Tekton M-Lore Speaker Review

[Great Sun Jester]

Hard to fathom a top-notch reviewer not discerning

Then send him a mini m-lore w/ feet, tell him where to measure and post up your measurements of the speaker and we can call it day.

 

[_thelaughingman]

Apparently we need to rewrite our fluid dynamics texts.

Turbulent, yes. Supersonic... well.... And like I said, the data are there, just needs to be replotted.

OH, please don't give him ideas!! He'll think the entropy of the speaker box would be the cause of bad measurements.

 

[RobL]

Box losses [4 leaking holes] are easy to predict and measure. Furthermore, once we get into the 5-10 watt range the air pressure jets in and out of them at speeds above Mach1 and they get audible. Hard to fathom a top-notch reviewer not discerning audible jet sounds coupled with Nora Jones and Diana Krall!

Eric, you gotta stop shooting yourself in the foot. Silliness like this will get torn to shreds here.

 

[_thelaughingman]

Box losses [4 leaking holes] are easy to predict and measure. Furthermore, once we get into the 5-10 watt range the air pressure jets in and out of them at speeds above Mach1 and they get audible. Hard to fathom a top-notch reviewer not discerning audible jet sounds coupled with Nora Jones and Diana Krall!

Wait what??? How is air pressure inside a speaker box pushing MACH1? How did you even measure the speed of such pressure?

 

[Great Sun Jester]

Wait what??? How is air pressure inside a closed speaker box pushing MACH1? How did you even measure the speed of such pressure?

If that's the case one of my farts could put me in space.

 

[olieb]

Wait what??? How is air pressure inside a closed speaker box pushing MACH1? How did you even measure the speed of such pressure?

That is simple, the sonic boom should give it away.
You can't make this stuff up, that is priceless.

 

[DLS79]

It's obvious someone doesn't even have a basic knowledge of fluid dynamics.

The speaker has a massive port on the front multiple times the cross-sectional area of the 4 1/4-20 holes combined.

Even if you blanked the front port I don't think the speaker would have enough power to generate supersonic flow.

Not to mention the sound would be very audible long before it reached supersonic speeds.

 

[montyliam]

Hard to fathom a top-notch reviewer not discerning audible jet sounds coupled with Nora Jones and Diana Krall!

Speak to Steve Guttenberg. His review is linked on your site and he did not have the feet installed in his speaker either. In that case, are you saying his review is also erroneous and shouldn’t be trusted?

What’s hard to fathom is a designer making feet a supposedly integral part of the design but then not making this knowledge readily available either on the website or with the products themselves.

What’s even harder to fathom is why you would publish a review on your website that by your own account demonstrates the speakers being used incorrectly. Strange.

 

[napilopez]

In the midst of all this drama, including my own critiques of Eric's behavior, I do agree with others that we can criticize available data, design decisions, and handling of reviews without resorting to adhominems and exaggerations about the measurable performance of Tekton speakers as a whole.

It seems like a lot of people are now dismissing the measured performance of all the Tekton speakers out of hand when we just don't have enough to say that about the brand as a whole. Yeah, it'd be great it Eric shared some, but we also shouldn't be assuming all the Tekton's suck from a handful of measurements.

Edit: To be clear, I think everyone is more than entitled to ignore Tekton after the threats of litigation and such. I'll certainly never be buying a speaker from them, barring some oscar-worthy redemption from Eric. But this specific post was prompted by feeling people were talking as if these were the worst-performing speakers of all time, which I don't feel is true. I'm just trying to recalibrate the conversation a bit.

Even after this debacle, I'm fine with most of the Tekton data I've seen. This Lore just measured okay, but I voted "not terrible" (I switched my vote to poor after learning about the feet but then switched it back). Keep in mind Erin *liked* the ones he measured (certainly more than the JBL L52 I sent in myself!). The Moab's posted earlier weren't that bad. And here's a stereophile measurement of the Tekton Impact, which was actually the first measurement of a Tekton speaker I'd seen:

I remember being very pleasantly surprised at that directivity performance for a speaker that looks like this:

Granted, the quasi-anechoic measurements make it hard to discern what's going in the lower mids and upper bass, but that is generally a flattish response that would probably score decently in the preference formula, and that most people would evaluate as solid if they didn't know they were tektons. And keep in mind they are $2000 a pair for dual 6.5-inch woofers (and maybe too many tweeters lol). So I never got the sense Tekton was trying to outright scam, even after seeing Eric's behavior here, and I even think he's trying to offer a decent value.

Here's another one measured by stereophile with triple tweeters.

That one's a bit worse in the listening window, but far from awful. I've seen worse from much bigger names. The directivity in particular is once again quite solid.

I found these measurements of the old Tekton 8.1T, a simple 2-way bookshelf, in a blog post from 2009. Note the lack of smoothing and tall vertical axis.

So yes, an awful reaction to to reasonable criticism, inconsistent remarks about measurements, questionable design decisions, and unimpressive measurements for some models are all fair game. But there's no need to pile on with personal attacks, and let's not draw immediate conclusions about speakers that haven't actually been measured extensively yet.

