Tekton versus Klipsch

I've heard the current as well as a much earlier version.  I liked both.  The settings were different, so it is hard to make a comparison.

I am not a bass freak so it does not bother me that the Cornwalls do not do ultra deep and tight bass (I tend to like bass that is not has tight as is the case with most modern speakers).

I like the Cornwall's sound-dynamic, musically engaging, full (not thin in the upper-bass) and good at lower volume levels.  Like many horn systems, it has a certain tonal qualities and some roughness in its frequency balance that one either loves or hates (I am more in the "love" camp.

The Double Impacts I heard had a much more modern sound--even frequency response.  But, unlike many modern speakers, it did not seem dynamically flat and unengaging and it did not go completely dead at lower volume levels  In that sense it was much more like better high efficiency/horn systems.  It may not have as much of those charming qualities as the best high efficiency/horn systems, but, it is very good nonetheless and it has fewer of the tonal anomalies that can plague high efficiency systems.  It is a very good all around system and it is quite a bargain at its price point.  

In short, the Cornwall is more toward the you either love or hate kind of sound, the Double Impact is more balanced (I don't see too many people hating its sound).

Perhaps the lower bass issue has to do with the use of pleated paper surrounds on the woofer.  These types of surrounds do a terrific job of damping vibrational energy of the cone, and thereby make them sound very clean in the higher frequencies that the speaker is called upon to reproduce, but, they also limit the excursion of the cone so that for any given diameter of cone, they cannot produce as much very deep bass. 

I happen to like the sound of woofers with pleated paper surrounds, but, I am not one to insist on gobs of very low frequency energy.  My speaker runs twin 12" woofers with pleated surrounds.