Wilson667 mine is set to 50hz
Tekton DI Monitors
Finally got to see the measurements for the Double Impact monitors. I’m a little disappointed.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-impact-monitor-loudspeaker-measurements
This woofer - tweeter - woofer configuration is similar to the style named after the esteemed Joseph D’Appolito. Done well this configuration functions like a single large woofer in terms of dispersion. Less floor and ceiling bounce yield better detail at the listening position.
Interestingly, the Audiogon craze of criticizing the tweeter array for possible comb filtering is not what I’m sad about. In fact the array appears to be the least of the issues. Look at figure 4. The horizontal plots are superbly clean. Any comb filtering from the tweeter array would be displayed here, and it’s not. Those critics going nuts about the array’s poor performance can apologize for their uninformed criticism right now.
The problem is really the vertical response. It is terrible. Here we do have evidence of comb filtering! See the plot closest to the viewer in figure 5? See the regularly occurring hills and valleys completely absent from figure 4? That my friends is comb filtering. However it’s not coming from the tweeter array, but from the two widely placed woofers. There’s also a great deal of hash above 5kHz on this same plot. This makes me so very very sad.
Part of this is fixable. As Dr. D’Appolito discovered, the designer should have used a higher order crossover slope, which would have taken care of the hash above 5 kHz. However the comb filtering below this is not easily remedied. The issue has to do with how far away the two woofers are from each other. They are so far, and cut in so high that they can’t help but interfere with each other and this woofer to woofer distance is ultimately controlled by the size of the tweeter array.
Should you buy this speaker? I think you should listen to it. See how it sounds to you as you move around your listening space. If you find yourself enamored of the mid-treble resolution and detail, I would encourage you to listen to other Tekton designs that don’t attempt a D’Appolito design, because I'm afraid that the main benefit of this type of design, narrow mid-woofer dispersion, is lost. A simpler 2-way would avoid these issues and be as good at detail and resolution
https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-impact-monitor-loudspeaker-measurements
This woofer - tweeter - woofer configuration is similar to the style named after the esteemed Joseph D’Appolito. Done well this configuration functions like a single large woofer in terms of dispersion. Less floor and ceiling bounce yield better detail at the listening position.
Interestingly, the Audiogon craze of criticizing the tweeter array for possible comb filtering is not what I’m sad about. In fact the array appears to be the least of the issues. Look at figure 4. The horizontal plots are superbly clean. Any comb filtering from the tweeter array would be displayed here, and it’s not. Those critics going nuts about the array’s poor performance can apologize for their uninformed criticism right now.
The problem is really the vertical response. It is terrible. Here we do have evidence of comb filtering! See the plot closest to the viewer in figure 5? See the regularly occurring hills and valleys completely absent from figure 4? That my friends is comb filtering. However it’s not coming from the tweeter array, but from the two widely placed woofers. There’s also a great deal of hash above 5kHz on this same plot. This makes me so very very sad.
Part of this is fixable. As Dr. D’Appolito discovered, the designer should have used a higher order crossover slope, which would have taken care of the hash above 5 kHz. However the comb filtering below this is not easily remedied. The issue has to do with how far away the two woofers are from each other. They are so far, and cut in so high that they can’t help but interfere with each other and this woofer to woofer distance is ultimately controlled by the size of the tweeter array.
Should you buy this speaker? I think you should listen to it. See how it sounds to you as you move around your listening space. If you find yourself enamored of the mid-treble resolution and detail, I would encourage you to listen to other Tekton designs that don’t attempt a D’Appolito design, because I'm afraid that the main benefit of this type of design, narrow mid-woofer dispersion, is lost. A simpler 2-way would avoid these issues and be as good at detail and resolution
63 responses Add your response
@wilson667 It’s a good question. Eric Alexander has strong experience in this area and should be able to guide you based on your needs, room, and the Impact Monitors. SVS will likely have experience with their own subs when combined with Tekton speakers. Call them up. I find that I (nearly always) learn something new or different when I reach out to the manufacturers. |
Hi everyone I just purchased a pair of the Impact Monitors. I have about 80+ hours on them. They are sounding great. I am wanting to fill in the lower frequency range a bit so I picked up a pair of SVS sb1000’s . My question is to folks using subs where have you found to be a good crossover point to integrate the subs? |
Except that is should be called an, "upper mid array." P I made some, slight mods, wink wink... they were amazing from the start, but truly special now. I’m not going into what I did, but I spoke with Eric about it and told him what parts I changed out and after, he got over feeling like I molested his daughter, he admitted the parts I chose were what he would choose, or at least comparable, but would have changed the price point by 3k. I understand that as most of us without an unlimited budget are thankful... but my OCD pushes me to make changes to an already brilliant design and hope we don’t #&^)( it up. It was a process for me as they were NOT right after I got done. I found that somehow I had created some phase issues with my, outside crossover and wiring. Once I figured it out, I sat there with a large grin on my face thinking about my friend who has 60 something K in his system. :) Tekton-Lyngdorf Bliss. :) JT PS Just realized I typed this all in on a monitor thread and I have the DIs lol. Never mind, nothing to see here, move along. |
