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.

erik_squires

Showing 11 responses by invalid

The transistor is one of the most critical inventions there is. This site would not exit, nor the Internet without it

What does this have to do with audio reproduction, I could say satellite radio wouldn’t exist without the vacuum tube, which would have a closer relationship to audio reproduction than your example.

@amir_asr distortion numbers are important, but so is linearity, and as far as I know triodes are the most linear devices without feedback.

Of course ASR can prove that $300 equipment outperforms your $6000  SCIENTIFICALLY based on their measurements data (not based on your ears/brains) so you need to be thankful (or shameful)

So I'm wrong if I don't like the sound of this so called great measuring inexpensive equipment and like the sound of my tube equipment? The problem with measurements is they are taken in isolation and not the way the equipment will be used in the real world.

@amir_asr  

at 30% efficiencies almost 20kw input. At 220v thats almost 90 amps. And the "power meter" is the most useless meter I have ever seen, its a joke. Hardware for people with way too much money and no brains.

  • Like
 This is typically professionalism at your site that goes unchallenged by you or your moderators.

@mapman  I know, I don't know why Amir gets all bent out of shape just from the mention of a tube amp

@amir_asr I still don’t understand who is doing the training of these trained listeners, could certainly be a bias in that as well. I don’t believe any audio equipment sounds exactly like unamplified musical instruments, so if that is the reference than who are you and your trained listeners to be judge and jury.

Many people couldn't tell the difference between coke and Pepsi in a blind test, but there is definitely a difference in taste. I bet that at home in a more relaxed atmosphere more people could tell the difference.

@dwcda the difference is you are still here, you didn't get you posting privileges taken away.

@amir_asr  we definitely would know what noise is without measuring it, otherwise what would be the point in measuring it at all if we couldn't hear it.

@amir_asr the whole concept of stereo is an illusion.  Do you realize that none of this equipment sounds exactly like unamplified live music, so what is the actual reference if it's not unamplified music?  

@amir_asr  just like some of the measurements don't matter the way you think they do. I used to think the great measuring equipment was best until I heard the sound of a tube system.