Anyone own tekton speakers?

[klh007]

Have there been any show reports from LAAS on Room 533 where the Double Impacts played?

[Mr Perez]

Jun 4, 2017 13:35:07 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Were I to criticize anything (much) about Tekton, their grills would be it. They're structured of square wooden stock with the cloth stretched over the frame. Yes, they can look OK, but without contouring of the inner grill, there's got to be some serious diffraction going on underneath. Tekton cared enough to chamfer the speaker boxes themselves for diffraction control - Why not deal with grill diffraction?

Do they assume that anyone wanting to listen with grills on doesn't care about imaging? If that were the case, why would the customer buy Tekton speakers in the first place?

The stated reason that Tekton doesn't use magnetic grills is that Eric and his audio buddy were listening to some other brand of (expensive) speaker at ungodly levels, and the magnetic grills shook themselves off the speakers. Personally, I don't think that this should automatically disqualify magnetic grills, but it's Eric's choice, not mine.

But I would not be averse to listening to my Pendragons with grills on IF those grills didn't mess up the imaging. The current grills certainly have that potential, so I generally listen sans grills.

My second Tekton gripe would be the bass frequency response. Eric apparently believes in "voicing" his speakers by ear and declines to publish frequency (or impedance) curves. Fine. You either like the sound of the speakers or you don't. It just so happens that I do (mostly), but occasionally I want to modify the response a bit. Not so much as in "this particular song needs a bit more midrange" but more along the lines of "the speakers image best in this location, but when I put them there, they have a +5dB peak in the bass @ 35 Hz."

That peak is low enough in frequency that if I use a parametric equalizer to bring down the bump, I also lose any deeper bass response (that I'd like to keep). Without equalization, the speakers can have some output at 25 Hz., but if the 35 Hz. peak is smoothed out, the bass rolls off completely from 35 Hz. on down, and there's nothing left down there.

My most likely "fix" will be to apply a very steep high-pass filter to the Pendragons (either 18 or 24 dB / octave) at about 70 to 80 Hz. and to use subwoofers beneath. This is feasible for me because I happen to have two muscular subs laying around. Most folks won't be that lucky and will either have to live with the 35 Hz. bump (if it exists in their room as it does in mine) or else forego low bass. OTOH, some may well just love that 35 Hz. peak because it makes their home audio system sound "like my car stereo, man..."

My third (and last) Tekton gripe has to do with the crossover area. Where the 10" woofers cross over to the trio of tweeters, there may be (and may not be) a small treble peak. Again - on some music this isn't too bothersome, but on some music, it can sound slightly shrill. I'm suspecting that this shrillness IS actually the speakers and not the amplification because it is pretty consistent regardless of amplifier used (Emotiva A-300, Lyngdorf Class-D, VTA ST-120 tube amp, or Heathkit mono tube amps). This, however, I can tame with parametric equalization once I identify the exact frequency range.

To that end, I have a calibrated UMIK-1 USB microphone on order and I have REW installed on my MacBook Pro.

And so that's it. All of my Tekton Pendragon "gripes" in one swell foop. Of course, I'm a frigging perfectionista, and the vast majority of Pendragon owners are pleased as punch with the speakers as delivered. Each to their own.

Overall, I still consider the Pendragons an amazing value, and recommend them highly.

Boomzilla

Grills- I agree
Freq response- never noticed that with my pendragons
Shrill- did noticed it with the pens in certain songs, and that I believe is why Eric created the DI. IMO the DI corrects this issue. Better and smoother highs.

[kauai82]

Jun 4, 2017 21:15:54 GMT -5 klh007 said:

Have there been any show reports from LAAS on Room 533 where the Double Impacts played?

Sorry have not been on the Forum in the last few days since I went to the show. Room 533 was very interesting. It had a little bit of everything in reasonably priced equipment. Schiit Audio new amp and preamp. Emotiva CD-100 and a TA100 was in the room. Was very disappointed that the T2 speakers were not there. I had expected a much bigger footprint from Emotiva at the show. I  listened to the most recent Podcast and now know that Emotiva wanted to see how the show was before they committed big time to the big bucks next year. Tekton was also in the room and had two models that they demonstrated. The Lore at $1000 a pair, and the new Double Impact at $3000 a pair.