I'm not saying this to defend Eric, but simply to point out that we should stick to what's actually known, and isolate what actually needs to be criticized.

 

[Duke]

I hope I understood this correctly. In Amir's and Erin's measurements, the focus is on four non-sealed holes (screw holes) in the enclosure with a diameter of 1/4'' and how strongly they have affected the measurements.
@Eric Alexander, the speaker designer of the two speakers, believes that this circumstance renders the measurements completely unusable.

What's the issue?
To understand this, let's first estimate the impact of four holes, each with a diameter of 6mm, in a roughly 30L enclosure with 2cm (0.8'') thickness of material. So, let's consider their behavior as Helmholtz resonators, in this case, a quadruple bass reflex system.

The BR resonance frequency f is roughly calculated as (without port correction term):
f = 154*(portNumbers * portDiameter[cm]^2 / portLength[cm] * cabVolume[L])^0.5
f = 154* (4 * 0.6^2 / 2 * 30)
f = 24 Hz

The resonance frequency of the BR system for the four screw holes in the enclosure realistically lies in the 20Hz range (with port length correction). This means that these openings will hardly have any effect at higher frequencies.

Are port resonances caused by the screw holes a problem?
The fundamental resonance for a double-ended open pipe (our screw hole BR ports) is given by f = c / (2 * PortLength). So, the fundamental resonance for a screw hole is at 344 / 2*0.02 = 8600Hz. Therefore, due to the high frequency, low expected sound pressure level, and strong directional effect of the radiated sound, these do not play a role.

Maximal impact of four screw holes?
To better estimate the range of influence, let's simulate a 30L sealed speaker and then this speaker with the four screw holes under ideal conditions to get a hint of the maximal possible impact under ideal conditions:

View attachment 362989
Dashed blue line is the FR of the sealed speaker. In black is the simulated four screw hole BR speaker under ideal conditions (red is port FR, blue is cone FR).
So for very low SPL this is the maximal impact.
We can see above 90Hz there is no impact on the frequency response. In real life with normal SPL the impact will be much lower.

So what is the screw hole impact on Amir's Mini-Lore measurement?
Our simulation above shows that the four screw holes act under ideal conditions as four mini BR ports. This shows up in the simulated impedance diagram:
View attachment 362990
The dashed line shows the impedance FR of the simulated 30L sealed speaker. The black line is the typical double hump of a BR system. So we expect below 20Hz a hump caused by the four screw hole resonators.

Lets see if we can find such an impact in Amir's Mini-Lore Impedance measurement:
View attachment 362991
Seems that the impact of the four screw holes is not significant - there is nothing to see in this range (see pink rectangular). So if the speaker would be re-measured by Amir (or by Erin the other speaker if cabinet volume is similar) the impact below 90Hz will probably be low and above 90Hz the measurement will probably not change at all. Same goes for distortion, CSD, ...
So, it seems 'screw gate' is more of a storm in a teacup.

If I screwed some things up, let me know.

Imo turbulent flow through the screw holes could be audible. They are small enough that I'm guessing something more like "whistling" instead of the more familiar "chuffing". This would of course be level-dependent.

(Edited to add: The airspeed through the ports would not reach Mach 1. Turbulence would be the dominant mechanism at very high port pressures, so simulation software's predictions of very high airspeeds are inaccurate.)

 

[Great Sun Jester]

we should stick to what's actually known

Then let him post his measurements.

 

[kemmler3D]

Acting like a mob or like we have to prove loyalty to someone does not look very scientific to me.

Are people acting like a mob? I can't really argue with that. Yes, it is a bit ugly, but I've seen worse around the internet more than once.

Because we want to prove loyalty to individual people? I don't really agree with that.

What EA is doing is attacking the foundation of what we find valuable about ASR or EAC. If threats like EA's are successful, reviewers can't publish anything manufacturers don't want them to publish - i.e. anything other than praise, about any product.

If reviewers can't publish honest reviews and measurements, all of the value of ASR and sites like it goes away. We would go into another dark age of audio where there's little-to-no reliable information about audio gear.

At least, that is a way to look at it. Amir and Erin represent (in a sense) a free press and something beyond that, consistent, principled, data-driven reviewing. Attacking that seems very immoral to most people in this community, and the response is commensurate to that feeling.

The strength of this place is using data,not claims nor emotion.

I agree - but I think this drama is ultimately about whether people have the right to publish and consume said data. And there is a very strong belief that yes, we (reviewers and readers) do!

 

[napilopez]

Then let him post his measurements.

Am I stopping him lol? I'm just saying you can dislike the guy (a lot) without jumping to conclusions or making stuff up -- he dug his own hole. But I also recognize that almost none of the speaker companies I've ever asked for measurements have sent me any... And I've asked *a lot*. Even when I present them with my own measurements. And even when those measurements are good!

Why? Who knows.

 

[KSTR]

Imo turbulent flow through the screw holes could be audible. They are small enough that I'm guessing something more like "whistling" instead of the more familiar "chuffing". This would of course be level-dependent.

