@8th-note +100 Good synopsis of what has transpired here. They keep attacking and then criticize the dude for defending himself. And they see his responses as evidence that he's a nasty, arrogant condescending piece of work while ignoring that it's their posts that fit that description. Funniest is when they say the ASR posters attack opposing opinions while doing that here for hundreds of posts.
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.
- ...
- 1166 posts total
Amir will continure to post things like the above to "prove" something. It does not prove anything. It just shows that certain cables could pick up more noise if you stick a transformer near it. Let’s see.....where are my transformers to try this? And why would I care? The transparency we perceive when we remove noise with tweaks can be heard.....plain and simple. It CANNOT be measured. Again, you have to listen to know anything. Amir does not listen....therefore he does not know anything. Amir cannot help anyone get better sound than his baseline measuring components......because he does not listen. You are stuck at a good level of sound with a Topping stack.....but you will never get to great, superb or incredible. You are stuck.....because Amir is stuck in his ego defense of something he cannot defend. As I said before, Amir cannot show us any listening tests to prove a component is "transparent" if it meets a certain SINAD measurement. He simply made up his belief and is standing by his "non listening" false statements. His ego is entrenched in this belief......so nothing I or anyone can do here will make him start listening. This thread is just a repeat......over and over and over again. If we want it to end.....then we must do the correct thing.....stop coming here and stop posting. This nonsense could go on forever if we let it. I am stopping.....I will not post here again. There is nothing inherently wrong with Amir. He is not a bad person. He is just caught in an ego mind cycle. Some day.....some lifetime....he will stop defending positions that are not real......this goes for everyone....including me. The soul needs no defense. The truth in audio needs no defense......we all know that what we hear is REAL......Measurements are not music. Whatever you put your mind on........you become. Amir is a measurement man, he puts his mind on a measurement mache.....therefore.....he has become a machine......he he. If we give him attention.....even as resisting him.....then we create his ego even greater.....FOR WHATEVER YOU RESIST......PERSISTS. Let him go and he no longer exists......at least his ego mind will not exist here....for he will have no audience. And you will be at peace and be happier. Let it be so. Let us give audience to the truth of our soul......ie...how great Amir and everyone on the planet is......we are the light of love.....we are the love of light.......put you mind on that and become it.....way more fun than this thread.....WAY MORE. We are Beautiful.....celebrate! We are an infinite Miracle......70 trillion cells in our bodies.....WOW times infinity.....can you dig it? Or would you rather be right? Blessings. |
Only when you use your eyes as well. Audio equipment naturally measures sound, not what your eyes also picked up. Or knowledge of what you are listening to and bias therein. Do the test again without looking or prior knowledge, and then your claim can be taken seriously. Until then, there is no such thing as unmeasurable noise. We wouldn't know what noise is if we could not measure it! |
Not at all. I hugely value proper listening test results. Your listening tests are faulty and you refuse to understand why. Do the listening tests properly and we can then have a discussion. When I am challenged on my hearing ability, I provide full double blind listening tests such as this public test a few years back: ---- foo_abx 1.3.4 report ---- All you have is claims of hearing this and that. Come back following protocols that limit your experience to only sound and then you have something. No measurements needed. As I have said, nearly half of my reviews include listening tests. That amounts to hundreds of reviews this way. So don't keep saying I only go by measurements. I go by what science requires which is either objective tests or controlled experiments. What you do is neither.
|
@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. |
- 1166 posts total