Teajay , on classical they are amazing, so powerful, it’s like Iam on a classical concert hall, it feels so real.i am planning to buy the Moab, but the KLH panel became available near me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! ;)
You realize this is all just moot. I was watching football today and a commercial came on with a guy with a turntable not sounding right. HIs wife just Googled "what speakers sound best for vinyl" and then ordered them from Amazon.
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.
Do expensive drivers have a better sound over the whole range of frequencies or just a wider frequency range (a bigger sweet spot)? Within the parameters of the crossover are you simply paying for perceived quality by using a sledge hammer to pound a penny nail?
It depends on what the expensive drivers are doing.
If the expensive driver are low distortion, then you one does not get musicality from distortion.
Of course one could limit the excursion to have cheap drivers in a more linear part of its stroke… at the expense of SPL… and then make up the SPL loss by using more of them in parallel.
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.
I would assume they do it via specs… however few drivers show distortion plots. I can think of one or two… and I have heard a set of speakers made using these drivers, and for a similar price to the Moabs, and they sounded pretty good.
I do not have the credentials of the OP but I do have a pair of the same Wharfedale speakers in my living room system and a pair of the Ulfberhts in my main system. I have not heard the Moabs that are being discussed here but it appears that the main thrust of the posting is the tweeter arrays.
The one thing the Wharfedales have all over the Tekton’s is the WAF. Like almost all British loudspeakers, they get the midrange right but I have no desire to replace my Ulfberhts with them. The Ulfberhts like a lot of large speakers require time and patience to get them properly set up. If they aren’t dialed in they will sound just like the OP says but when dialed in they are just plain magical. I agree with the OP that the bass isn’t as strong as one would expect but these speakers need to be at least six feet off the front wall in order to get a realistic soundstage which will reduce the effectiveness of the woofers.
The last couple of years I have spent a lot of time in addition to money to get as much out of the Ulfberhts as possible and I think there is still more to be had as these speakers will quickly inform you whether an addition or change is worthwhile or not.
Anyone who wants to listen to my system is more than welcome to visit and play their music and form their own opinion as to whether or not they are worth the investment. You can also listen to the Wharfedales if you desire. Maybe you will agree with the OP and maybe you won’t.
My setup can be see on the Cary Audio website and is listed as Larry’s system.
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.
Do expensive drivers have a better sound over the whole range of frequencies or just a wider frequency range (a bigger sweet spot)? Within the parameters of the crossover are you simply paying for perceived quality by using a sledge hammer to pound a penny nail?
So what helpful point are you trying to make?? That the Electron SE does not use the best drivers in the world (whatever those are in your mind) in a $3000 dollar speaker. Boy, Eric sure is ripping people off.
Not only do you make unhelpful comments without any validation, you didn't answer my question.
Awww Bless , still cheap quality drivers compared to the better quality audio drivers Implemented by manufacturers producing speakers * Ludicrously * claimed by the rabid Tekton lovies to be comparable or better… also What do you think he pays for them? I will give you a clue, less than $10 more likely $6 per unit
Bdp24 nice post, I agree Sound lab and Sanders will produce the sound of violin better than the Tektons, sound lab, sanders, KLH , Martin Logan electrostatic are all good for violins and guitars. Just like my Andra that was voice from piano, Martin Logan request speakers I used to own will never beat my Andra on piano.
Daros71 try tube amps , with Tellurium cables. I don’t think your Krell is the right amp for Moab’s.tsakadiiis has lots of good reasonable musical tube amps.
Cheap Chinese drivers? Do your homework man before spreading lies. The Electron SE uses Wavecore tweeters that sell for $75 each. So lets see-that's over $1000 in tweeters alone. The high quality SB acoustics drivers add nearly $700 dollars. And then there is the cabinets, crossovers--oh, and, will throw in free shipping.
Show me one other speaker out there that has this kind of value in terms of final cost to parts cost ratio. Please, name just one.
But here is one other reality. Eric Alexander can take an inexpensive driver in implement it in a way so that it way outperforms it's modest price. I have owned speakers using top end Scanspeak drivers that offered less musical enjoyment than Tekton designs using lesser drivers.
Thank you for the thoughtful and well presented post. I am interested in your comment regarding the Magnepan, as I am currently looking for a pair of 3.7i. You mentioned idiosyncrasies regarding the sound. Would you be able to offer more specificity? Very Best, -p
I too don’t think the soundstage of the Moabs is very precise. But I don’t think it depends on the tweeter array. The Moab replaced the Dynaudio Contour 60’s. These Contour 60’s have a soundstage that is totally messy and out of focus. Compared to the C60s, the Moabs are a 100% improvement in every aspect, including soundstage. The soundstage of the Moabs is big, but not crystal clear. Before the Contour 60’s I owned the old Contour 3.3’s, which has almost the same design as the Contour 60’s. The Contour 3.3’s have a clear and wide soundstage. When you listen to an orchestra the horizontal space unfolds in front of you. Every instrument is in a well defined position. It’s like a photo. The contour 60s are a soundsage disaster. Moabs are somewhere in between, closer to the contour 3.3. So I don’t think it depends on the tweeter array.
But I'm still not 100% sure about my criticism of moabs. I've had them for 3 months and I like them a lot. They surprise positively very often. The body of the instruments is much more present with the Moabs than with the Contour 3.3. This makes the piano and quartet sound fantastic (not the same on the Contour 3.3, exceptionally good). I probably have to change amplification (now I have a krell 400xi or as an alterantive some linn lk 240). I'm looking for a decent but cheap tube amp.
Cheap Chinese made low quality drivers costing no more that a few $ each
He uses some cheap drivers. The 4 inch mids in the Electron are a cheap Eminence model. He also uses some really high quality drivers like the Satori Beryllium tweeters at $325 to $375 each. It appears that he uses a number of other SB Acoustics drivers in his speakers as well. It is a mixed bag on quality of drivers that are used in the Tekton speakers.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
