Since the beginning of Tekton's new array/matrix drivers, using 6 tweeters as mid surround 1 tweeter, there were alot of people discarding this as gimmick/insanity.
I was one of them. And now I have a Perfect Set at home, I can hear/understand the logic behind it.
The mid is truly one of the fastest I've heard. And the imaging (governed by the mid+high) is unbelievable. Its slightly less solid than the best 5 figures fullranger (heard from audio show, I never own them), but is way better than a traditional 2/2.5/3 ways setup.
That's also enhanced by the fact that it can be used with SET tube amp.
If anyone who have heard/auditioned the Tekton Perfect Set (or other tekton multi array models), are there any equivalent speakers out there, custom/manufacture/DIY?
I was one of them. And now I have a Perfect Set at home, I can hear/understand the logic behind it.
The mid is truly one of the fastest I've heard. And the imaging (governed by the mid+high) is unbelievable. Its slightly less solid than the best 5 figures fullranger (heard from audio show, I never own them), but is way better than a traditional 2/2.5/3 ways setup.
That's also enhanced by the fact that it can be used with SET tube amp.
If anyone who have heard/auditioned the Tekton Perfect Set (or other tekton multi array models), are there any equivalent speakers out there, custom/manufacture/DIY?
I have owned the Tekton Moabs for the past two years. During that time I have also owned the Magnepan 1.6, 1.7, and 3.7s, Wilson Watt Puppy 7, Zu Omen Dirty Weekend, Acoustat 2+2, Pure Audio Project Trio 15 Horns, Spatial Audio M1, Emerald Physics CS2, Vandersteen 2Ce, and Klipsch RP 600M. I have also had the opportunity to hear many other more expensive speakers at dealer showrooms and the Pacific Audio Fest. The Moabs aren't perfect speakers but they are astonishingly good for the price. Much of the magic clearly is due to the array of tweeters acting as a midrange. I would say the biggest tradeoff is the Moabs aren't quite as detailed as some other speakers I've heard but that is more than made up for by just how great they sound with a wide range of music. I have visited 3 other systems built around the Moabs and they all sound very good. I have not heard any of the other models in the Tekton line but the Moabs are definitely not a gimmick. And since they are very high efficiency speakers they sound fantastic with 300B and 2A3 SET amps as well as higher powered solid state amps.
I've tried designs with this sort of design principal - but ONLY liked single vertical lines for each *"divide". Horizontally off-set drivers don't sound good to me unless they are low-passed much lower than practical for a given driver grouping like this, though it does sound better the further away you get from the loudspeakers. I seem to notice the gradient as it moves closer to the loudspeaker more than many and that off-(horizontal)-axis midrange just doesn't "gel" for me.
*ultimate preference was with side-by-side arrays: mid. array closer to the listener than the tweeter array, and notably - fairly narrow baffles.
Another thing: unless you go to extraordinary lengths of modification of the rear chamber for the tweets when run that low - it often truncates perceived depth. Not that their isn't depth, but rather that that there is less apparent depth in a given recording than there could be with a better design.
Finally, other than depth reduction and that element as a part of "detail", many of their loudspeaker driver ranges have larger diameter drivers working with a higher low-pass than I would **prefer - and that most certainly effects perceived detail (..and it's something of a discontinuity to have so much mass despite the Sd of the midbass driver relative to the tweeter (upper-mid.) array ..there more expensive design though has lower mass lower midrange drivers.
**preference would be <400 Hz for higher mass drivers.
Speaking of their more expensive designs - vertical combing will be a problem (at least objectively) with them unless you are within a very narrow vertical range (again, helped if having the listener listen further from the loudspeaker). Basically with that center tweeter and then the circular array of tweeters above and below the center tweeter, along with a 3 kHz 1st order crossover, anything but the tweeter in each mid. grouping immediately above and below that center tweeter is far enough away that vertical combing will almost certainly be noticeable. I looked for some measured off-axis data on these designs and unsurprisingly couldn't find any.
I've heard several at AXPONA shows, and find them to be quite bright for the most part. If I were to wager why, it would be the mids aren't playing low enough to really keep the depth and spectral balance intact. Yes, distance also is a factor to the listener.
I'm not sure what law it is, but lording a law of philosophy over someone with actual in depth experience, in favor of theorycrafting, has its downsides too.
I think Beranek was the 2nd B in BBN, the famous acoustics consulting firm in Boston USA. Full name: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. Here is their Wikipedia entry.
Leo Beranek has his own Wikipedia entry which includes a reference to "Beranek's Law". He wrote four famous and influential text books which are classics in the field.
Beranek's Law
Leo Beranek has his own Wikipedia entry which includes a reference to "Beranek's Law". He wrote four famous and influential text books which are classics in the field.
Beranek's Law
"It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion."
L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.
The device you used to reply to me would have given you the answer in a moment if you'd chosen to use it and not simply be snide. Lucky for you, Mark did it instead.
Thanks so much for the pejorative, but I'm more than content with my 40y of designing and building speakers.
The Tekton is a gimmick design that looks impressive to those who don't understand the engineering of speaker design, and/or are sucked in by marketing.