I don’t disagree in part. It’s personal preference in how one prefers to listen. For those on the move when they listen, the Tekton monitor may hot be the best choice. For those that listen in the sweet spot it’s a non-issue. I just resent how some make such ridiculous suggestions that are directed at Tekton when may other speakers suffer similar problems. There is always give and take when a designer makes a choice. Some speakers that offer wide sweet spots may not image as precisely as the Tektons do in the sweet spot. Obviously we all have our preferences. |
Have to agree with teajay on this point---the amount of nit picking that goes on towards Tekton is ridiculous and often by critics that have never even heard the speaker in question. Yea, you are so right. Tekton needs to place a warning of their site about only listening in the sweet spot. REALLY. And so should every other manufacturer. Never heard a speaker that did not change it's response and imaging as you wander about your room. And now we need a warning that multiple tweeter speakers blow up. Brother. I'll never blow a tweeter on my DI's. In fact, this is the most composed speaker I have heard when played loudly. No strain whatsoever. Tell ya what--I'll be the first one to tell you if there is a failure. Just don't hold your breathe. |
To be clear: The tweeter array has no apparent comb filtering as a result of the array itself. All those armchair designers and array detractors were W R O N G. OTOH, the array to woofer matching shows plenty of comb filtering, none of which the A'gon pundits warned about! So I'm doubly amused. This is the sad part, and also sad because the same designer's own Enzo is relatively free of these effects. It is the insistence on a W-(array)-W arrangement that causes this. Best, Erik |
@erik_squires A couple of weeks ago, comb filtering was all the rage on Audiogon. It seems that the DI monitors have plenty of comb filtering and no one cares. Curious! Truth! In that previous deleted thread, the uninformed Tekton fanboys disagreed with my statement that there is no way the Tekton designs could have ZERO comb filtering and/or lobing. This is the second measurement of a Tekton speaker, and the second to back my claim. The fanboys say to sit in the sweet spot, but there is no warning of this on the Tekton site. No one else has warned how the Tekton speakers may be a poor choice for home theater buyers. The Tekton site only talks about how Eric has "designed over 60 commercially available speaker models to-date, many for other well-known companies." He still has yet to account for these "well known companies." An average internet direct company (I'm not talking about Tekton) is nothing to brag about. |
Hey @teajay Read my comments, from the very first posting until now. When have I assessed the sound quality of these speakers? In fact, I make it clear you should listen to them, and many replied that they only care in the sweet spot. At most, I recommend where listeners should pay particular attention. So I don't know what part of your body you type out of, but I hope it connects to the part of you that thinks a little more soon. Kristofa - I'm not sure it is even a problem, since most listeners are reporting that they listen only in the sweet spot. If your question is: Would this kind of comb filtering be in other models? Then the answer is: Depends on the crossover slopes, high pass point, and space between the woofers. Best, Erik |
This is why I don't think much of most reviewers. About the only thing they have above average Joe audiophile is some writing style and command of the English language. And even THAT could be debated. I would challenge any reviewer to actual listening capability and come up with as good of results with any piece of gear. Point is, I get tired of reviewers looking down on conventional music loving audiophiles. IMO. |
| Post removed |
Yes, I get that D’Appolito array is different, but as far as the woofer to woofer spacing and lobing, along with the integration to the drivers, they are the same problems. The reason D’Appolito now prefers 4th order filters is exactly why they DI monitors have horrible vertical response above 1 kHz. The reason Joe tried to keep the woofers together and pick a low enough crossover frequency is exactly why the DI monitors show gross combing between 300 Hz and 1 kHz. Everything Joe did right, the Tekton’s do wrong, regardless of whether it is a 2 or 3 way or 3 way coaxial. The core issues which D’Appolito deals with are exactly why I’m complaining but also why I feel the D’Appolito design is the perfect example against which to compare the DI monitors to. Best, Erik |
Well if you asked Joe what his D'Appolito design is, he would tell you that he made the MTM design to reduce lobing and improve midrange output on a standard 2 way. To do this properly, the driver spacing & Crossover frequencies are critical as they work hand in hand with each other. Originally Joe's MTM's used 18db per octave slopes period, he has now adopted 24db slopes. I have built MTM myself with 12/18 slopes and 24/24 slopes both with outstanding results.. I do understand Erik's term, because Joe calls the MTM, the D'Appolito himself, but in reality, the array along with variable frequencies in the crossover on the tweeter array along with spacing that Joe would never have used in his designs make this nothing like a D'Appolito design. The tekton's only get away with the driver spacing so far apart because of the crossovers being so low in frequency... Overall a very different speaker. |
