Tekton style like tweeter array good idea?

[Randolf]

The MOAB BE crossen at around 770 Hz according to Stereophile, which makes sense given the fact of 600 Hz. No way the nine BE version will cross at 270 Hz.

Yes indeed on stereophile I found:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-moab-be-loudspeaker:

"(in the case of the Moabs, between 772Hz and 3.41kHz)"
"Crossover frequencies: 772Hz and 3.41kHz"

https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-impact-monitor-loudspeaker:

"The 6.5" woofers handle frequencies below 1kHz, and the seven-tweeter polycell array handles frequencies above 1kHz."
"Our Ulfberht model incorporates 15 powerful tweeters in a focused array effortlessly digging down to 200Hz!"
"The impedance traces suggest that the crossover frequency between the woofers and the tweeter array lies around 1kHz."

These other ultra low frequency numbers for the tweeter array seem to be pure marketing, significanty below the real crossover frequency. So in all modells I could find some data from the 440Hz fundamental from the example had to be played by the woofers and not the tweeters.

 

[617]

IMO the narrow directivity of a flat penal ESL is one of the benefits(for certain applications) of that type of driver.

I don't mean to be dismissive of panel speakers, but I don't think narrow directivity was one of the things which motivated people to invent panel speakers. It is one of the things which they naturally do well, and obviously people like how it sounds. Conventional box speakers could learn something from dipoles about getting upper mid and treble energy into the room the way panels do - but I've always felt dynamic dipoles do everything that dipoles do but with more control.

Maybe one day we will see a balanced mode radiator panel the size of an ESL; there may be a way to control the panel breakup in a way which creates a super wide and controlled response.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Yes indeed on stereophile I found:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-moab-be-loudspeaker:

"(in the case of the Moabs, between 772Hz and 3.41kHz)"
"Crossover frequencies: 772Hz and 3.41kHz"

https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-impact-monitor-loudspeaker:

"The 6.5" woofers handle frequencies below 1kHz, and the seven-tweeter polycell array handles frequencies above 1kHz."
"Our Ulfberht model incorporates 15 powerful tweeters in a focused array effortlessly digging down to 200Hz!"
"The impedance traces suggest that the crossover frequency between the woofers and the tweeter array lies around 1kHz."

These other ultra low frequency numbers for the tweeter array seem to be pure marketing, significanty below the real crossover frequency. So in all modells I could find some data from the 440Hz fundamental from the example had to be played by the woofers and not the tweeters.

The diyaudio sim suggests the lowest crossover to the woofer is around 1400 Hz. This is based on the reverse-engineered crossover I reposted earlier in the thread. There are a few assumptions around my estimate, but it is not likely much lower. It would also be right around where typical guidance suggests the lowest crossover point for the tweeter should be. Did you look at Bateman's sim on diyaudio? It shows a pretty typical rolloff for the primary tweeter.

Why not simply ask the designer? It is not like crossover frequency needs to be a big secret unless it defies known science and then there is only one conclusion. Despite marketing claims, there is nothing here that has not been known for decades in speaker design. I own CBT24s so I know how they sound is atypical and they are more sophisticated than Tekton's designs. However, the CBT sound field is still explained by science.

 

[pablolie]

Tekton didn't invent the arrangement. The question should not single out one of the manufacturers following the design principle.

 

[617]

Tekton didn't invent the arrangement. The question should not single out one of the manufacturers following the design principle.

Do you know of another commercial offering with quasi coax tweeter arrays? I feel like someone must have tried it in the 90s at some point.

 

[CleanSound]

There is some merit to design it as a point source like a concentric, but eliminating IMD. But that is not Tekton's goal, I read one of their peter pan patents, they are claiming some BS moving mass nonsense.

 

[CleanSound]

Speaker technology

Our most advanced speaker to date! When the highest fidelity is what matters most. Featuring our proprietary DPC-Array controlling Mid/High frequencies and centered by our finest 28mm Beryllium dome and dual 28mm TPCD ultra-lightweight domes.

www.perlistenaudio.com

Hyphn | Uncompromising Performance | Monitor Audio

www.monitoraudio.com

 

[cavedriver]

Do you know of another commercial offering with quasi coax tweeter arrays? I feel like someone must have tried it in the 90s at some point.