Tekton does many things well:
use HE paper woofer
mid to high efficiency systems
very, VERY, competitive pricing
DIYaudio should somehow be supportive of speaker companies like Tekton. They are offering good value for money. which is literally contrary to what the big boys are doing. and this is what the world of audio need. Speaker companies that offer relatively big speaker affordabily
for op, im curious, what other speakers youve had in your system before?
use HE paper woofer
mid to high efficiency systems
very, VERY, competitive pricing
DIYaudio should somehow be supportive of speaker companies like Tekton. They are offering good value for money. which is literally contrary to what the big boys are doing. and this is what the world of audio need. Speaker companies that offer relatively big speaker affordabily
for op, im curious, what other speakers youve had in your system before?
Guys in white vans* used to do that too. Does that mean we should have supported them?
* The original ID sales; Indavan Direct.
haha
i was googling white vans speakers trying to figure this one out
I do think that the more their is small business companies like Tekton speakers making big speakers affordable the better
but i also agree with the critics points about Tekton. why not just make a big speaker with a midrange driver instead? For sure the array look seem much more like a clever marketing "look".
11 pairs of speakers in 2 years. That's extreme by any stretch unless you have a lot of rooms and a system in each 😀
Exactly my point. I build with 15s as midbasses, sometimes 18s and have done for a while, and I can get a really nice HE mid for the cost of a half dozen SB tweets used in the array. Even a modest Eminence implemented well as a midrange can be very good and the cost very reasonable.
As you can guess, I like large speakers and wish more people could fit them into their listening spaces. I don't think the Tek gear is good, or good value even if they're closer to my preference for larger speakers.
Agreed!
No arguments here. I consider anything smaller then a 15 inch doing bass as unsuitable for the task. And im of the opinion that in many case, 15“ are too small and dual is needed.
I have had Legacy audio, Ascend acoustics, Zu, ATC, Custom 2 ways with SEAS EXCEL drivers+tweeters, Focal (sopra 2), Harbeth. Have heard tons more of others in audio shows like Magico, MBL, TAD, Europe_brands_I_forgot....
With the Tekton Perfect Set, I have dual Rythmic F12G to lightly assist it, so that really helps with the bass (thus the realism).
upstream is EMM Labs DAC->VAC Ren preamp->Audio Mirror 45W SET tube mono(no slurpy/slow SET here) or pass x150.8.
I actual think in my case the Beranek's law don't really apply, as I just half-*** picked up this Tekton used locally from a nice gentleman with too many gears, with no expectation, because I just want to setup a warm *** system with SET amp, this happens to be cheap and avail (Pure audio project stuff ain't cheap...or Tannoy statement stuff).
Anyway, now I see the value of Eric's design, especially with tube amps pushing these, it's of great value imho.
I was quite clear with my statement - that I've done this design myself (and well *before Tekton); for me it's not a theory at all. I have not heard any of Tekton's loudspeakers but that doesn't invalidate my reply.
*there was a "period" in the early 2000's where array coaxial designs were a new"ish" fringe (though I believe they have been around much longer than that), so I tried it in a very similar format to what was being done at that time (but with tweeters) and then tried the vertical line arrays. I did use cheaper tweeters (PE buy-out) and could only reasonably get the lower freq. response to about 1.2 kHz for the mid array (in the circular design, I could push a little lower in the larger vertical line that I also did afterward). The Scan-Speak (or Peerless) tweeters are better and allow a slightly lower high-pass filter (but are still terribly limited in excursion).
It's actually easier to do with smaller cone drivers for the mid. array (they go lower with less distortion and greater linear excursion), and notably they have smaller flanges and as a result are easier to get closer to the central tweeter (with reduced combing issues). Ex. these (that I also happen to use as dipole tweeters in my front HT channels):
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...eerless-tc5fc07-04-1.5-paper-cone-full-range/
-and yes, the Mms relative to the driver's Sd is comparable to the Scan-Speak tweeters used by Tekton. They also have the advantage of NOT having an over-damped rear chamber effecting the low-end (..you can do a long tapered tube for better subjective depth).
Note that with an array like this you get some added diffractive gain near (and below) 1 kHz (baffle-size dependent), along with the added gain from multiple drivers. My guess is that you could net almost 94 db 4 ohms 1 meter with a Tekton-sized baffle (8 driver mid. array) down as low as 700 Hz with much lower distortion and higher power handling (along with fewer combing artifacts).
Last edited:
From a post from another site below, would love to know the high and low cutoff freq:
For emphasis, I'd add that "the overall array is high-passed (ie. rolled off on the low end to cross to the woofer) with the same high-pass filter for all the tweeters."
The top and bottom tweeters then also have a lowpass filter, making them bandpassed like a midrange would be.
The side tweeters have additional lowpass filtering, making them even more narrowly bandpassed.
The center tweeter does not have any lowpass filtering, allowing it to run as high as it can go.
For emphasis, I'd add that "the overall array is high-passed (ie. rolled off on the low end to cross to the woofer) with the same high-pass filter for all the tweeters."
The top and bottom tweeters then also have a lowpass filter, making them bandpassed like a midrange would be.
The side tweeters have additional lowpass filtering, making them even more narrowly bandpassed.
The center tweeter does not have any lowpass filtering, allowing it to run as high as it can go.