Hi @steakster I don't want to beat a dead horse, but no. The issue is the distance between the two woofers. On the other hand, as the review and others have noted, in the exact sweet spot, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the performance of the DI monitors in the sweet spot. It is really two things: 1 - Above and below 2 - The entire purpose of a true D'Appolito is to narrow the beam width of the mid-woofers, which you don't get with this design. Often angling a driver off-axis eliminates on-axis issues. Wilson did this with the Focal tweeters. :) Best, Erik |
| Post removed |
@charles1dad I think as a buyer you are right on. :) One important part of the hobby and engineering though is to examine our assumptions about what sounds good (and good enough) vs. measurements. A couple of weeks ago, comb filtering was all the rage on Audiogon. It seems that the DI monitors have plenty of comb filtering and no one cares. Curious! Erik |
Hey Charles, This is one of your very well said/insightful statements that I totally agree with. By the way its been four professional reviewers that gave the DI Monitors five stars, not two. I still found it amazing what nit-picking still goes on towards Tekton speakers that give so much pleasure to scores of music lovers because they are so reasonably priced. |
| Post removed |
It seems to me the overwhelming goal of a speaker (or any audio product) is to sound good. Two professional reviewers and numerous listeners confirm they sound very good. IMO this is simply the bottom line objective. In an academic sense I get the isolated measurement concern and driver arrangement issue. It is however a moot concern if the speaker sound quality is of a high standard which it certainly appears to be. The focus on an aspect of the speaker that in the end doesn't detract from the overall sound seems irrelevant. Now if this speaker had flawless measurements across the board yet produced poor/mediocre sound quality, there's a legitimate problem. This is audio so we listen and judge. Charles |
P.S. I reserve the right to coin a new phrase, in this case quasi-D'Apollito to mean speakers which use a Woofer - (something) - Woofer array when that (something) shares a similar crossover point that could be expected wiht a D'Appolito, around 2-5kHz. By my definition and for the purpose of this argument, the Tekton DI Monitors qualify. |
You keep referring to the DI Monitor as a "quasi' D'Appolito design" , however I politely disagree with this statement @teajay If the monitors are not attempting the same dispersion control that D'Appolitos bring, then it is just bad speaker design. Spreading out the woofers around a central array without taking into consideration the crossover point is sad indeed. On the other hand, if I think of the designer attempting to extend the focus of the tweeter array to the woofers then the intentions were good, but the execution incomplete. Either way, as good as they may sound, this seems like only a partial success. Best, E |
Hey Erik, You keep referring to the DI Monitor as a "quasi' D'Appolito design" , however I politely disagree with this statement. Since it is not a D'Appolito design to begin with, therefore it by logic it can't be a "quasi" version by default. As I shared above on this thread this is a three way (co-axial single point tweeter/midrange flanked by the two woofers) all D'Appolito designs are MW/T/MW drivers, two-ways, not three- way designs. In my home the DI Monitors still sound excellent when I'm going about my business, but still want to enjoy music. Of course, when I sit in the sweet spot it's more magical, but it does not become horrible off axis at all. |
Listening to music is a near all day thing for me and my wife. Our listening room and kitchen/dining area is one big room. We often listen while cooking, siting at the island and moving about the space, so the ability for a speaker to sound good while standing up etc.. is very important. The days of me sitting in my dedicated cave alone with music is behind me. It is now more of a shared and living experience in my home. Sure, I still listen sitting in the sweet spot. A speaker should handle both well for our needs. |
Hi Charles, My critique may be a moot point is listeners don't mind the off axis performance or plan on only listening in one fixed location. I think that for the same price, a slight re-arrangement of the woofers along with a higher order crossover could perform better. So, in that sense, yes I think I might be able to best the monitors. :) Take a look at the vertical dispersion (fig. 5) of the Tekton Enzo to see what I mean. https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-enzo-xl-loudspeaker-measurements As for the price, Tekton is getting an amazing price break from SB Acoustics in order to make those price points with seven tweeters. I think that the combination of interesting and very well behaved tweeter array plus components make the speakers a potentially very good value (assuming they sound good). If I had to sell speakers for $2k and make a profit, I'd probably try a much more traditional line array. It is quite a challenge! And not one I would attempt commercially. Best, Erik |
Hello Eric, I appreciate your critique of the Tektons from the perspective of a speaker builder. Do you believe you could produce an equal or superior speaker for the 2000.00 USD retail price of the Impact monitor? I ask this with genuine curiosity and respect (no implied snarky attitude). This speaker has received much praise based on listening which in my opinion is the most relevant factor. Thanks , Charles |
Hey facten, Let me be very clear and precise, for my personal taste the DI Monitors did out perform the speakers that I mentioned. I could have purchased any other of the speakers I reviewed. However, I did not, but did purchase the review pair of DI Monitors for the reasons I mentioned in my review. That does not mean the other speakers are still not excellent products and fine music makers. Eric figured out something with his new design that for me sounds more like the illusion of real music in my systems. |