• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Tekton M-Lore Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 68 32.1%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 128 60.4%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 10 4.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 6 2.8%

  • Total voters
    212

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,203
Likes
232,140
Location
Seattle Area
This is a review, listening tests, equalization and detailed measurements of the Tekton (Mini) M-Lore speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs $US 750 a pair.
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Review.jpg

As you see, this is a mini-tower speaker if there is such a thing. I had to put a 6 inch stand under it to get the tweeter to my ear height. There is nothing on the back side other than binding post. Not even a label.

Speaker was measured using Klippel Near-field Scanner. Tweeter center was used as acoustic reference.

Tekton M-Lore Speaker Measurements
Let's start with our usual anechoic measurements:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Frequency Response Measurement.png

Boy, that is a pretty chewed up response. It is not terrible at high level but there are a ton of variations across the full audible band. We also have directivity error due to high crossover point and mistmatch of sizes of tweeter/woofer without a waveguide for the former. Sensitivity is a couple of dBs higher than a bookshelf speaker but also that much lower than a typical tower speaker.

We can see the source of variations in near-field driver responses:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Near-field Frequency Response Measurement.png


Combine the rough on-axis response with poor directivity and the off-axis response becomes that much worse:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson early window Frequency Response Measurement.png


Resulting in rather poor predicted in-room response:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson predicted in-room Frequency Response Measu...png


Directivity as noted is poor:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Horizontal Beam Width Measurement.png

Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Horizontal directivity Measurement.png


Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Vertical directivity Measurement.png


The larger speaker and drivers do provide an advantage in power handling relative to a bookshelf speaker:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Distortion Relative THD Measurement.png


Careful in analyzing the absolute distortion levels due to frequency response variations:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Distortion THD Measurement.png


I ran a 10 dB set of sweeps to see if there is limiting and found one right at 105 dBSPL -- plenty good enough:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker SPL Limiting Measurement.png


Speaker did sound fairly distorted though at 105 dB (although not breaking up).

Impedance is rather high which is good as far as stress on the amplifier:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Impedance and phase Response Measurement.png

We see a couple of clear resonances and more of them in the waterfall graph:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker CSD waterfall Measurement.png


And the step response:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Step Response Measurement.png


Tekton M-Lore Listening Tests
I had measured the speaker a week ago so they were not fresh in my mind. It took all of 3 seconds to realize something is wrong with the response with sound seemingly coming out of a box. Took out the EQ and went after the boost around 600 to 700 Hz:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker SPL Equalization.png

That took out the boxiness but the sound was still not right. Filled in the notch in bass and boosted the gap in treble to balance that. Now the sound was more full but boomy so I put in my one correction for room mode I have around 105 Hz. With these in place, the sound was far more full and balanced. Male vocals sounded terrible without it.

Sub-bass response was decent. There was some distortion but it was trying to play it -- something most bookshelves can't do. I turned up the volume some and could not detect an immediate limit/break up.

All in all, the sound went from lousy to OK/good.

Conclusions
The objective failures of the Mini Lore are pretty obvious. While the speaker is a decade old (?), all of this was known then as well as now. The flaws directly translated to subjective listening tests presenting an unpleasant, boosted upper bass, lower treble. Equalization helped a lot but there are many more faults than my attempt there. The main positive here is the larger cabinet relative to a bookshelf speaker allowing higher dynamics and a bit more deep bass response. Otherwise, I can't see any redeeming characteristics. I don't know what reference Andrew Robinson had to say this about the speaker:
Tekton Design’s M-Lore Mini Speaker Andrew Robinson Review.png


Competition has little to worry about.

I can't recommend the Tekton M-Lore speaker.

Published Manufacturers Specifications:
  • Perfect impulse time-alignment
  • 8″ woofer
  • 1″ silk soft dome tweeter
  • 8 Ohm impedance
  • Frequency Response 38Hz-20kHz
  • 95dB 1W@1m
  • 200 Watts power handling
  • Height 34″ (86.36 cm) x Width 9.125″ (23.17 cm) x Depth 10″ (25.4 cm)
  • Weight 35 lbs.
  • Manufactured in the USA

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome. Click here if you have some audio gear you want me to test.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
 

Attachments

  • Tekton M-Lore.zip
    61.3 KB · Views: 50
Last edited by a moderator:

pierre

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
958
Likes
3,012
Location
Switzerland
Thanks @amirm for reviewing another tower.

