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.
Audio products are sold with puffery because...sales. Or they are sold with measurements because...sales. Music is emotional. Gear is beautiful and represents many different things to different people. If the product isn't moved, the industry dies.
@ricevs Naive |
I may need to clarify something. When I say that the Klippel results are quasi-anechoic I’m not arguing that "quasi-anechoic" is bad, but that by definition it means measurements with anything other than an anechoic space. I made the mistake ot descrbing a specific quasi-anechoic measurement technique, and it may seem I’m saying that quasi anechoic is 1 specific process. It isn’t. It’s an adjective. It classifies measurements broadly into 2 categories: anechoic or not based on the measurement methods. Regardless of the post processing methods, Klippel or otherwise, unless the measurements were donoe in an anechoic space they must then be "quasi-anechoic." if they attempt to replicate an anechoic measurement. The Klippel system may in fact be the best we can do today. It may be the best ever. There may never be anything better. It’s still going to be quasi-anechoic in my mind. Always and forever. I never said ground plane measurements were perfect, but that they could be used for an anechoic measurement below 80 Hz, so why bother to argue that they have issues as well? I don’t care. They are still anechoic while Klippel is not. If this winds you up in a knot, I’m sorry. Have a cookie. If you think "anechoic" is better than "quasi-anechoic" that’s on you, not me. You clearly have a branding problem you want to argue. If your entire web presence now hangs on the perceived value of the brand Klippel, that’s not my concern either. Klippel doesn't care what I think of it and vice-versa. So if you want to argue that there are pros and cons of any kind of measurement, sure, go ahead, but please don’t expect me to engage in arguments I didn’t make. |
Measurements are extremely important, without the equations made prior to the measuring process, there would not be much on offer as a Audio Equipment. The user of Audio Equipment are in general uninterested in the equations and the measurements that follow. Their Trust is in the designs on offer to satisfy their needs as a Listener to a produced sound. In relation to a Speaker, is not the owner of the Speaker at any price point keen to know the Watts (Power Handling), dB (Efficiency), Ohms (Impedance), Hz (Frequency Response). These are the measurements available for most speakers on offer, are there many Speaker owners who extend beyond wanting to witness a Speaker of Interest be analysed for its measurements, or is the next stage the want to experience the Speaker in the Flesh for it s aesthetic and sound produced. For most the Speaker once recognised for meeting a certain criteria, to match a Amplifier, the next stage is the impression the Speaker is able to have on them. Analytical measurements are not really going to supply information to the general speaker owner and listener of produced sound, that shows where the Speaker is possibly being stretched as a tool. Well Seasoned listeners with a broad experience may have more confidence in matching the analysis to the performance of the speaker. Across the last few years, I have been able to listen to a range of ESL and Cabinet and OB Speakers from Vintage Design to modern designs in new to myself systems and systems very familiar to myself. My ear still is very endeared to a sound produced from a Vintage Design, but the impression left by a few modern designs, especially Cabinet Designs has forced myself to have a complete rethink on where the Speaker is to go in my system in the future, until recently I thought the OB was to be the successor to the Vintage design Speakers in use, Cabinet Type Speakers are Speakers of Interest as well now. These changes in direction are solely supported by the impression formed as a result of the listening experience, not a measurement of a Cabinet Type Speaker has been known to me prior to having the experience. |
The Revel dealer’s forum had fallen off my radar (when I got the useless gist of it), until a couple of guys on my listserv mentioned they had been banned for politely disagreeing on some measurement crap, like what is audible or not...In other words, his clan is suppressing anything that deviates from the caricature he paints, in the name of ’science’. But, here he is. There are specific religions, where the land is no longer secular by law, if members of that specific religion become a majority. The lands where other religions are a majority seem to remain secular by law. You go to that intolerant land and you will have no rights, if you belong to any minority religion. But, when these intolerant fanatics come over to other secular lands (in search of fortunes or whatever), they are real Fin happy with the tolerance, secular laws and the ability to have all their rights (be themselves, speak their minds). Draw parallels as you wish between the fanatic forum and the rest of em ... |
