If we come back to earth precisely, and get rid of the misinformation in the field of high fidelity and the emotional investment in the equipment we own, a real audiophile disease, we are faced with high-fidelity sound reproduction devices. We just ask them to modify the signal present at its input as little as possible. Hi-fi is that. Subjectivist audiophilia which ideologically refuses measurements is something else: that's flatness...
You probably meant to write “ seeing with their own Brain “
Given that it was a nearfield measurement (what distance exactly?), besides being lower in level the second aspect of the tweeter now being farther away is that its response now is also a bit later, blending better into the rising slope of the woofer.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):
Neither represents bad or good results in my book. But if the right graph makes Mr. Alexander happier, there it is.
tektondesign.com
No, there is not.
I won't be buying anything from Tekton as a result of this. A good speaker designer should be very interested in accurate measurement of their product with a view to improving future designs. They are evidently not interested in better designs.
What gap? Describe the gap. Prove the gap. Is it your limited human hearing? Do you disagree that we can measure sound accurately down to the noise floor? Tell me the science that proves your point. Audio is a low frequency phenomena. We understand audio. We also understand very high frequency phenomena, and extremely low frequency phenomena, as in detected gravity waves. What's the gap? Describe the gap. I've heard people claim this. I've never heard any defense of your position that is tenable. Maybe you can provide one, or some The difference between objectivists and self-appointed audio experts (using their flawed human senses as proof?) is the difference between the modern science of crime forensics and someone simply claiming something. It's the difference between, "we believe this person murdered this other person because we have their blood/DNA from the scene, their finger prints on the gun, the powder blowback from the same cartridges that were in the gun, on their hand. The killer left their shirt at the scene. They left their hair and skin at the scene. We have their shoe tracks and tire tracks at the scene and 4K video of them coming to, and leaving the scene at the time of the Murder," and representing the audiophiles, "I just really really believe that the guy killed the other person. That's all the evidence I need."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.
This speaker is a monstrosity to me. So many company's can produced near perfect speakers with many less components. From a component count alone... this is not justified. Point.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…
I hate lying. This is clear evidence that either the poster or company is bat .... crazy, or they are liars.
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...
First this is a friendly banter … just in case
It is the step response of the magnitude response you see in the distortion measurements. I often spend time optimizing the axis to get the most even response.
Oi..... Have you forgotten the hill-n-dale responses of your Focals? Doesn't stop you seriously enjoying them though, does it?
Ditto.