I always go to the Audio Shows early on the first day to miss most of the crowds and went to room 533 first off and was able to spend some time with the two speakers with little or no people in the room. I went back three times to make sure that I heard both speakers. Now in the case of most shows you are crammed into a small size hotel room with numerous banquet style chairs and an acoustic nightmare for the speakers to sound as they would in your  home. This was the case with the LA Audio show and room 533 in particular since they had so much audio equipment in the room.  So I have discovered that if a speaker sounds good at the show it will be much improved in you home setting. As I always say everyone hears differently and looks for different aspects of the presentation in speakers. YMMV.  Here is my opinion of the two speakers.

Lore $1000 a pair: First visit I heard the Lore's with the larger Schiit preamp (sorry forgot the name ) and their new coming soon 100 watt a channel stand alone amp. I had heard a similar set up in Shiite's new retail presentation and I am not sure if it is the amp or the tube preamp that I don't care for but was not that impressed with the sound quality.    Unfortunately the way the set up in the room was they played all the music through one manufactures DAC that I was not familiar with. They could not change the setup with the DAC so I cannot say how that effected my opinions.  On the first visit I listened to the Elac debut towers. Have heard them before and this presentation they did not sound as good as I remember in the last couple of shows. Next up came the Lore's . I was hoping to have my socks knocked off and was at first disappointed with the sound. A couple of minutes into the presentation I started to appreciate the sound, I was listening to. I was early enough to be able to use some flac and alac sound files that I had on a thumb drive. Some David Arkenstone New Age music and for the main stream some Fleetwood Mac from Tango in the Night. The Lore did a good job on both tracks with dynamic and sound stage presentation but I was not in love with the sound. It was good, but not that much better in my opinion than some of the DIY speaker kits I have bought. 

I decided to leave the room and let others listen to what they wanted to. About a half an hour later I went back to the room and was able to listen to the Lore's again this time using the Emotiva TA-100. I still was stuck listening to the DAC that I was not familiar with but this time listening to Tidal and some tracks from Lizz Wright that I was familiar with and this time I was more impressed with the SQ. So the Lore are still on the short list that I am making for my speaker of the future.

Double Impact $3000 a pair:  On my third visit to the room later in the day I was able to listen to the Double Impact. These are the speakers that have the seven tweeter array that looks pretty bizarre and I had my doubts on how they would sound. They have been made fun of by some on this forum for their looks and the "mad scientist " inventor. One should not be to critical of something till they listen to them. I finally had my socks knocked off by their sound quality. They were playing on the Schiit equipment and the same DAC as the Lore's, but what a three dimensional presentation. The sound source was Tidal and the room was really too small for these large speakers, but they still shined and the multi tweeter array did not sound harsh or mushy.  I have to say that the Double Impacts are the best sounding speaker that I have heard anywhere near the three thousand dollar range. I have heard many audiophile speakers the Sonus Faber and some higher end B&W midrange priced  speakers and so many in the Audio Shows that I can not remember in the $2500 to $5000 price and the Double Impact is the best overall sounding speaker that I have heard. Am I going to go out and buy a pair anytime soon ? No. These speakers are huge and boxy. If I was single I would buy a pair in a minute, but the WAF on these would be below zero. I can now see how many people on this forum love their Tekton Speakers. Of course this my opinion and your mileage my vary, but the Double Impacts are a great speaker.

[pawsman]

I got the Impact Monitors in this weekend (in Farrari yellow), I'm very impressed. All the comments re: the
Double Impact apply - airy, 3-D midrange & extended, clean highs, beautiful soundstaging, very dynamic with
good bass response (paired with my DSP10 subs). These compare favorably with any Monitor I've heard-

pawsman

[Boomzilla]

I thought I knew my Tekton Pendragons. I was wrong. I recently crossed them over at 70 Hz. (24 dB / octave) to a big subwoofer. The Tektons sound like a completely different pair of speakers.

