Tekton M-Lore Speaker Measurement Update

[phoenixdogfan]

Amir, perhaps you should issue a public pledge never to review another Tekton speaker again, and in return everyone here could in turn sign a pledge agreeing to never to buy a Tekton speaker ever, assuming we were even considering it before this.

 

[Haskil]

The essence of flat-earth thinking is sticking to some evidence and denying what the majority sees with their own eyes.

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...

But we have the right to like the modified, colorful sound of less than faithful devices... for example, I love listening to rock and songs on my old JBL 4311... And I know that they are mediocre at measures.

 

[meracus]

The essence of flat-earth thinking is sticking to some evidence and denying what the majority sees with their own eyes.

You probably meant to write “ seeing with their own Brain “

 

[KSTR]

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.

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.

But -- and that's the important point we need to stress here -- at any regular listening distance like 2m (6ft) or so a few cm of vertical offset of the listening axis do not make any discernible difference because there the path length and level difference are microscopic.

As far as I can see, the step response plot in the original review is also near field because it seems one and the same plot, pixel-wise. I was under the assumption that the step response you normally show are derived data from the on axis far-field IR calculated by the NFS. If not, you should mark the step response as a separate, near field measurement and state the conditions (distance and axis) otherwise they are a bit misleading because it is not the same underlying measurement as used to plot the magnitude frequency response.
EDIT: And if it is near-field, one should choose a mic position that minimizes additional time-of-flight difference skewing the step response. Since the interesting part of the step response is the first couple of milliseconds (max 3..4ms), one should move the mic as far away as possible (like 1m or so) so that first reflections are outside this window, that means the direct to first reflection path length difference should be about 1.5m which is often feasible with the speaker and mic in the middle of a room on a stand.

------:------

Anyway, a true far-field step response -- no matter how it looked actually -- would not change with a slightly different reference axis vertical offset, and would always have the tweeter leading the woofer. The acoustic centers are not aligned, the tweeter has no set-back or waveguide that would afford the delay compensation.

 

[daniboun]

What seems obvious is that Tekton has a big head) Its reputation (if it exists) seems to be based more on their marketing than on the performance of their product. I would rather learn from my mistakes rather than deny advice....

If we take a quick look at their review, we see that they have been well sorted and that there are almost no objective measurements and that everything we can read is pure poetry in a dythiambic marketing way.

Professional Reviews

Don’t just take our word for it… find out what the professionals have to say about our innovative loudspeakers in their own words.

tektondesign.com

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Between measurements and the best sound is a gap.

No, there is not.

 

[Purité Audio]

Superb work A,
Keith

 

[JakeK]

Amir, perhaps you should issue a public pledge never to review another Tekton speaker again, and in return everyone here could in turn sign a pledge agreeing to never to buy a Tekton speaker ever, assuming we were even considering it before this.

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.

 

[kencreten]

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 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."

Either you have modern scientific demonstrable evidence for you opinions about the science of low frequency audio phenomena which we've known for decades, or you have an opinion. "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens. There's a difference between "what you like," and "facts."

And finally, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that analog in general is "better" than digital audio? Perhaps you or some of your friends? If analog is better than digital, that would be true in video as well? If you think it's better, or not... or if some of your friends think analog is better than digital, how many of them stuck with analog TVs? And... for those "subjectivists" who are convinced that "vinyl is better than digital," can they prove that digital cannot produce quality low frequency audio, as well as it can produce 8K TV?

 

[kencreten]

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 constant velocity…

tektondesign.com

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.

 

[Mart68]

So, it's as expected then.

The man's made a complete fool of himself, exposed his total lack of knowledge in an area he claims to be an expert, and probably irrevocably damaged his business.

And the not very good loudspeaker is still a not very good loudspeaker.

Hopefully this sorry tale will be a lesson to all the other chancers and blaggers out there in hi-fi.

 

[kencreten]

Is this a winning or losing moment for tekton design?

View attachment 364809

I hate lying. This is clear evidence that either the poster or company is bat .... crazy, or they are liars.

 

[DSJR]

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.

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.

 

[meracus]

The essence of flat-earth thinking is sticking to some evidence and denying what the majority sees with their own eyes.

First this is a friendly banter … just in case

But you calling it flat earthers
The test you see before your eyes is all designed and endorsed and agreed upon by the AES , a 100k members plus association that spans several decades with fellows from all around the globe … it is mainly headed by professionals and scientist in the field of audio , including psychoacoustic , their contribution have all been catalogued and peer reviewed , tests / science / debates / white papers etc

Most audiophile only have the credit card company receipt to vouch for their product … I mean how could you call this “ flat earth “

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 !

Preferences … that’s a different matter

 

[amirm]

No talk about religion please. I am going to sleep and am hoping you all don't strangle each other!

 

[amirm]

If not, you should mark the step response as a separate, near field measurement and state the conditions (distance and axis) otherwise they are a bit misleading because it is not the same underlying measurement as used to plot the magnitude frequency response.

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.

 

[DSJR]

So, it's as expected then.

The man's made a complete fool of himself, exposed his total lack of knowledge in an area he claims to be an expert, and probably irrevocably damaged his business.

And the not very good loudspeaker is still a not very good loudspeaker.

Hopefully this sorry tale will be a lesson to all the other chancers and blaggers out there in hi-fi.

Oi..... Have you forgotten the hill-n-dale responses of your Focals? Doesn't stop you seriously enjoying them though, does it?

I bet the upper midrange bump in these is gone when they're sited close-to-wall and then, a gentle-ish slope on the tweeter isn't really an issue with the kind of gear I suspect usually used with the likes of these...

 

[milosz]

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."

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.....

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Is Mr. Alexander implying that a few degrees shift in listening position would make a substantial/audible difference to his speakers?
- If so, he should have addressed the issue at some stage.
Also, if the holes can make a similar change, why did he not block them on the inside?
Is there a warning in the manual regarding this matter?

Incidentally, I got reminded of "where Eagles Dare".
What a movie:

 

[Ken Tajalli]

But -- and that's the important point we need to stress here -- at any regular listening distance like 2m (6ft) or so a few cm of vertical offset of the listening axis do not make any discernible difference because there the path length and level difference are microscopic.

Ditto.