Tekton M-Lore Speaker Measurement Update

[amirm]

On the FR graph in your original review at https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/tekton-m-lore-speaker-review.48732/ you make the comment "fairly uneven" but what I see is ± 4 dB from 70 Hz to about 18 kHz. That does not seem "fairly uneven" to me, really. It's not ± 3 dB like the 3-way Revel speakers tend to measure across the same range, and which you call "quite flat on-axis response" - but ± 3 dB and ± 4 dB is not really the distance between "quite flat" and "fairly uneven."

That is not proper analysis. If it were, I would just give you those plus minus numbers and call it done. That logic can also be easily gamed. Why not go from 20 Hz to 20 khz and then say every speaker is off by 20+ dB so they are all the same!

I give you the frequency response so that we can properly analyze the nature of the variations. This requires skill and knowledge which cannot be trivialized to a couple of numbers (hence the reason preference score can misfire). After testing so many speakers and listening to them, the most important area to get right is 200 Hz to around 6 kHz. Below that the room massively modifiers the response. You will need EQ there and with it, you can correct speaker response errors as well (to the limit of its dynamic range). Above 6 kHz, there is not a ton of energy there and variations in preference are rather small. This is why we can get a lot done with headphone testing as it is not reliable beyond 8 kHz or even lower.

From audibility point of view, broad variations are far more audible than narrow ones. So even if they score the same way as far as +- dB, there will be large differences in their fidelity.

Let's look at the two speakers you mentioned:

We have a notch right before 200 Hz and then peaks and valleys all over the place. Now look at Revel F206:

It is essentially ruler flat from 200 Hz to almost 20 khz with the exception of a small peak around 4 to 5 kHz. There is no way these two speakers would get similar preference in listening tests.

Going by preference score which takes into account the unevenness of the on-axis response, the Revel got 5.6 while Mini Lore got 3.5. That is 2 point difference which statistically is quite valid in that score.

Quite flat and fairly uneven are subjective judgements, and I thought that this site was trying to be emphasize objective, scientific criteria. Might be better to let the measurements speak for themselves without the subjective editorial.....

You have just proven why I need to analyze the measurements and will continue to do so. These measurements are not trivial to analyze and many want guidance to learn them until such time that they can do their own analysis.

And remember, many of these measurements are hotlinked and looked at elsewhere. Without the notations on them, people can easily misjudge what they are showing.

Finally, we apply science of psychoacoustics to measurements. This requires analysis and thought. It is what I provide in my review as opposed to just a dump of measurements which cause the eye to glaze over and ignore.

 

[amirm]

Fully agreed. I would encourage @amirm to omit the judging comments in the actual plots (which are then "polluted" forever with that comment), rather place it below in an "interpretation" section -- doing it that way is common practice and it would be more unbiased in the presented graphical results. The data is the data, but the interpretation is always already somewhat subjective especially for the multidimensional and mult-facetted subject of speakers.

By that assertion, I am unqualified to analyze the measurements. If so, who is qualified? Just because you disagree with my assessment, it doesn't mean that I should withhold my analysis of them. You can post and say what you want about them and vote. There is a reason we have grown so much. There is a ton of education that goes on through these reviews and methodology I use to present them. Just look at the Stereophile tests which follow your scheme. Hardly anyone understands them and hence the reason measurements had taken the backseat until I started to do them. Graphs need to be self-explanatory so that the issues it discusses can be seen. Some text way later does not remotely do that.

It would save me a ton of time just to spit out the graphs and type some text instead of spending hours in Photoshop to annotate them. I do it because they are hugely valuable.

 

[DualTriode]

This comment is underappreciated.

DanTheMan said:
I think Teton would have been wise to plug their own holes.


Hello,

This is the objective part that I take away from this thread.

With all the measurements of the leg attachment holes, sealed or not there is only a minor difference in the before and after objective measurements.

A little leak, who cares? Even if you do care it does not matter.

Thanks DT

 

[HeadDoc12]

OK calm down.
ASR can be held responsible for its output, and ASR can not use "freedom of speech" as total defence.
If one can be sued, one has to be careful when speaking publicly.
Perhaps a lawyer can shine some light on this.

You sound a lot like the head of Tekton. Someone not liking what is written or said in no way makes that speech unprotected. If there are provable falsehoods, or provable attempts at harm, then EA needs to show that. Otherwise, it is exactly why we have free speech laws in the first place. People are allowed to like, dislike, hate, be indifferent, etc. Having a big audience changes nothing.

 

[amirm]

I absolutely loath Americans who take advantage of our legal system's strong protections in order to get wrongly was they cannot get legitimately.

Indeed. What is worse is that the enjoy the very protections they want to take away from others. I am sure Mr. Alexander is reading product reviews elsewhere and is very thankful for reviews that point out things that are broken in them.

 

[pseudoid]

...but I am done with M-Lore...

Not so fast.

More could not be done, ...

Au contraire, mon ami!
@Eric Alexander should have asked for additional testing; where the axis-of-measurement is the holes for the spikes.
Good grief!

 

[amirm]

ASR can be held responsible for its output, and ASR can not use "freedom of speech" as total defence.
If one can be sued, one has to be careful when speaking publicly.

I am careful whether I can get sued or not. I take my responsibility in these reviews very seriously. This should be evident from investment in dollars, time, energy and research/knowledge that goes into every review. The work is massively scrutinized by all of you and major industry veterans and member experts. It is like taking a final exam in every review!

One of the top mistakes companies make in complaining about my work is assuming I am some kid with an analyzer. This is very evident in my interactions with Mr. Alexander. Had they spent just a bit of time reading the reviews and their threads, they would quickly realize that their position is wrong.

Ultimately this work involves a human and mistakes can get in. Companies can respond by posting their own measurements (as Denon did for example) and/or bring it to my attention. To the extent the issues they raise are valid, I put all the energy I have into making corrections. You can see that here even though I could have stopped where I was with Tekton.

 

[DanTheMan]

It would be hard to argue that Amir lets his bias get in the way of his objectivity when it comes to data analysis. GRresearch has given him a very hard time and he has still posted positive reviews of Danny’s speakers when they are actually good designs. The man is steadfast and not petty—well at least that’s what the evidence suggests.

 

[Confused_by_tech]

Owner/designer @Eric Alexander has implied that these make a big difference. So much so that he was planning to litigate against me back in March of this year:

Re: "Owner/designer @Eric Alexander has implied that these make a big difference. So much so that he was planning to litigate against me back in March of this year:"

Or is Eric's written words: "The evidence suggests you have personally damaged this loadspeakers reputation and my reputation as a designer."

I have not seen a further response from Eric so I will offer mine:

Eric, In some scientific forums (such as those involving the life sciences), debate and criticism are welcomed as an opportunity to defend one's thinking or improve upon it. As such, dismissing criticism or remarks of others (such as Amir's analysis) without a debate or a defense of your own tenets is often rightly viewed as cowardly, insincere, and a waste of others' investment in the ultimate outcome (this is my personal opinion of course). Like it or not, your response to Amir's objective review (and not his review) has logically damaged your "brand" substantially as a thoughtful designer; the damage you have inflicted will likely persist until, if ever, you are able to achieve redemption and recognition as a thoughtful designer (again this is my personal opinion).

My post is deliberate. Although it represents my personal opinion and nothing more, I would enjoy welcome seeing my post enlarged to the size of a placard as a defense exhibit should your specious groundless claims (again my personal opinion) ever see the light of a courtroom. My direct email is <[email protected]>. Please feel free to contact to have your attorney contact me directly if my remarks require clarification.

 

[PlasticDoc]

One of the top mistakes companies make in complaining about my work is assuming I am some kid with an analyzer. This is very evident in my interactions with Mr. Alexander. Had they spent just a bit of time reading the reviews and their threads, they would quickly realize that their position is wrong.

Their problem is not a problem of science. It is a problem of memory.

A few of decades ago, it was Bose that did this kind of legal harassment of reviewers. How many of you care (or even know) about Bose "Hi-Fi" loudspeakers today?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", --George Santayana, in Life of Reason I, Reason in Common Sense, 1905

 

[Talisman]

A couple of decades ago, it was Bose that did this kind of legal harassment of reviewers. How many of you care (or even know) about Bose loudspeakers today?

As someone before me wrote, Bose had a lot of valid points for what he did, two situations that are absolutely not comparable.
Hating Bose is an easy sport to practice, but it is wrong not to recognize its value and the reasons.

 

[kencreten]

I don't think it's a monstrosity at all!!! Maybe a cheap generic far eastern sourced bass-mid driver and different tweeter could offer a smoother response (up to the upper hundred Hertz region where so many go mad up to the crossover point), maybe some attention to the panel damping internally (just surmising) to smooth a couple more wrinkles here and there to give better measurements, but might that take the 'starter system fun' out of speakers like these? Sure you can do better and smaller these days, but not sure still and after all this that that's the point...

This is the entry product using a more traditional and not cheap not-especially 'HiFi-audio' bass unit (I believe) and from a 1990's mindset for smaller early generation 'tower-type' speakers that were and maybe still are, very popular in the UK market. We had the Castle Severn, TDL RTL2 and derivatives before they were taken over, AE109 (ghastly these were with a 5dB tweeter shelf-down yet they got 5* reviews as a result from the 'Haymarket Hacks'), Mission 752 and following cheaper Mission 'towers' and countless others which if sold direct today without dealer intervention, would broadly cost the same as the M-Lore and arguably measure the same or even worse in all honesty!!!

Thanks Amir and especially the current owner of these speakers, for allowing a re-test to answer the criticisms made. Such a shame the company acquitted itself in such a terrible manner, causing such stress and seemingly putting many potential customers off considering them.

I'm not saying they measure horribly, necessarily, because I don't know their response, distortion, efficiency, etc. I'm saying whatever their performance, the same response characteristics can be had in a much simpler way.

 

[JDS]

The second sentence is accurate, there was no actual malice and freedom of press is very paramount.

On the other hand, the complexities of the case are worth reading since Bose won before losing at the Supreme Court. The thing that is missed in most modern discussions is this

[Bose] “points out that on June 15, 1970, Seligson and a man named Bertram Menden entered into a contract granting Menden a right of first refusal on Seligson's loudspeaker. The contract also called for Seligson and Robert S. Lanier to build a model of Seligson's loudspeaker in return for $2,000 " to be used Only for the purpose of building a model for demonstration purposes . . . " (Seligson Deposition at 357). The fact that Seligson entered into such a contract calls into question his testimony that he had no realistic hopes for the commercial use of his invention.”

Seligson is the reviewer. So he patented and is making his own speaker at the same time he is tasked with reviewing a “competitor”. He claimed it was just a patent that he wasn’t going to commercial and in the lawsuit it showed that he was paying a lot of money to create prototypes. $2K in 1970 is a lot since the average house in 1970 was $23k. 1979 $2k is also $16K in 2024 dollars when accounting for inflation.

Since Seligson is smart and an engineer, they took offense with two major statements. The first was the compliant that you needed “rather gigantic amount of power” (50W)

“The defendant's article reviewing the Bose 901 loudspeaker also states, " If you do consider buying the system, note well this fact: The Bose requires a rather gigantic amount of power. CU recommends you have an amplifier of 50 watts per channel for the deepest bass response." In his deposition Seligson explained how he arrived at the conclusion that the Bose 901 loudspeaker required a " gigantic" amount of amplifier power. (Deposition of Arnold L. Seligson (hereinafter Seligson Deposition) at 196-211). Dr. Bose states in his affidavit that he examined the deposition testimony of Seligson. Dr. Bose also states that if his understanding of Seligson's testimony is correct, Seligson was proceeding on an assumption or theory which was invalid, and that any competent audio engineer would have known that that theory was invalid. (Bose Affidavit at 6-8).”

That’s true. Erin has shown that the 901’s are 84 dB/W on the NFS, and so once you include the wall gain, it is pretty easy to play loudly.

The other part is Seligson wrote that “individual instruments heard through the Bose system seemed to grow to gigantic proportions and tended to wander about the room." The affidavit of the president of Bose Corporation, Amar G. Bose, which was submitted in support of the plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment, states that the phenomenon of widened and wandering instruments described in the defendant's article is a scientific impossibility.

Which is also true. The 901 might widen the phantom center but things don’t move around like a dynamic Atmos mix. Again, because Seligson was an actual engineer, he would know that it’s impossible. In later testimony, Seligson would try to say that he didn’t mean that wander with that standard definition/meaning in the English language.

The other complaints do include that only one driver was measured anechoically rather than all 9 simultaneously (potentially true because the lawsuit showed that the 901 tested had been tampered with) and that Seligson who set up the single blind listening test instructed the listeners to rate which speaker was most similar to the reference direct firing radiating speaker as opposed to rate their actual preference. But then the article makes it a preference discussion.

So as much as Bose is maligned for suing consumer reports for a “bad review” it was very different than the Tekton scenario. Most of us in 2024 would recognize that a review with such a clear conflict of interest should probably have someone else review it or declare the conflict of interest. Back then, there was no website or social media to publicly try to defend themselves (as Arcam did with the ASR review). Likewise, Bose wanted Consumer Reports to publish a correction to address some of these and they didn’t.

Nowadays, Consumer Reports has clear policies on conflicts of interest (which they didn’t back then)

https://www.consumerreports.org/about-us/policies-and-financials/our-bylaws/

Super interesting. I used to think “no highs, no lows, must be Bose” but became a huge fan of the company once trying the 901’s “just for fun” on a whim and being very impressed!

The details of the Bose case are very interesting. Decades ago, a product I designed (in a completely different industry) was trashed in a magazine review. I subsequently learned that the reviewer was doing paid consulting work for our closest competitor at the time (which, needless to say, was not disclosed at the time). Even in my reckless youth, I knew better, as Mark Twain said, than to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

Today ink barrels are obsolete, and the error is known as the Streisand Effect. But the principle remains.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

You sound a lot like the head of Tekton. Someone not liking what is written or said in no way makes that speech unprotected. If there are provable falsehoods, or provable attempts at harm, then EA needs to show that. Otherwise, it is exactly why we have free speech laws in the first place. People are allowed to like, dislike, hate, be indifferent, etc. Having a big audience changes nothing.

Again stop assuming.
I am on ASR's side. My reply was to a post that almost claimed that under the banner of "freedom of speech" one can say whatever.
That I objected to.
If you bother to check my other posts, you will see what my position has been on this issue.

 

[HeadDoc12]

Again stop assuming.
I am on ASR's side. My reply was to a post that almost claimed that under the banner of "freedom of speech" one can say whatever.
That I objected to.
If you bother to check my other posts, you will see what my position has been on this issue.

I'm only "assuming" based on the Bush/broccoli example you gave, which was comparable to this situation in that no one did anything wrong (except of course Eric Alexander). I'm fully aware that lying and threatening (you know, like Tekton does) and all kinds of speech are not protected. If Bush had said broccoli causes cancer that would have been a problem. Also, this is not ASR's side. This is the side of ALL reviewers who have the right to present honest facts and also opinions. EA wants to shut down ALL negative opinion or unflattering facts. The example you gave seemed to imply that harming a business (or even helping one?) means a person has to be more careful with what they say or write. Nope.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I'm only "assuming" based on the Bush/broccoli example you gave, which was comparable to this situation in that no one did anything wrong (except of course Eric Alexander). I'm fully aware that lying and threatening (you know, like Tekton does) and all kinds of speech are not protected. If Bush had said broccoli causes cancer that would have been a problem. Also, this is not ASR's side. This is the side of ALL reviewers who have the right to present honest facts and also opinions. EA wants to shut down ALL negative opinion or unflattering facts. The example you gave seemed to imply that harming a business (or even helping one?) means a person has to be more careful with what they say or write. Nope.

Read it again, From At any rate ....:

 

[MacClintock]

We all know these kind of people. It's like a disease spreading.
They demand evidence and when you give it to them they say it's flawed or wrong.
Same time, they never bring up evidence by their own (Flat Earth Society anyone?).
So, you put in a lot of work which is neglected with one stupid sentence.
Responding to these people in a scientific manner leads to nowhere.

Normally I would say every effort in putting them into the right place is hopeless.
Nevertheless, thanks to Amir for putting his energy in.
At least they get exposed.
But be sure, if their business suffers they will not blame themselves but rather Amir or Erin.