Previously, the Pendragons had a 35 Hz. bump in my room - gone now that the sub is working that range.

Previously, the Pendragons sounded as if they had a slight dip in frequency response just below the crossover region. Not audible now.

Before, I couldn't get the Pendragons to image well unless they were fairly close together. Now I can spread them as wide as I want & get great imaging.

Before, I had to do a lot of jRiver digital signal processing (parametric EQ, etc.) to get the tone I wanted. Now, I've turned all the DSP off - the speakers no longer need it.

I didn't think that just adding a sub would do all this (despite Gary Cook's assurances that it could). Mr. Gary was right. I can't say that this will work for you, but it sure hit the buttons for me.

Boomzilla

[simpleman68]

Jun 27, 2017 20:59:21 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I thought I knew my Tekton Pendragons. I was wrong. I recently crossed them over at 70 Hz. (24 dB / octave) to a big subwoofer. The Tektons sound like a completely different pair of speakers.

Previously, the Pendragons had a 35 Hz. bump in my room - gone now that the sub is working that range.

Previously, the Pendragons sounded as if they had a slight dip in frequency response just below the crossover region. Not audible now.

Before, I couldn't get the Pendragons to image well unless they were fairly close together. Now I can spread them as wide as I want & get great imaging.

Before, I had to do a lot of jRiver digital signal processing (parametric EQ, etc.) to get the tone I wanted. Now, I've turned all the DSP off - the speakers no longer need it.

I didn't think that just adding a sub would do all this (despite Gary Cook 's assurances that it could). Mr. Gary was right. I can't say that this will work for you, but it sure hit the buttons for me.

Boomzilla

I've experienced the same thing in the past with other speakers. The mid bass was significantly cleaner and tighter and separation of instruments was hugely improved.

This is exactly why I ordered 2 subs last week to go with the Whispers. The fun part will be optimizing placement and phase correction before using the room correction wavelet.
I'm really stoked to get similar results as yours.
Scott

[monkumonku]

Jun 27, 2017 20:59:21 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I thought I knew my Tekton Pendragons. I was wrong. I recently crossed them over at 70 Hz. (24 dB / octave) to a big subwoofer. The Tektons sound like a completely different pair of speakers.

Previously, the Pendragons had a 35 Hz. bump in my room - gone now that the sub is working that range.

Previously, the Pendragons sounded as if they had a slight dip in frequency response just below the crossover region. Not audible now.

Before, I couldn't get the Pendragons to image well unless they were fairly close together. Now I can spread them as wide as I want & get great imaging.

Before, I had to do a lot of jRiver digital signal processing (parametric EQ, etc.) to get the tone I wanted. Now, I've turned all the DSP off - the speakers no longer need it.

I didn't think that just adding a sub would do all this (despite Gary Cook's assurances that it could). Mr. Gary was right. I can't say that this will work for you, but it sure hit the buttons for me.

Boomzilla

I don't doubt your results. But if you are crossing over the Pendragons at 70 hz then I wonder what that says about using a pair of good bookshelf speakers and a sub(s)? A lot of people say you have to have full range towers but in your case, you're now letting those massive subs handle the bottom end and the range given to the Pendragons is something a capable pair of bookshelves could handle.

[garbulky]

Jun 28, 2017 9:09:47 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

Jun 27, 2017 20:59:21 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I thought I knew my Tekton Pendragons. I was wrong. I recently crossed them over at 70 Hz. (24 dB / octave) to a big subwoofer. The Tektons sound like a completely different pair of speakers.

Previously, the Pendragons had a 35 Hz. bump in my room - gone now that the sub is working that range.

Previously, the Pendragons sounded as if they had a slight dip in frequency response just below the crossover region. Not audible now.

Before, I couldn't get the Pendragons to image well unless they were fairly close together. Now I can spread them as wide as I want & get great imaging.

Before, I had to do a lot of jRiver digital signal processing (parametric EQ, etc.) to get the tone I wanted. Now, I've turned all the DSP off - the speakers no longer need it.

I didn't think that just adding a sub would do all this (despite Gary Cook's assurances that it could). Mr. Gary was right. I can't say that this will work for you, but it sure hit the buttons for me.

