Originally Posted by Mofojo
Wow what are you five ? Absolutely trounce em........ yeah dude. I've owned 3 speakers in my life..... that's you! U Should maybe listen a little more and post a little less about things you know very little about like speaker design.
Guess I'm the richest 5-year old you know, huh? And probably the most informed about speaker design. Regardless, if this is what the conversation is going to devolve into, I'd prefer we just put one another on ignore.
That said, I have listened to a lot more speakers than I've owned. The reason I've owned so few speakers is because I don't upgrade until I feel an absolute need to. I would say each of my upgrades has been considerable. Do I feel each upgrade has increased my performance commensurate the price increase? Probably not, with the largest jump being between my Paradigms and the Seatons. However, I can be pretty confident without ever hearing them that these Tekton's would be a downgrade from where I am now. If you disagree, great, it really doesn't matter to me.
What we cannot disagree on is the facts regarding these speakers. Those are:
1) The patent they are "based on" (or at least is used as marketing to push their sales) is complete and utter rubbish. Anyone who comprehends the physics of sound reproduction in instruments and speakers will attest to it.
2) The tweeter configuration is not going to be simple (or cheap, if you value the time it'll take to tweak a network) to get correct. Further, there are much simpler alignments that are known to perform well and will very likely outperform this arrangement, especially given the previous statement. Tekton even uses these arrangements in some of their other speakers. I'd consider any of them over these due to this fact.
These two facts dissuade me from considering these a serious speaker. Moreover, if you really want to get into Tekton's previous practices, the company as a whole is not someone I'd deal with. They may have become better since their Pendragon days, but I can remember a lot of issues back then. This is not helped by their pushing pseudo-science to sell their wares.
Calling me a five year old doesn't dismiss any of this. And the fact that this is the retort you resort to tells me a lot about you and your ability to have a rational and reasonable conversation like an adult. Despite this, I still hope you enjoy your speakers,
Originally Posted by canillo
For me........ just me......only me.....absolutly me, I dont care about numbers....Im glad the designer used them to build the speakers, if he did. .again...I live in vegas and go to CES high end audio every single year...and heard all kind of speakers..from 2k to almost 1,000,000. And for what I was willing to pay for a pair of speakers ( 15k ) nothing sounded as good as the DI's. Not for under 25k. At this point I think it is abosultly not necesary to spend all that money to get very very minimal improvement in sound. but to each its own. No...the DI are not perfect, they are not the best speaker ever build....But did anyone told they are 3k? yes 3k ...again I repeat 3k. one 3 and three 0. And they give you 8X the performance from anything around their price. Your M2's are good, I heard them once in a cinema set up and the room and set up was complety different than mine. One thing I will tell you..If they are better they are for sure not 17,000 times better. But they do retail 17k more than the DI's with out giving you even 2 times the performance the DI's do. I think I would remember them if they did.
This thread should not be a pissing match between these two speakers. But, I will say the M2s don't have to be 17,000 times better, because they don't cost 17,000x the cost -- that'd make them over $50 million. But, let's not pick on your math, typo, or simple mis-speak, whatever it was.
At the end of the day, I doubt anyone's going to cross-shop these two speakers, so there's little point to this discussion, which is why I
didn't bring it up. When @Mofojo
did...well, I suppose I should have just left it alone. I have no need to defend my speakers...just as you have no need to defend yours. If they are what floats your boat (how many times do I have to say this) I'm truly happy.
That said, if I had only a $3k budget, I'd look at something from DIYSG using the SEOS horn and pay someone to help me finish the cabinet nicely -- may even save money. If one is looking for value in that budget-space, that's where I'd recommend a person go. Given what I know of DIYSG's offerings, I'd say their designs are better, too.
I hate to keep piling it on these speakers...and I'm sure it's frustrating because I haven't heard them and I'm knocking them, but I think anyone having a modicum of technical background and ability to comprehend the physics of sound reproduction would agree that there is a lot that is possibly (and statistically likely) to be wrong with these. For example, I would want to see some data to prove that the quintessential issues of using a tweeter array as the DI's do were, indeed, acknowledged and mitigated by the designer. A completely inane patent just ain't gonna do it.
Further, if one reads the patent then believes, as I can only assume Tekton wishes them to, that they used tons of tweeters (each having, I suppose different moving masses (though, they don't)) to "literally align the moving mass of speaker cones to the harmonic spectra of the musical instruments being played" then I have a bridge to sell you. And this sort of pseudo-science bull crap isn't going to be left to stand, at least not by me, in a forum whose purpose is to promote the science
of audio visual equipment!
To pile on some more -- Can I get the crossover points for their "unique 4-way" design? It intrigues me because there are two sub-drivers, two midranges, and that odd tweeter array. Which of those is crossed the 4-th way?
Hopefully not the two mids, as they are in a d'appolito array (though probably spaced too far apart given the huge pentagon of tweeters in between, but let's ignore that). In that arrangement, the speakers should not be crossed over differently.
Maybe the two-subs? Though, they appear to be the same exact speaker, so...I don't see why they'd bother.
I guess maybe some of the tweeters in that tweeter array could be crossed as super-tweeters...that'd be the least worse offender.
Perhaps maybe it's just a 3-way, but "unique 4-way" sounds better -- I mean, it's unique! Not unique enough to name the x-over points, I guess. At least most other manufacturer's give us that.
Oh, and let's pile it on some more -- if they are only
using 4-ways, there is NO WAY each tweeter is producing a different frequency (so that some unnamed person in this thread heard they do means there was, indeed, comb filtering, which is messy and sounds like crap). Plus, there are a whole lot more than 4 notes, and lots more than 4 different moving masses involved in instruments (whose moving mass can even be measured). This is true even if we consider strings on an acoustic guitar; of course we must discount that the strings alone on an acoustic guitar aren't responsible for all its sound, and further ignore that any of its sound coming to you through your speaker was picked up by a microphone, possibly just one of them, with a single moving mass of its own -- but...hey...why should those stupid details matter? But, hey, let's just say that it all matters and some magical crossover could extract out each individual guitar string and send it to a speaker whose moving mass is tweaked just for it, there wouldn't be enough ways in this speaker to do it, because you'd need at least 5 for a guitar, right...right?
Suffice to say, there's a CRAP TON of BS surrounding this speaker, so much so, that I don't really even WANT to listen to it, because even if it's lucky enough to sound good, I still wouldn't support that sort of misleading pseudo-scientific junk.
Was this post honest enough for you? I hope so, because I'm done wasting my time in this thread. And the only reason I bothered to was because I feel it necessary to correct people when they are obviously wrong -- in this case, that's an obviously crazy patent by a misleading designer, putting out a speaker that maybe sounds OK, but certainly should not be held up next to speakers that are designed with real science!