I'd love to see one of you [this is an invitation] actually construct a healthy dialog that leads to a productive outcome. Again, here's my side of things...
Amir Majidimehr of Audio Science Review published flawed measurements placing my work and abilities in a false light.
The FACTS are Amir Majidimehr refuses to suspend or modify his unsolicited review of my work as of April 10th, 2024. Amir measured our loudspeaker from the wrong angle and he published a flawed frequency response and step response. The correct listening axis for this loudspeaker is directly on-axis [an entirely different angle] with the 8” woofer. The result is a much better frequency response than Amir is publicly conveying and an ideal step response; a step response that reflects the speaker is ‘time-aligned’. Amir's impedance measurement is also flawed and reflects the supplied feet were not used and with no provisions to plug four 1/4 - 20 threaded inserts resulting in him publishing a flawed impedance measurement, flawed distortion measurements, flawed cumulative spectral decay, and lowered bass output in the frequency response measurements due to internal cabinet pressure losses.
Amir’s picture of the Mini Lore reflects the speaker in the air (6 inches off the ground) with no feet being used to maintain proper internal cabinet pressure. His picture also reflects a sun bleached woofer calling into question just how old this speaker might be. The Mini Lore has been in production for 15 years and the speaker he’s using looks visually compromised.
Amir Majidimehr's fumbled measurements caused him to draw conclusions that produced false narratives regarding our loudspeakers performance and my work.
The Mini Lore has a solid cabinet containing internal bracing within; when you see a resonance that big at 180Hz there’s only one logical explanation… there must be a hole or a hidden cavity in the cabinet. Amir failed to discern this. Amir failed to plug the threaded inserts in the bottom of the cabinet and the result cast a negative light on the speaker. Why do we use threaded inserts with a hole through the cabinet? To make it more versatile for isolation feet and outriggers and to allow for the speaker to be perfectly leveled.
In my opinion, Amir Majidimehr should have been more amiable to suspending or modifying his review when I informed him weeks back there were problems.
I feel blindsided by Amir Majidimehr. I believe he owes me a personal and a public apology. I believe Amir Majidimehr should be doing everything in his power to rectify this problem.
Respectfully,
Eric Alexander
Audio Designer
President
Tekton Design, LLC
Temporarily putting aside the community's documented problems with your response to Amir and Erin's reviews, I'll take a stab at conveying my perspective, note a few things, and ask a few questions:
1) Do you provide documentation or other explicit indication to the end user that a speaker that the speaker
must be used with the feet installed or holes otherwise covered? I've seen no indication this requirement is mentioned within the speaker's packaging, nor can I find manuals for your products on your website. Simply supplying the feet doesn't imply they are necessary. Many speakers are supplied with grilles too.
2) You're making a judgement of Amir's measurements on the basis of his images not showing the feet installed, but the pictures on your own website do not show the speakers with the feet installed either. Can you at least understand why few would automatically
assume that the feet are an integral part of the acoustic design of your speakers?
3) Changing the reference axis on the Klippel NFS is trivial, from my understanding. If the reference axis was the problem, I'm sure that can be adjusted. At the very least, you should be able to glean the direct sound frequency response from choosing a different vertical angle for the on-axis. Do you tell listeners they have to listen on the woofer axis for the best sound in documentation provided with the speaker? Otherwise, this testing is fair game.
4) A speaker being internally braced does not automatically preclude the possibility of internal resonances. We've seen myriad speakers of speakers with internal bracing that still demonstrate resonances. While I grant you that it was a large resonance that might've raised an eyebrow, I've seen many speaker with resonances, but none with cabinet holes for the feet. Would investigating the leak have been ideal given an endless amount of time? Sure. But who expects there to be holes at the bottom of a tower speaker?
5) The traditional (and, imo, appropriate) response to potential flaws in testing methodology is for the manufacturer to follow up with the reviewer and provide evidence a mistake was made, and for a follow-up or correction to be issued. Taking down a review or article happens only for the most egregious of errors, when a writer has shown a clear disregard for the truth or a major lack of due diligence. I don't think this review is anywhere near that threshold; the product was tested in a similar way to how a customer might reasonably use the speaker. Your response is reminiscent to Apple's "you're holding it wrong" saga.
6) You seem to be using "unsolicited review" in a negative sense. In an ideal world, no reviews would be solicited in the first place. A healthy dialogue with the manufacturer is welcome, but it's not a reviewer's responsibility to check every one of their results with the manufacturer either. Anybody with a cheap measurement microphone could produce the same measurements as Amir (with less accuracy and reliability, but still), after all, and these measurements are becoming more and more common.
7) If you believe the speakers may be damaged by age, I'm sure Amir would have been willing to test a more recent model. That does not mean he shouldn't be allowed to test an older model. Vintage speakers are tested here all the time. Sometimes older models don't test as well as new ones. That's fine! Very few readers assume that a single model is indicative of the performance of all the company's models. Harman speakers often do well here, for example, but the one's that perform poorly are criticized just as heavily as any others.
8) Respectfully, I think you need to be okay with having a negative review if there's no malice behind it and the speaker was tested under reasonable conditions. I empathize that your speaker designs are your work and livelihood and it hurts to see them denigrated. But it's been shown time and time again in this and other communities that the most effective response is for the manufacturer to respond their own data and/or submit improvements. You say you have some models that are more linear. Why not send one in? Nobody would have cared that this individual model performed poorly once it had been established that you have speakers that measure better.
Edit: Just saw the comment about stereophile and sharing measurements beforehand. I'm fine with sharing measurements with a manufacturer beforehand. I think it's a useful check, because the data should ideally match very closely. But understand that this is a courtesy, not an obligation. As for sharing the text of a review, I have a lot of problems with but that's a different discussion.