I generated 2 EQs: the first one optimise for a flat listening window and the second one optimise for a higher score.
EQs are using PK (Peak) only and are limited to +/-6 dB.

Score is 3.5 and would be 5.7 with a perfect subwoofer.
With EQ Flat: score is 5.1 and resp. 7.0 with a perfect subwoofer.
With EQ Score: score is 6.0 and resp. 7.6 with a perfect subwoofer.

First set of graphs show nice improvement on all curves.
filters_eq.jpg


Here are the graphs when you optimise for improving the score.

filters_eq.jpg


Go to spinorama.org do get more graphs, eqs etc
 
Last edited:

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,900
Likes
3,358
Location
Minneapolis
Interesting, given the limitations of a design with the chosen drivers and config, this is pretty good. Could have been much worse. Just not a great idea, but not fully terrible in my view.
I will say I have always thought Tekton had an interesting catalog. A real Muppet show. That is both good and bad of course.
I have a set of Tekton Impact Monitors. Those sound pretty good & measure very well with my limited test equipment.
Someday maybe up on the Kipple.

Anyway great test, thanks again.
 

moonlight rainbow dream

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
154
Likes
219
That is a way more linear-trending axial response than I was expecting from the brand's image. Sorta curious to see their higher end offerings measured now. The raggedness in the FR is to be expected from a run-of-the-mill PA-type driver and it seems that the increase in dynamics/max output over a hifi driver wasn't worth it in this case.

The tweeter looks like the Peerless BC25 used in the Dennis Murphy AAM. Surprised they weren't able to eke out more sensitivity from this combination.
 

dogmamann

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 16, 2022
Messages
791
Likes
501
Interesting, given the limitations of a design with the chosen drivers and config, this is pretty good. Could have been much worse. Just not a great idea, but not fully terrible in my view.
I will say I have always thought Tekton had an interesting catalog. A real Muppet show. That is both good and bad of course.
I have a set of Tekton Impact Monitors. Those sound pretty good & measure very well with my limited test equipment.
Someday maybe up on the Kipple.

Anyway great test, thanks again.
Send them for measurements and we will see how they subjective and objective measurements correlate.
 

Lopsided

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
61
Likes
55
Amir, you can consider running the SPL limiting test normalized to sensitivity at 2.83V, or from a lower figure like 86 db and in wider increments, will greatly help visibility.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,203
Likes
232,140
Location
Seattle Area
Amir, you can consider running the SPL limiting test normalized to sensitivity at 2.83V, or from a lower figure like 86 db and in wider increments, will greatly help visibility.
Why? There is no limiting until 105 dBSPL. And larger steps would make it harder to determine the limiting point.
 

Lopsided

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
61
Likes
55
Why? There is no limiting until 105 dBSPL. And larger steps would make it harder to determine the limiting point.
It’s a fair point, makes sense to start at 95 dB. But maybe plot it in a normalized fashion will help us determine at which point and how much limiting is in action.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,556
Likes
15,608
Interesting, given the limitations of a design with the chosen drivers and config, this is pretty good. Could have been much worse. Just not a great idea, but not fully terrible in my view.
I agree and gave it a "non-terrible" rating as its distortion and especially vertical directivity are quite decent for the price and a loudspeaker of that configuration and size without a significant waveguide so with some equalisation it can be partially improved significantly as confirmed above also from Amir and Pierre.
 

Serg

Member
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
26
Likes
27
In a speaker with mid over tweeter arrangement, the design axis is usually the midwoofer or even above that. It is a strategy to physically time align the midwoofer and tweeter.
I thought this as well. I wonder if there's mention of this in the speaker's literature?
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
436
Likes
3,661
Location
French, living in China
This is a review, listening tests, equalization and detailed measurements of the Tekton (Mini) M-Lore speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs $US 750 a pair.
View attachment 319407
As you see, this is a mini-tower speaker if there is such a thing. I had to put a 6 inch stand under it to get the tweeter to my ear height. There is nothing on the back side other than binding post. Not even a label.

Speaker was measured using Klippel Near-field Scanner. Tweeter center was used as acoustic reference.

