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.
@prefab I also never buy anything without research. I do it for it all. I have seen too many of my friends, get on the equipment treadmill. They buy on a whim and are disappointed. I have done this since I was a teenager. I was taught an educated consumer is a smart consumer. To me, audio is no difference. I hope your system gives you joy, when you listen. After all, that is what we use it for. CHEERS! |
I'm a vintage guy that enjoys vintage gear. I'm well aware of the s/n limitations of most tube amps/preamps, yet I find they present the music in a most enjoyable way, whether I'm listening to Altec 604-8G via SET, SEP, or vintage monoblocks, with the alternate system Magnepan 3.6R with tube or SS amps from 50 wpc on up. As a tech, I service and measure all of the gear that crosses my bench. On that note, I thoroughly appreciate what ASR does to cover the "measurables", even if what Amir measures is not something I can hear. Conversely, I can hear that which Amir cannot measure. And many times I've been confounded by a disconnect between measurements and hearing. For example, I had a Mc 240 on the bench. Measured very close to 50 wpc at the edge of clipping. Beautiful 10k square wave. Sounded dull and lifeless with the 3.6R. Then connected an Eico HF-89, and suddenly there was sparkle, life, slam, soundstage, and air. Yet the two amps measured nearly the same. Conclusion, measurements and listening are both useful tools. If two pieces of gear sound the same, then I'll pick the one with better measurements. I'll always pick the one with the better sound, regardless of measurements. |
Wise advice!
|
@erik_squires thanks for initiating this thread, as an amateur speaker builder I appreciate your post and thoughts. @amir_asr thanks for posting here with your responses and input - I have spent a fair bit of time on your site over the last few years and I am a member. I have been reading and posting on Audiogon forum for getting close to twenty years, and have been into audio reproduction since I could climb on a chair and operate my fathers Garrard/Fisher hifi stashed up high in the hall closet. @ricevs, @mrdecibel and @pickindoug’s comments resonate for me and I appreciate your perspectives. The reason for my increase in visits to ASR has to do with recent Internet searches on specific gear of interest taking me to the site. Repeatedly and consistently. So ASR is definitely influencing this hobby in the Internet era, and as with who lives in the biggest houses and drives the newest cars in my city, it’s helping tip the balance of power and influence in this hobby for the interested public and new generations of audiophiles from artists, musicians, designers and pretty much anyone with good listening skills to… engineers and computer algorithms. This makes me sad. If you were to spend anytime on ASR, you would gather that ears need not apply, their days and role in the hifi buying decision process are… over. No, seriously, if it can’t be measured by this or that analyzer, it can’t have value. Period. Now Amir may not say or think that, but the bulk of the discussion on his site adheres pretty closely to this line. Amir has gently poked fun at one of my posts on ASR regarding some character of sound of Schiit Mani 2 phono preamp, probably something about soundstage… while others have been extraordinarily sarcastic and blatantly dismissive of any subjective comment I might make comparing the sound attributes of say, one DAC compared to another when they both measure “perfectly”. I started my hifi habit by pouring over and being obsessed with spec sheets, and I have always measured the in-room performance of speakers I have bought or built, or when trying to integrate subs into two channel systems. I still look at measurements in reviews if available to see if a piece of gear follows sound design principles. BUT, as my understanding of how everything does matter, including the room, gear matching, vibration control and cabling, I have become really careful at testing changes to my system, retaining changes that make a difference, and rejecting those that don’t. I have found that different cables can sound different in my systems, with some cables making things better, some cables making things worse, and some having no effect. I assemble power cables from different off the self components, and some of them sound remarkably different from the others. If someone cannot not hear the difference, they are in the wrong hobby. And for me, speaker cables can affect how I perceive soundstage in my room. Different DACs also change how I perceive soundstage in my system. Sharing these subjective “findings” on ASR or other “science-based” Internet forums is met with considerable indignation, and if I persist I am accused of sealioning or worse. When I note that I have done double blind tests with digital cables that showed deeply overlapping results on the qualities of the sound produced with sighted tests they are dismissed as “poorly designed”. Some of the strongest critics are those with careers in the professional sound recording or production field who are experienced and knowledgeable, and therefore hard to dismiss. They are quite comfortable in their certainties that all modern DACs, amplifiers and cables sound the same unless they are “badly broken”, and they will cite numerous double blind tests that “prove” they are right. Pointing out that those results are not universal brings intense criticism of the individuals responsible or involved in tests that support observed differences in, say cables. It comes off as a rather passionate defense of the castle walls, and makes me wonder how good our recorded music could sound if greater care was placed on how it is recorded and with what equipment? I have decided the only way to challenge this freight train of thought is to mount some well designed listening tests that would meet the rigor suggested by Amir and others. One of the problems I see with previous group tests of gear and cables is that the subjects are not necessarily familiar with the room or the equipment, and therefore don’t have a solid baseline to judge subtle differences or changes. If multiple subjects are listening in the same room, not all of them can be located in the sweet spot, and will therefore not experience soundstage reproduction in the same way. These are logistical challenges that must be overcome to run an effective ABX/double blind test. I will not have time to take on such a task until I retire, but I am certain it can be done. In summary, I do think measurements are critically important and a great place to start your audio reproduction journey. To that end, sites like ASR provide a valuable service. I do also think there are elements of this hobby and equipment design that are both not fully quantified or measurable, yet, and where art and subjective listening add real value. My concern is that absolutist worship of measurement over listening will lead many to miss out on some of the more pleasurable elements of fun, enjoyment, and discovery this hobby has to offer. I am definitely for less arguing and more listening. kn |