Yes, it's the famous game of chess against a pigeon. It throws all the figures from the table and claims to having won.

 

[kelesh]

As most of you probably know, I reviewed the Tekton M-Lore speaker back in October of last year. Company recently complained that my measurements were in error due to woofer being listening axis and not the tweeter (speaker manual disputes this). And that without the feet, the holes that house them go all the way through causing additional leakage. Owner/designer @Eric Alexander has implied that these make a big difference. So much so that he was planning to litigate against me back in March of this year:
View attachment 364796
Company has failed to this date to provide any measurements of its own, backing that I have "damaged this loudspeakers reputation." Instead, it has repeatedly demanded that I either delete the review or lately, to remeasure it.

I had responded to him that changing the listening axis would not make much of a difference. He disagreed. Fortunately Klippel Near-field Scanner computers the full response of the speaker in 3-D space so I could re-present the results using the woofer axis. As simple math would have predicted, there is little difference as I post in the review thread:

Subsequently, Eric Alexander sent me email demanding that I correct the step response. I explained to him that this was a different measurement and to redo that, it would require to test the speaker again. And that if he provides me with his step response, I would include it in the review. I received no answer.

In the interest of going above and beyond, I exchanged messages with the owner of the M-Lore who had since sold the speaker. He was kind enough to offer to actually buy back the speaker so that we could re-test! Fortunately we didn't have to go that far as the new owner was kindly willing to let me borrow the speaker again. I got both speakers with the spikes as shipped. I don't know which one I tested but I think the results below are representative enough that I don't need to test the other speaker.

I put the feet on and measured the impedance (I have left out phase to make it easier to read the graph):

View attachment 364797
As a number of expert members had predicted, the impact is very small and limited to very low frequencies. There was a tiny resonance at around 400 Hz which got reduced a bit and shifted to higher frequency as noted. It should be noted that you can get larger difference if you just change the test voltage. So all of this is in the noise, literally.

The other complaint was about the step response. Most of you know that I only post that for the few people who care and it doesn't enter my analysis of the performance of the speaker. @Eric Alexander however, insisted that there would be a difference here. First, let me explain that the step response comes from my 86 dBSPL, near-field, non-anechoic measurement. As such, it is very sensitive to where you set the reference axis. In my original review, that was the tweeter. I remeasured, this time by making woofer the reference axis. Since the path length to the microphone from the woofer is shorter than the tweeter now, the first spike that represents the tweeter is lower in amplitude (right):
View attachment 364798

Neither represents bad or good results in my book. But if the right graph makes Mr. Alexander happier, there it is.

Conclusions
As is plainly obvious, these are all nits and do not in any way change the picture of the performance of the Tekton M-Lore speaker. All of this was communicated to the company but the designer refused to accept. And kept insisting that the measurements were "botched" or "flawed." The negligible difference could be and have been predicted so there was little reason to bring them up. It is very odd that a speaker designer would exaggerate such differences so much. And then refuse to post measurement differences when challenged. But here we are.

This concludes my testing of the Tekton M-Lore speaker and addresses the complaints of the company. I am open to testing other speakers from the company but I am done with M-Lore seeing how the company doesn't care enough to release its own measurements.

Now please excuse me as I make arrangements to return these two bulky speakers to the new owner. Special thank you to him and the first owner by being so generous with their time and kind motivations to help resolve this issue.

The two grammatical errors in Mr. Alexander's letter - "your failure's" and "loudspeakers reputation" - tell me about all I need to know about this character. And, mind you, he is a native English speaker. His products are probably designed in the same careless way. If he feels I have damaged his speaker's reputation (pun intended), he is free to sue me

 

[MacClintock]

What you hear is well covered by psychoacoustic , the fact that you like the Dave has nothing to do with its superiority … the topping e50 is superior in every aspect for instance … no doubt about that … as agreed upon by the numerous official tests that have been agreed upon … now you free to argue with them armed with the sales receipt !

This is probably not audible and for sure does not justify the absurd price difference, but still, the reconstruction filter of the Dave is definitely better.

 

[mhardy6647]

Coral, gravel, and sea urchin 'shells' must be really tough for some folks.
EDIT: Not to mention Yellow Submarine.