Tekton M-Lore Speaker Measurements
Let's start with our usual anechoic measurements:
View attachment 319409
Boy, that is a pretty chewed up response. It is not terrible at high level but there are a ton of variations across the full audible band. We also have directivity error due to high crossover point and mistmatch of sizes of tweeter/woofer without a waveguide for the former. Sensitivity is a couple of dBs higher than a bookshelf speaker but also that much lower than a typical tower speaker.

We can see the source of variations in near-field driver responses:
View attachment 319410

Combine the rough on-axis response with poor directivity and the off-axis response becomes that much worse:
View attachment 319411

Resulting in rather poor predicted in-room response:
View attachment 319412

Directivity as noted is poor:
View attachment 319413
View attachment 319414

View attachment 319415

The larger speaker and drivers do provide an advantage in power handling relative to a bookshelf speaker:
View attachment 319416

Careful in analyzing the absolute distortion levels due to frequency response variations:
View attachment 319417

I ran a 10 dB set of sweeps to see if there is limiting and found one right at 105 dBSPL -- plenty good enough:
View attachment 319418

Speaker did sound fairly distorted though at 105 dB (although not breaking up).

Impedance is rather high which is good as far as stress on the amplifier:
View attachment 319419
We see a couple of clear resonances and more of them in the waterfall graph:
View attachment 319421

And the step response:
View attachment 319420

Tekton M-Lore Listening Tests
I had measured the speaker a week ago so they were not fresh in my mind. It took all of 3 seconds to realize something is wrong with the response with sound seemingly coming out of a box. Took out the EQ and went after the boost around 600 to 700 Hz:
View attachment 319422
That took out the boxiness but the sound was still not right. Filled in the notch in bass and boosted the gap in treble to balance that. Now the sound was more full but boomy so I put in my one correction for room mode I have around 105 Hz. With these in place, the sound was far more full and balanced. Male vocals sounded terrible without it.

Sub-bass response was decent. There was some distortion but it was trying to play it -- something most bookshelves can't do. I turned up the volume some and could not detect an immediate limit/break up.

All in all, the sound went from lousy to OK/good.

Conclusions
The objective failures of the Mini Lore are pretty obvious. While the speaker is a decade old (?), all of this was known then as well as now. The flaws directly translated to subjective listening tests presenting an unpleasant, boosted upper bass, lower treble. Equalization helped a lot but there are many more faults than my attempt there. The main positive here is the larger cabinet relative to a bookshelf speaker allowing higher dynamics and a bit more deep bass response. Otherwise, I can't see any redeeming characteristics. I don't know what reference Andrew Robinson had to say this about the speaker:
View attachment 319408

Competition has little to worry about.

I can't recommend the Tekton M-Lore speaker.

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome. Click here if you have some audio gear you want me to test.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Here is my take on the EQ.

Please report your findings, positive or negative!
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 3.5
With Sub: 5.7

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Not Flat
  • Lots of resonances
  • Take too many EQ points to yield decent results
  • Poor directivity
Tekton M-Lore No EQ Spinorama.png

Directivity:

Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
Tekton M-Lore 2D surface Directivity Contour Only Data.png


EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
Score EQ LW: 5.6
with sub: 7.6

Score EQ Score: 6.2
with sub: 8.1

Code:
Tekton M-Lore APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October172023-142641

Preamp: -4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.00,    0.00,    1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 91.70,    -1.58,    1.83
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 178.88,    2.60,    4.98
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 724.01,    -5.25,    2.13
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 939.43,    3.96,    1.87
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1215.17,    -3.10,    1.80
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2186.69,    -3.45,    2.55
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3377.41,    -3.09,    4.94
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3479.43,    4.33,    0.71
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 7618.25,    -1.99,    2.12
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 18858.61,    3.85,    1.79

Tekton M-Lore APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October172023-142641

Preamp: -3.9 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.00,    0.00,    1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 103.27,    -1.02,    1.62
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 179.88,    2.36,    4.98
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 731.01,    -5.25,    1.84
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 955.93,    4.66,    2.19
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1146.29,    -3.14,    2.42
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2256.44,    -3.45,    2.55
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3421.96,    -4.19,    5.00
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3479.43,    4.84,    1.25
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 7815.71,    -2.37,    1.83
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 18856.61,    3.89,    3.14
Tekton M-Lore EQ Design.png

Spinorama EQ LW
Tekton M-Lore LW EQ Spinorama.png


Spinorama EQ Score
Tekton M-Lore Score EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
Tekton M-Lore Zoom.png


Regression - Tonal
Tekton M-Lore Regression.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements
Tekton M-Lore Radar.png


The rest of the plots is attached.
 

