Erin's new review, taken together with
@amirm 's additions to his original review, conclusively shut the door on this matter, to any honest, literate observer.
1. Amir has recalculated the M-Lore's response based on
@Eric Alexander 's precise instructions for the acoustic center point (6.5" off the conventional center), and the results show no significant difference in the far-field response, just as Amir (and several other members) had predicted.
2. Erin has remeasured the Troubadour with the official feet screwed into the holes (the
through-holes
), and the impedance bump Erin mentioned is still present, at the
identical frequency and magnitude:
3. Erin discovered that if he turns the speaker upside-down, placing the top on a flat, rigid surface, the bump disappears - meaning the bump was almost certainly produced by a cabinet resonance just as Erin stated in his original review. So Eric Alexander was wrong about the impact the feet would have on the impedance bump measurement, and he was wrong about the underlying question of whether the feet were the cause of the impedance bump.
4. Erin's new frequency response measurement of the Troubador using Tekton's recommended acoustical center varies from his original measurement in the key lower treble area in a way that looks pretty much
exactly like Amir's recalculation of his M-Lore Klippel data using that same Tekton center point. And the new response in both cases differs by just fractions of a dB in most places. Repeatability of results = conclusive. Also, Erin notes that his original subjective review focused on the Troubador being a little hot in a broad area around 4kHz and a bit attenuated in the higher treble. The new measurements show that the treble is a little less attenuated above 12kHz - but they also show the single largest difference - an almost 2dB
increase in the "hot" area between 4-5kHz. So the overall audible effect is either identical with the "correct" acoustic center, or even slightly worse because of the expansion of the higher-amplitude "hot" range around 4-5kHz.
5. Likewise, Erin also compared the frequency response measurement of feet vs no-feet using Tekton's preferred acoustic center point. It shows zero difference from about 180Hz upward, and just as with the previous item, from 180Hz downward the differences are quite small and a mixed bag when it comes to better/worse. With the feet, you get about 0.5-1dB more bass SPL from 40-60Hz. On the other hand, without the feet you get about 0.5-1dB less shelving - aka more bass - across a broader range, about 60-120Hz. So again, no real difference and without the feet arguably gives you slightly more audible bass benefit on balance (especially because Erin's distortion measurements show no significant change in distortion, so that slightly increased bass region without the feet should sound no more or less "clean" than with).
6. The differences are sufficiently inconsequential that Erin has inserted his
original subjective portion of his review from the last video, unaltered, in this new review, because none of the changes impacted his listening impressions. I think this also conclusively answers the question of whether or not Eric Alexander's intimidation tactics might have cowed Erin into being gentler or pulling his punches in his evaluation - not one bit. (Not to mention that his original evaluation wasn't even negative!).
7. Finally, Erin has posted screenshots of the emails, in my view clearly demonstrating the inconsistency of
@Eric Alexander 's behavior, the unrealistic time demands he tried to make of Erin (asking him to respond literally within minutes), and the untenability of his YouTube video claim that he was not trying to threaten anyone with legal action. Erin also notes that he never wants to hear about Tekton again.
@Eric Alexander , as far as this particular controversy goes, you're done: your claims about the measurements have been disproven - most notably, your claim that Erin created a "false narrative" by attributing the impedance bump to a cabinet resonance and not the absence of the feet, has been totally debunked. So
you are the only one who has created a false narrative, defaming Erin's and Amir's measurements and falsely impugning their credibility and integrity as reviewers. From the information available to us in the public, you have also failed to follow through on your statement that you would provide your own measurements, and the disparity between your claims about your tactics and behavior in your YouTube videos and your evident behavior and tactics in the emails Amir and Erin have shared, are on the internet for everyone to see and judge for themselves. You haven't just burned a bridge - you've napalmed it.
I'm just some guy on the internet, but for what it's worth I suggest you take a step back and reflect at some length and depth on your actions here. One thing that seems clear is that you made the oldest "audiophile" error in the book: you made absolute factual assertions about
measurable and audible impacts of certain design features (feet) and listening modifications (acoustic center) based on sound acoustic principles, but
without any knowledge of how large or small the actual impact of those principles would be. Audiophiles do this all the time - they dismiss measurements and instead take the word of someone they trust because of their engineering knowledge and/or their "ears." It's the classic Argument from Authority rhetorical fallacy. The only difference in this case is that you argued from your own authority.
@MattHooper is wise in the above comment - it's not easy being a human being, and so I am not saying this with relish or joy. But in my view it's quite clear that you have no one but yourself to blame for where this situation has gotten.