Yes. For any but the lowest levels these holes will act more like simple resistive flow resistance. Lowering box Q by losses.

 

[KSTR]

Then let him post his measurements.

From my own experience as a speaker designer, manufacturer's in-house measurement tend to be smoother and, more importantly, flatter than 3rd party measurement especially when those in-house measurements are not done in an excellent large anechoic chamber or with the Klippel NFS.... because that's how the design process unfolded, with no other frame of reference... you end up making the combined response of the speaker and the measurement setup smooth and flat, with an unknown measurement error.

 

[kemmler3D]

In the midst of all this drama, including my own critiques of Eric's behavior, I do agree with others that we can criticize available data, design decisions, and handling of reviews without resorting to adhominems and exaggerations about the measurable performance of Tekton speakers as a whole.

It seems like a lot of people are now dismissing the measured performance of all the Tekton speakers out of hand when we just don't have enough to say that about the brand as a whole. Yeah, it'd be great it Eric shared some, but we also shouldn't be assuming all the Tekton's suck from a handful of measurements.

Edit: To be clear, I think everyone is more than entitled to ignore Tekton after the threats of litigation and such. I'll certainly never be buying a speaker from them, barring some oscar-worthy redemption from Eric. But this specific post was prompted by feeling people were talking as if these were the worst-performing speakers of all time, which I don't feel is true. I'm just trying to recalibrate the conversation a bit.

Even after this debacle, I'm fine with most of the Tekton data I've seen. This Lore just measured okay, but I voted "not terrible" (I switched my vote to poor after learning about the feet but then switched it back). Keep in mind Erin *liked* the ones he measured (certainly more than the JBL L52 I sent in myself!). The Moab's posted earlier weren't that bad. And here's a stereophile measurement of the Tekton Impact, which was actually the first measurement of a Tekton speaker I'd seen:

I remember being very pleasantly surprised at that directivity performance for a speaker that looks like this:

Granted, the quasi-anechoic measurements make it hard to discern what's going in the lower mids and upper bass, but that is generally a flattish response that would probably score decently in the preference formula, and that most people would evaluate as solid if they didn't know they were tektons. And keep in mind they are $2000 a pair for dual 6.5-inch woofers (and maybe too many tweeters lol). So I never got the sense Tekton was trying to outright scam, even after seeing Eric's behavior here, and I even think he's trying to offer a decent value.

Here's another one measured by stereophile with triple tweeters.

That one's a bit worse in the listening window, but far from awful. I've seen worse from much bigger names. The directivity in particular is once again quite solid.

I found these measurements of the old Tekton 8.1T, a simple 2-way bookshelf, in a blog post from 2009. Note the lack of smoothing and tall vertical axis.

So yes, an awful reaction to to reasonable criticism, inconsistent remarks about measurements, questionable design decisions, and unimpressive measurements for some models are all fair game. But there's no need to pile on with personal attacks, and let's not draw immediate conclusions about speakers that haven't actually been measured extensively yet.

I'm not saying this to defend Eric, but simply to point out that we should stick to what's actually known, and isolate what actually needs to be criticized.

I've said this a few times but I don't think Tekton speakers are actually bad. People seem to like them and the measurements I've seen range from so-so to pretty good IMO.

As ever, the problem is the owner asserting that "facts" in the reviews are wrong, asserting the right to suppress those facts, not providing any facts of his own, threatening to sue people about it, and (as of yesterday) either showing extremely careless ignorance or brazen dishonesty about having made those threats.

The issue is bad behavior, not bad performance.

 

[napilopez]

I've said this a few times but I don't think Tekton speakers are actually bad. People seem to like them and the measurements I've seen range from so-so to pretty good IMO.

As ever, the problem is the owner asserting that "facts" in the reviews are wrong, asserting the right to suppress those facts, not providing any facts of his own, threatening to sue people about it, and (as of yesterday) either showing extremely careless ignorance or brazen dishonesty about having made those threats.

The issue is bad behavior, not bad performance.

Yep, 100% agree. That's all I was trying to get at.

 

[Andy420]

Then let him post his measurements.

He doesn't have any. Is that not obvious?

 

[ctrl]

The point I tried to make earlier is that the effect of the holes on the impedance plot is harder to see on a Bode plot than a Nyquist plot. The data are there, they just need to be replotted. No small loops = no effect.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to high-resolution impedance measurements of the Mini-Lore that could be converted.

[Speculation]

If you take a very close look at the on-axis frequency response of Amir's published NFS measurements, you can notice a very small increase in the frequency response in the range of 20-30Hz. This would correspond quite well to the expected effect of the four screw holes.

However, there are only seven data points in this range. On the other hand, for example, one of the Dynaudio Core 47 measurements taken by Amir does not show a comparable effect.

Comparison Mini Lore versus Dynaudio Core 47 low frequency response:

 

[olieb]

Then let him post his measurements.

He doesn't have any. Is that not obvious?

Maybe someone should be a good guy and send him a Umik?