Attachments

  • Tekton M-Lore 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    Tekton M-Lore 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    266.2 KB · Views: 37
  • Tekton M-Lore APO EQ LW 96000Hz.txt
    567 bytes · Views: 30
  • Tekton M-Lore APO EQ Score 96000Hz.txt
    573 bytes · Views: 28
  • Tekton M-Lore 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    Tekton M-Lore 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    446.5 KB · Views: 38
  • Tekton M-Lore 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    Tekton M-Lore 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    470.6 KB · Views: 39
  • Tekton M-Lore Normalized Directivity data.png
    Tekton M-Lore Normalized Directivity data.png
    316 KB · Views: 42
  • Tekton M-Lore Raw Directivity data.png
    Tekton M-Lore Raw Directivity data.png
    484.2 KB · Views: 33
  • Tekton M-Lore Reflexion data.png
    Tekton M-Lore Reflexion data.png
    148.7 KB · Views: 39
  • Tekton M-Lore LW data.png
    Tekton M-Lore LW data.png
    152.1 KB · Views: 35

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,273
Likes
3,846
Not terrible in my opinion, based on just the measurements. I've seen worse for sure. Still not worth getting it, but at least its not broken.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,685
Likes
4,540
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
Thanks for the test Amir.:)

I say as others noted, considering the construction and the drivers used, not terrible. It breathes classic design, i.e. an 8 inch bass with paper as material in the cone plus a tweeter.

Considering you said this Amir :
"We also have directivity error due to high crossover point and mismatch of sizes of tweeter/woofer without a waveguide for the former." ....so I put in an example of a two-way speaker with an 8 inch paper cone bass driver with wavegudidade tweeters.FR looks better for that Momo speaker::)
klang-amp-ton-momo_856224.png

https://www.lautsprechershop.de/hifi/momo.htm

Edit
Momo has a low crossover point, 1.8 KHz, which is also different from Tekton M-Lore, so also for that reason it is not really possible to compare them both, I must add.:)
 
Last edited:

TabCam

Active Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2020
Messages
192
Likes
161
If we only look at FR and directionality it seems not that good. That is always a pity with reducing all the measurements to a single number, it doesn't tell the whole story by far. The Spinorama is missing distortion and that is quite a pity.

If we also look at distortion I think the Tekton M-Lore mini has also redeeming qualities. It is quite an EQ-able design compared to other speakers. I also think that for distortion, human sensitivity should be taken into account.

I also like the German way of rating speakers going towards 1 when quite perfect and higher when there are problems. You could multiply all aspects and the closest to one is the best and that will remain so even if better techniques are found.
 

alex-z

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
893
Likes
1,667
Location
Canada
Shame that for $750/pair they couldn't be bothered to use a waveguide or eliminate those mid-bass resonances. Seems like a design with a lot of missed low hanging fruit.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,685
Likes
4,540
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
In terms of appearance, at least it seems to be correct.Could be the bass driver in the Tekton M-Lore:

"Tekton use the Eminence Alpha 8A..."

9018_1.jpg

 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,598
Likes
5,994
Location
.de, DE, DEU
Why? There is no limiting until 105 dBSPL. And larger steps would make it harder to determine the limiting point.
With normalization to a base sound pressure level (e.g. 80dB), it is possible to perceive much more compression artifacts than is possible by only looking at the measured FR.

Here is a small example. Scanned from your measurement the 96dB and 105dB frequency response measurements.
The following plots are:

FR like you showed
1697534589490.png

FR normalized to 96dB, scaling +-10dB
1697534639991.png

FR normalized to 96dB and the 105dB FR leveled -9dB, scaling +-10dB
1697534659087.png

Already in the second diagram you can see that there are clearly more frequency ranges with compression effects than just the upper high frequency range.
This becomes even clearer in the third diagram were the FR is leveled -9dB to the base SPL.

If you had started with a low base sound pressure level (e.g. 80dB or lower), the difference would most likely be more pronounced.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom