Tekton M-Lore Speaker Measurement Update

[Jim Taylor]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/speaker-speed.17759/post-1957319

Jim

 

[antcollinet]

A lot of speaker design is based on guesswork and speculation anyway.

And there is the problem, right there.

if it does what they say, there has got to be a reason, an effect, for it.

But there is no evidence that it does. None. Literally....None.

What effect are you suggesting would do it?

See point 2

...because I'm not sure what your actual contention is. My contention is that the designer did the maths: 6>1, and correspondingly, you might find a greater surface area of coil windings. Plus it might cool better spread between 6 motors. So, I'm not sure how wrong I am when I am not advocating the technical argument myself, just explaining what might be the design intention.

Pure, 100% speculation. That's what gets engineering into these messes in the first place.

I'm not in the habit of reverse-engineering goofball designs inside my head, but I guess I am now.

I rest my case... yer onner

 

[Somafunk]

...but I'm just speculating and playing Devil's Advocate for a rational based on some science-y thing that the designer-"engineer" might have had in mind. A lot of speaker design is based on guesswork and speculation anyway

Ya’ think?

 

[CedarX]

A lot of speaker design is based on guesswork and speculation anyway.

A lot of speaker buying is based on guesswork and speculation… This I would agree!

 

[Thomas Lutro]

I think it's about driver mass, in relation to magnet's surface area on the coil, if I had to guess. Let's say that total driver mass is identical, I'm pretty sure six magnets and coils can move it with more control than a single coil.

On the one hand this is an area of mature technology, where most ideas, good and bad, have been tested, and Darwin has done his thing. There's little to be had but slow and incremental improvements, mostly through application of work from other areas, materials, modeling software, what have you.

On the other hand, there's the need for customers, return customers (audiophilia is struggling with 'meh' from the young). That leads to the need for a narrative, a story, a visible something to talk about.

And then we end up with outlandish designs with no sense or merit, reviewed by mainstream reviewers so old they can afford super tweeters but hardly hear upper midrange. Of course it sounds different, and of course different is better when you insist on that same old played to death record.

We all just need to accept that kit ends. Reproduction is engineering, not art. We all need to buy records, more records, bigger houses to accomodate our records. And we need to get off our asses to hear live music. Musicians are the artists, not some schmoe with a HiFi brand.

 

[Jim Taylor]

We all just need to accept that kit ends. Reproduction is engineering, not art. We all need to buy records, more records, bigger houses to accomodate our records. recordings. And we need to get off our asses to hear live music. Musicians are the artists, not some schmoe with a HiFi brand.

FIFY.

Jim

 

[YSC]

...but I'm just speculating and playing Devil's Advocate for a rational based on some science-y thing that the designer-"engineer" might have had in mind. A lot of speaker design is based on guesswork and speculation anyway. I'm just trying to fix that concept to a plausible effect. Six coils verses one? if it does what they say, there has got to be a reason, an effect, for it.

What effect are you suggesting would do it? ...because I'm not sure what your actual contention is. My contention is that the designer did the maths: 6>1, and correspondingly, you might find a greater surface area of coil windings. Plus it might cool better spread between 6 motors. So, I'm not sure how wrong I am when I am not advocating the technical argument myself, just explaining what might be the design intention.

I'm not in the habit of reverse-engineering goofball designs inside my head, but I guess I am now.

No need for reverse-engineering, if it delivers what is objectively good sound measurements, it is a succeessful design, we won't care if it's made of a dozen toilet paper. I believe a lot of ppl here would be convinced if it objectively performs ignoring the look or array, but if it don't perform, it doesn't matter if it is made out of unobtainium either

 

[antcollinet]

I believe a lot of ppl here would be convinced if it objectively performs ignoring the look or array,

Well for me - it would have to justify the arrays existence, not just by performing, but by performing better than a traditional design (otherwise the cost and other compromises are not justified).

Problem is if they are selling the array based on "speed" it is nonsense. All designs that achieve flat FR also achieve "speed", and you don't need daft looking, expensive, beaming tweeter arrays for the mid range to get that.