Boomzilla

I don't doubt your results. But if you are crossing over the Pendragons at 70 hz then I wonder what that says about using a pair of good bookshelf speakers and a sub(s)? A lot of people say you have to have full range towers but in your case, you're now letting those massive subs handle the bottom end and the range given to the Pendragons is something a capable pair of bookshelves could handle.

He's tried that before. Though there is always an exception, most of the time, bookshelves sounded on the small size vs the Pendragons more larger scale soundstage. A classic example was the much cheaper Emotiva LCR speakers and dual subs. The bass was fantastic but the scale of the mid to high, you could tell it was a bookshelf speaker. The Deftech SM55 was probably the least bookshelf sounding speaker I had heard in the room. It had a larger soundstage but the Pendragons do large scale better than most.

[simpleman68]

Jun 28, 2017 9:50:43 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:09:47 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I don't doubt your results. But if you are crossing over the Pendragons at 70 hz then I wonder what that says about using a pair of good bookshelf speakers and a sub(s)? A lot of people say you have to have full range towers but in your case, you're now letting those massive subs handle the bottom end and the range given to the Pendragons is something a capable pair of bookshelves could handle.

Though there is always an exception, most of the time, bookshelves sounded on the small size vs the Pendragons more larger scale soundstage.

Bingo. That is the most significant change I notice even going from mid size towers to large "full range" speakers.
My Whispers are at Legacy getting the tweet/supertweets upgraded and I stuck the Polks in for temporary. (RTi A9) and they can dig down to 30 Hz +/- 3 Db but the size of the stage
is hugely different between the 2.

I even swapped in my old Paradigm Titans and Monitor 7 and had the same results.





Waiting for the Whispers with great anticipation.

[pedrocols]

Jun 28, 2017 10:19:43 GMT -5 simpleman68 said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:50:43 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Though there is always an exception, most of the time, bookshelves sounded on the small size vs the Pendragons more larger scale soundstage.

Bingo. That is the most significant change I notice even going from mid size towers to large "full range" speakers.
My Whispers are at Legacy getting the tweet/supertweets upgraded and I stuck the Polks in for temporary. (RTi A9) and they can dig down to 30 Hz +/- 3 Db but the size of the stage
is hugely different between the 2.

I even swapped in my old Paradigm Titans and Monitor 7 and had the same results.





Waiting for the Whispers with great anticipation.

Have you ever considered bring home and demo some of the big magnepan speakers? I replaced my paradigm studios with the magnepans mg12. Having both home at the same time I found the maggies more pleasant. I then replaced the mg12 with the 1.7.

[simpleman68]

Jun 28, 2017 10:32:32 GMT -5 pedrocols said:

Jun 28, 2017 10:19:43 GMT -5 simpleman68 said:

Bingo. That is the most significant change I notice even going from mid size towers to large "full range" speakers.
My Whispers are at Legacy getting the tweet/supertweets upgraded and I stuck the Polks in for temporary. (RTi A9) and they can dig down to 30 Hz +/- 3 Db but the size of the stage
is hugely different between the 2.

I even swapped in my old Paradigm Titans and Monitor 7 and had the same results.

Have you ever considered bring home and demo some of the big magnepan speakers? I replaced my paradigm studios with the magnepans mg12. Having both home at the same time I found the maggies more pleasant. I then replaced the mg12 with the 1.7.

I listened to a pair in WI while delivering the JC1s I just sold to their new owner.
I liked the mid range but they are a bit forward for my liking. Hard to describe what I mean by forward. It wasn't that the highs were harsh, they were very smooth and articulate but almost
artificially so.
Could be a bad match with the amps used at the time for sure. Combination is huge when it comes to speakers.
I'm sure they would have benefited from a sub or two as well.
We drove them both with the new JC1s as well as his existing BAT tupe amp; forget the model but it was not their entry level offering.
In that rig, they sounded thin and vocals, to me, were artificially "hot".

Again, I don't take any single listening as gospel since the room, amps, music chosen, user settings etc can be way off optimal. My Whispers sounded awful before I got them setup properly
for my room.