I think McIntosh has been making them for around 30 years. As already mentioned in this thread, here's one from their current line-up:, although those appear to be somewhat bigger than 25 mm, apparently they are 2" drivers:

McIntosh XR100 Floor Standing Speaker

The sleek and contemporary XR100 Floor Standing Loudspeaker produces full range audio reproduction typical of much larger cabinet designs. Fine gloss wood finishes are offered in Black and Red Walnut.

www.mcintoshlabs.com

 

[p.trianon]

I have listed to that McIntosh tower at a showroom and it didnt sound bad by any means. Would love to check out the Hyphns but they are ungodly expensive speakers so that probably will never happen. I appreciate those contributing to this thread and evaluating if its a good design approach or not. This is why I love ASR

 

[CleanSound]

I have listed to that McIntosh tower at a showroom and it didnt sound bad by any means. Would love to check out the Hyphns but they are ungodly expensive speakers so that probably will never happen. I appreciate those contributing to this thread and evaluating if its a good design approach or not. This is why I love ASR

On Erin's Facebook group, Andrew Jones commented on the validity of using an array of tweeter sized drivers for mid-range and he personally does not believe it makes sense base on the surface area.

But on the other hand, I have a hard time believing that Monitor Audio, with the R&D resources they have, would went ahead and make something like that if it didn't work.

 

[Rick Sykora]

On Erin's Facebook group, Andrew Jones commented on the validity of using an array of tweeter sized drivers for mid-range and he personally does not believe it makes sense base on the surface area.

But on the other hand, I have a hard time believing that Monitor Audio, with the R&D resources they have, would went ahead and make something like that if it didn't work.

View attachment 363242

Probably should not mix the Tekton implementation with actual science.

What does this have to do with Monitor Audio?

 

[CleanSound]

Probably should not mix the Tekton implementation with actual science.

What does this have to do with Monitor Audio?

Agree, see post #66.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Agree, see post #66.

ok, still where does Monitor Audio fit?

 

[cavedriver]

ok, still where does Monitor Audio fit?

The Monitor Audio Hyphn speaker linked to above uses an array of small drivers. But I'm not sure if their strategy in their implementation is the same as Tekton's so maybe I'm missing your point?

 

[CleanSound]

ok, still where does Monitor Audio fit?

See post #67

Anything else?

 

[Rick Sykora]

The Monitor Audio Hyphn speaker linked to above uses an array of small drivers. But I'm not sure if their strategy in their implementation is the same as Tekton's so maybe I'm missing your point?

Thanks, found the reference in Post #67 (not 66). Agree, would not even loosely equate Monitor's custom driver array with Tekton's.

This is a much better pic...

 

[Randolf]

I have listed to that McIntosh tower at a showroom and it didnt sound bad by any means. Would love to check out the Hyphns but they are ungodly expensive speakers so that probably will never happen. I appreciate those contributing to this thread and evaluating if its a good design approach or not. This is why I love ASR

Thanks for your impression on the XR100. I can easily image that it can sound good. But although the XR100 may look a little bit like the Tekton, for me it is a rather different, a little bit unusual but still classical approach. It just uses 8 2" midrange inverted titanium dome drivers for the midrange 300-2000 Hz frequencies which is probably within the range the drivers are designed for. In contrast Tekton tries to build a midrange device out of tweeters, which in reality only seem to cover a frequency range down to ~800-1000 Hz and uses the drivers below their intended frequency range close to the drivers resonance frequency.
For the XR100 design the super tweeter crossover point at 8kHz (~4cm wavelength) might be challenging to get it work well. But they did it right by putting the 2 tweeters above and below the super tweeter, so on the horizontal axis teh 3 drivers have a chance to play in phase not canceling out each other at the the crossover point.

 

[CleanSound]

would not even loosely equate Monitor's custom driver array with Tekton's.

Which is stated on post #66: "There is some merit to design it as a point source like a concentric, but eliminating IMD. But that is not Tekton's goal, I read one of their peter pan patents, they are claiming some BS moving mass nonsense."

 

[Rick Sykora]

Which is stated on post #66: "There is some merit to design it as a point source like a concentric, but eliminating IMD. But that is not Tekton's goal, I read one of their peter pan patents, they are claiming some BS moving mass nonsense."

Not clear on your point here. But I asked about the tie to Monitor Audio. All good as just figured you had made a typo (66 vs 67).

 

[dfuller]

On Erin's Facebook group, Andrew Jones commented on the validity of using an array of tweeter sized drivers for mid-range and he personally does not believe it makes sense base on the surface area.

But on the other hand, I have a hard time believing that Monitor Audio, with the R&D resources they have, would went ahead and make something like that if it didn't work.

View attachment 363242

Well, I guess Andrew Jones and I agree, since I noted the same thing on the first page of this thread.