 

[YSC]

Well for me - it would have to justify the arrays existence, not just by performing, but by performing better than a traditional design (otherwise the cost and other compromises are not justified).

Problem is if they are selling the array based on "speed" it is nonsense. All designs that achieve flat FR also achieve "speed", and you don't need daft looking, expensive, beaming tweeter arrays for the mid range to get that.

No offense, I am personally more open, if gimmicks or a diffent approach did achieve what is desired, it's a good design, the extra cost is just kind of R&D cost in my book, there's no harm to pay extra for some gimmicks/look where one would get more satisifaction, but if one need to trade performance for the gimmick/look, then it is going into the wrong direction

 

[antcollinet]

No offense, I am personally more open

That is fine - we are a broad church

 

[Thomas Lutro]

FIFY.

Jim

That's a lot of money freed up right there.

But on the other hand. I love records, in no way because they sound better, they don't in and of themselves (some times they are the only source for the best mix/ master). But somehow, through some mysterious process they make me a better and more attentive listener.

 

[CedarX]

The Tekton speaker feet story has been noticed... Here is a picture of a Tekton "Lore" for sale on eBay :

 

[Bob from Florida]

Problem is if they are selling the array based on "speed" it is nonsense. All designs that achieve flat FR also achieve "speed", and you don't need daft looking, expensive, beaming tweeter arrays for the mid range to get that.

Speaker speed is a function of cabinet design. The aerodynamics of the cabinet will determine terminal velocity of any given speaker dropped off of a tall building, ie Empire State Building.

 

[Mart68]

I went up to the observation deck of the Empire State. One of the elevators was out of order, but the doors were open and there was just this ridiculous little plastic fence across the opening. Like the fence outside a child's wendy house.

Against my better judgement I leaned over and took a look down the shaft. It fair turned me over.

Two girls behind me said, 'Ooh, what's it like?'

I told them not to look, but they did anyway.

 

[milosz]

The speakers in my car have an ECM-limited top speed of 162 MPH (261 KPH).

 

[musicforcities]

Thank you @amirm

As much we may understand Eric’s point of view that a minor cabinet leak can, and will change the port turning, and measuring on a different axis will affect the measurement, I feel that the owner’s reaction was unnecessary.

The approach to critical feedback can be managed in a different way.

After all, this is not the same magnitude of problem like a gross error- like a driver being wired out of phase, or a damaged / non-functioning driver.

I would have thought that a different approach would be more constructive eg. Reflecting on limitations of being able to control a user’s set-up process (eg. not installing feet) or listening on the tweeter axis instead of the woofer axis.

I would think this is a better approach and better for public relations for all involved.
After all, Eric does seem to have other interesting designs worthy of audition / measurement / review.

View attachment 364801

Ulfberht

Named after medieval-era Viking swords, the Ulfberht loudspeaker is the ultimate hammer/butterfly of sonic expression, striking out at the listener with percussive elements and a velocity that matches…

tektondesign.com

t

What a silly design that thing is. Radial tweeter array would be so hard to get correct if at all. Look at how much time and effort KEF has put into their coaxial designs. Or others put into getting line arrays correct.

Unless he is doing that level of R&D…ha ha

 

[milosz]

I think I understand the idea behind these designs - using a bunch of tweeters in parallel in order to extend the lower limit of their range down into the midrange with the idea that using a bunch of small drivers instead of one larger cone or done will offer an advantage in terms of diaphragm control - many voice coils per square area of driven diaphragm surface - so why not use an electrostatic driver, which is controlled over 100% of it's diaphragm area? Or a magnetostat driver of some description? The multiple tweeters are apparently crossed over at 300 Hz and only the central tweeter is crossed at 1,000 Hz, so that array of little drivers is acoustically one large driver at midrange frequencies.

I would worry about distortion - small drivers tend to have high distortion below their intended range, though maybe paralleling a bunch of them avoids this.

I just don't see the advantage here, except to offer "something different."

 

[Theta]

The empire strikes back.

The clash between Tekton and the objectivistas will not be fought out in a court. Because then the judge must decide between the value of objective and subjective opinions in HiFi.

There are some examples of gear where everything comes together. One of these is making beautiful music now in my room: the Chord Dave dac. Together with a streamer with a much better sound than the bit-perfect MicroRendu (Bryston BDP-2) every day I understand better that measurements do not say everything. Between measurements and the best sound is a gap.

And that gap is where this fuzz is all about.

What speakers do you use?

 

[musicforcities]

The empire strikes back.

The clash between Tekton and the objectivistas will not be fought out in a court. Because then the judge must decide between the value of objective and subjective opinions in HiFi.

There are some examples of gear where everything comes together. One of these is making beautiful music now in my room: the Chord Dave dac. Together with a streamer with a much better sound than the bit-perfect MicroRendu (Bryston BDP-2) every day I understand better that measurements do not say everything. Between measurements and the best sound is a gap.

And that gap is where this fuzz is all about.

I feel sorry for your bank balance. But I wish you well in your pursuit of expensive distortion machines.

Just don’t pretend it is high-fidelity and we can all agree on facts.

Edit: I want to clarify that I myself enjoy some distortion machines. as stated elsewhere I’m a sucker for planar and bi-polar/omni speakers. I have a bi polar disorder tendency.

And I have a sunfire valve preamp I listen to from time to time that is loads of fun. That unit even has an inverse RIAA circuit— you can plug your dac into it and it will first have riaa eq applied, then it will go through the phono stage riaa eq and through the three tubes of the moving magnet phono section. And then into the three tubes of the line preamp section (one per channel plus one be for the tone/contour controls; as an aside they are great contour controls that select different discrete filters…except that shared extra tube audibly decreases channel separation…). Use that and make everything sound like vinyl, soft treble, limited low end, etc. super fun for nostalgic visits to youth blasting out Journeys escape….

But I’m not fooling myself when using such things. And usually am using a solid state preamp/dac/streamer straight into a solid state a/b amp or a well measuring class d into a pair of stand mounted dynamic speakers.

 

[musicforcities]

I think I understand the idea behind these designs - using a bunch of tweeters in parallel in order to extend the lower limit of their range down into the midrange with the idea that using a bunch of small drivers instead of one larger cone or done will offer an advantage in terms of diaphragm control - many voice coils per square area of driven diaphragm surface - so why not use an electrostatic driver, which is controlled over 100% of it's diaphragm area? Or a magnetostat driver of some description? The multiple tweeters are apparently crossed over at 300 Hz and only the central tweeter is crossed at 1,000 Hz, so that array of little drivers is acoustically one large driver at midrange frequencies.

I would worry about distortion - small drivers tend to have high distortion below their intended range, though maybe paralleling a bunch of them avoids this.

I just don't see the advantage here, except to offer "something different."

Indeed. I guess they have never heard of a wave guide….lol. Amazing thing those wave guides. A piece of plastic or metal, properly designed takes care of everything claimed for the radial tweeter array.

Plus, it’s like they like on another timeline and there the only tweeter technology is 1” domes. No compression drivers. No horns. No ribbons, no AMT, and certainly no electrostatic panels. No KEF-like coaxial designs either.

It is just laughable.

You know you are in trouble when Polk is creating more legit driver innovation at a price point many times lower. or KEF. or JBL with their past studio series with compression drivers set into huge wave guides.

a ribbon or largish sized AMT seems a far better choice if one is pursuing “Exotic” tweeters and crossover points.

Have a hang up on phase alignment/time alignment? Go with a proper line array.

I say this as someone who loves many electrostatic speakers even though i am aware of all their inherent issues. They can produce an amazing effect. I also like the old mirage Omnidirectional tech, also an amazing sound field. Again with drawbacks. Not everything has to measure fantastically on a Klippel to be enjoyable. And Di poles, bi poles and panels seem to measure quite poorly on it, which may be no surprise given the design tech requires an echoic room .

But who decides these things are a better use of money than a KEF reference? Or a Revel? Or for that matter Martin Logan electrostatics? Or a truly esoteric modern equivalent of an Apogee ribbon? Or ESS.

I just do not get it….