I would like to hear a set in my room sometime but I'm on a pretty set path with the Whispers for now.
Their speed, accuracy, sensitivity, forgiveness of the room, and stage would be very hard to duplicate. Admittedly, a big part of the equation is the time invested getting this combo dialed in.
Scott

[Boomzilla]

Jun 28, 2017 9:09:47 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I don't doubt your results. But if you are crossing over the Pendragons at 70 hz then I wonder what that says about using a pair of good bookshelf speakers and a sub(s)? A lot of people say you have to have full range towers but in your case, you're now letting those massive subs handle the bottom end and the range given to the Pendragons is something a capable pair of bookshelves could handle.

In fact, I put a pair of Polk bookshelves (yard sale, but nice speakers) on the stands just two days ago and gave them a whirl with the new sub engaged. They failed to meet the performance of the Pendragons in several ways:

1. The soundstage was (much) smaller. Both width and depth were truncated.

2. The dynamics were squashed. Music lacked the "jump factor" that the Pendragons have.

3. There was a frequency response dip between the satellites and the sub. I'm sensitive to such flaws, and this stood out to my ears.

4. The Polk's treble didn't sound as extended - Is this because the Pendragon tweeters go higher, or because the Pendragon has more tweeters? Not sure...

So the Polk speakers didn't hang around for long - But I wanted to hear them just so I could say I'd tried them. I was somewhat surprised because I've heard Polk speakers before that sounded MUCH better.

Are the Polk's failings generic to all bookshelf speakers? I don't know, but I can say that I recently had some KEF LS50 speakers in here that fared not too much better with subs.

I think that probably bookshelf speakers CAN be successfully paired with subs, but that it's much harder to get a match than with full-range speakers.

My two cents.

Boom

[monkumonku]

Jun 28, 2017 15:07:01 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:09:47 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I don't doubt your results. But if you are crossing over the Pendragons at 70 hz then I wonder what that says about using a pair of good bookshelf speakers and a sub(s)? A lot of people say you have to have full range towers but in your case, you're now letting those massive subs handle the bottom end and the range given to the Pendragons is something a capable pair of bookshelves could handle.

In fact, I put a pair of Polk bookshelves (yard sale, but nice speakers) on the stands just two days ago and gave them a whirl with the new sub engaged. They failed to meet the performance of the Pendragons in several ways:

1. The soundstage was (much) smaller. Both width and depth were truncated.

2. The dynamics were squashed. Music lacked the "jump factor" that the Pendragons have.

3. There was a frequency response dip between the satellites and the sub. I'm sensitive to such flaws, and this stood out to my ears.

4. The Polk's treble didn't sound as extended - Is this because the Pendragon tweeters go higher, or because the Pendragon has more tweeters? Not sure...

So the Polk speakers didn't hang around for long - But I wanted to hear them just so I could say I'd tried them. I was somewhat surprised because I've heard Polk speakers before that sounded MUCH better.

Are the Polk's failings generic to all bookshelf speakers? I don't know, but I can say that I recently had some KEF LS50 speakers in here that fared not too much better with subs.

I think that probably bookshelf speakers CAN be successfully paired with subs, but that it's much harder to get a match than with full-range speakers.

My two cents.

Boom

Well I was gonna point out I mentioned "capable" bookshelves and those Polks probably didn't fit the bill. But in general, I guess full range speakers are going to have a fuller sound than bookshelves because of larger and/or more drivers. When I had my Mirage OMD-28 towers, those did indeed have the fullest sound of any speakers I've owned and a pretty wide soundstage. The sound character was quite different from my current Ascend Sierra 2 bookshelves but I prefer the Sierras. Not as "full" of a sound but to my ears the most accurate and natural sounding and they're the first speakers I've had where I don't feel that they could have done some aspect better than they did.

And like you said, it's harder to get a match pairing bookshelves with a sub(s) versus something that's already matched within itself.

[snacker]

Anyone need a job?


m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1749758335042177&id=238064226211603

[Boomzilla]

LOL - Here's mine:

[copperpipe]

Jun 28, 2017 15:07:01 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:09:47 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I don't doubt your results. But if you are crossing over the Pendragons at 70 hz then I wonder what that says about using a pair of good bookshelf speakers and a sub(s)? A lot of people say you have to have full range towers but in your case, you're now letting those massive subs handle the bottom end and the range given to the Pendragons is something a capable pair of bookshelves could handle.

In fact, I put a pair of Polk bookshelves (yard sale, but nice speakers) on the stands just two days ago and gave them a whirl with the new sub engaged. They failed to meet the performance of the Pendragons in several ways:

1. The soundstage was (much) smaller. Both width and depth were truncated.

2. The dynamics were squashed. Music lacked the "jump factor" that the Pendragons have.

3. There was a frequency response dip between the satellites and the sub. I'm sensitive to such flaws, and this stood out to my ears.

4. The Polk's treble didn't sound as extended - Is this because the Pendragon tweeters go higher, or because the Pendragon has more tweeters? Not sure...

So the Polk speakers didn't hang around for long - But I wanted to hear them just so I could say I'd tried them. I was somewhat surprised because I've heard Polk speakers before that sounded MUCH better.

Are the Polk's failings generic to all bookshelf speakers? I don't know, but I can say that I recently had some KEF LS50 speakers in here that fared not too much better with subs.

I think that probably bookshelf speakers CAN be successfully paired with subs, but that it's much harder to get a match than with full-range speakers.

My two cents.

Boom

To be fair, saying you tried a pair of polks is like saying you test drove a chevy. More detail is needed ... like, model, age etc. I've had several polk products, and there was a big difference b/n their "monitor 70", the RTI a3's, and the ones with the "ring" tweeter (forget model #). I still have the monitor 70's, though right now they're just holding up the front of my spare desk and haven't had any sound through them in 5? 6? years...

[Boomzilla]

Yes - Polk's ring tweeters are something (I've heard them and was impressed). No - My yard-sale-specials are NOT ring-tweeter models.

But my point is, the shortcomings are NOT limited to the Polks. In fact, I've had KEFs, DefTechs, Emotivas, and other similarly (bookshelf) - sized speakers through here. None of them have the detail and richness of the Pendragons. Now, before you object, I'll admit that none of them COST what the Pendragons cost, either. Is it possible that there are bookshelf speakers that can do what the Pendragons do? I'd be amazed if there weren't. Have I heard them? No, I haven't.

Am I interested in going hunting for exceptionally-performing bookshelf speakers that can fill my large room? No, I'm not. What I have works. Until I hear something better, and for the same or less money, I'm content with what I've got.

What else HAVE I heard that would keep up with the Pendragons?

Thiel CS-3s (but they need a huge amount of power and a great sub).
Dhalquist DQ-20i (same limitations).
Revel F30s (same limitations).
Magnepan 3.7s (same limitations)
Axiom M-80/M-100 (same limitations)
Paradigm (big-uns) (same limitations)

And, for sure many, many more that I haven't heard.

[snacker]

How about the La Scala's?

You should try a set of Vienna Hayden Grands.

I enjoy them.

[teaman]

I wonder how your room would sound with a pair of Heresy III's or even the RB-81 II's Boom. The 81's provide a fantastic sound stage and they rock way above their pay grade. Also, the Heresy III is one hell of a speaker that accepts anything you can throw at it. Mate either speaker with a decent sub like you already have and I cannot picture you not being satisfied.


Tim

[garbulky]

Jun 28, 2017 22:59:44 GMT -5 teaman said:

I wonder how your room would sound with a pair of Heresy III's or even the RB-81 II's Boom. The 81's provide a fantastic sound stage and they rock way above their pay grade. Also, the Heresy III is one hell of a speaker that accepts anything you can throw at it. Mate either speaker with a decent sub like you already have and I cannot picture you not being satisfied.


Tim

I've heard the Heresy 3;s and I believe some sort of Lascala type Klipsch in his room. It was interesting to hear horn speakers but I find myself preferring his current speakers. However thoughs vintage Klipsch look gorgeous!