Tekton says It's NOT Suing Anybody... Breaks the seal on reviewers that measure speakers

I get that in a general sense. To me it sounded like he wanted to go over the measurements specifically and how they were taken more so than the review in general. In the one we're talking about he seemed to not like how the impedance curve was generated. Basically if you do a measurement different (not necessarily worse or wrong) he wants to argue the semantics. Especially odd for someone who doesn't provide his own beforehand. Maybe most of this is standard, but he's the only one I've seen get into a tiff about it. I don't think it's the first time either. I wish I could demo a pair myself. I know when they first started getting "popular" the handful of user responses were so over the top positive (no complaints from Eric on them not being professionals or how they came to the conclusions ) that they looked fake. That's why people who haven't seen them in person were interested in thorough reviews. Then when some reviewers didn't gush about them, the owner gets overly defensive. I know some owners of small companies can come off a little gruff online, but it's one thing to defend your products in a professional manner and another to start litigation over pretty trivial manners.

The saga continues.

This link is to an ASR post that shows Eric’s response to Erin’s 2nd review and then Erin’s response back to Eric.
Posted on Erin’s Patreon a few hours ago and posted to ASR by sweetchaos with Erin’s permission.

Post in thread 'Legal fund for Reviewers/Erin?'
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...al-fund-for-reviewers-erin.53577/post-1949092

Well done, Erin.

Unmasking Narcissistic Leadership: 5 Traits to Watch Out For...
1. Excessive Self-Centeredness
2. Lack of Empathy
3. Grandiosity
4. Manipulation and Exploitation
5. Difficulty Handling Criticism

250Hz is not a great spot for issues... Can you say mud...

And for those wondering about where they stand with those 5 points above... Please refer to the DSM-5 or your local psychiatrist...

I am not a psychiatrist nor do I play one on TV or the internet... I've just witnessed a lot of goofy stuff at the helm of HiTech and Entertainment industries over the past _cough_ 40 something years...

Todd Anderson said:

Nor have I… and I’m not interested in stirring up confrontation like this. I’d definitely advise both to take it offline.

Click to expand...

When Erin posted the last correspondence he said that was the end of any public disclosure and he would not be commenting on the correspondence or answering any future questions about the matter.

Todd Anderson said:

Obviously tempers have flared.

Click to expand...

Yes, a couple of Eric’s, I think.

Sonnie said:

That's a good video Erin did in response to all of this. In our Lore review, we noted some harshness as well. However, we did not have any anechoic response measurements to look at, nor do we have the means to do a proper nearfield response like the Klippel can do. My view is that those considering these speakers should not be concerned with the resonance because, as Erin mentions, it's not going to be audible. I (personally) would not concern myself with the upper midrange bump because I can get rid of it, just as Erin suggested in his video... it can be EQ'd. This is why I think, for some people, these Klippel measurements are fruitless. Number one... we don't listen to a speaker like the Klippel does, and number two, in cases where you have the right electronics, any frequency response anomalies can be dealt with at the listening position. I would be interested in seeing a measurement from the listening position to see if the bump is still there and if the Klippel measurement may have created a listening bias.

Click to expand...

I'm late to the party, but I saw all of this transpire a few months back. With between 200 and 300 designs completed over 40 years, I might be able to explain a few points.

Sonnie's response here is about as measured as any, no pun intended. We do not hear a device in the same way that a microphone-based data system records elements of that sound, so data cannot mirror that device's actual sound. A measuring system must, almost by definition and definitely by function, split parts of measurable behavior and record them in a segmented abstraction of actual device behavior. Clearly, it cannot be the device's sophisticated sound.

From there we have to interpret this data, adding an inherently-flawed intervening layer. We're distancing ourselves from the real sound.

"The measurements", as they are commonly called, may become rhetorical shorthand for a risky assumption about sound, and as Sonnie suggests, can create a listening bias.

Once we grasp this, everything starts to fall into place. (I've personally made exactly one design over that same period where the flatest standard amplitude response overlaid the speaker's best sound, and even then out of the hundreds of subtly different such microphone responses possible from that one design, only one of them struck this subjective ideal.)

Todd Anderson said:

Great insight, Jon.

It's unfortunate that measurements have become a beacon that's held over everyone. There's a segment of reviewers who use them as a sword, hacking apart anyone who dares use their ears to draw conclusions. Of course, you also have the opposite crowd, that's hell-bent on ignoring the utility of any sort of measurement.

It makes all of this extremely complex - and, in this case, potentially damaging to both parties involved.

Click to expand...

It's important to ask simply: Why are we doing this? Why are we doing audio? An honest assessment there says that there's a profound difference between doers and theorists.

In my opinion, if the goal is realistic playback—that is, convincing the listener that a facsimile of the original recording is playing in their home—then that effect becomes the only one to go by. It cannot be replaced with a prediction or assertion, and all the arguments and statements to the contrary are unhelpful. We had essentially learned that lesson thirty years ago, and there was very little, if any, of the current war on the ear, in which listening is denied due to the ear's purported fallibility, the listener's inherent delusions, or other similar nonsense. That is the measurement-first or measurement-only cohort's gatekeeping and censorship, which is to say, its purpose and motive for doing audio.

There should be resistance to censoring or cancellation in order to safeguard the quest of musical authenticity, as genuinely superb audio is valuable and uncommon (and in places, not appreciated per se enough). Argument dynamics have an asymmetry, in my opinion, and as long as producing those sounds is the most important thing, disallowing them by claiming they don't exist with an online argument backed up simply by data can be disregarded.

That sound cannot be identified by a projected, argumentative narrative unless, in equally uncommon circumstances, reason and experience win out. Talking is what we're doing here, only discussing an experience that is certain and accurate and not as subjective and changeable and unreliable as some people who don't appreciate it claim it is—true realism is both subliminal and unquestionable. And the goal is realistic-sounding playback. That's why we're doing audio.

I've always advised going out and listening to as much as you can. That's how it's always been done; that's how those paradigm-shifting experiences are discovered by all of us. I'm sure I have, and both what they were and how they sounded were incredibly pleasant and surprising.

Todd Anderson said:

It would be ideal if there were some sort of way to quantifiably correlate specific measurements to quality of sound, particularly with measurements associated with AVRs.

Click to expand...

That's right. To put it another way, what is that hopefully small and repeatable packet of data, and how is it related to the perception of a significant level of authentic musical realism? Since this is a speaker discussion within a speaker forum, I can speak from personal experience when I say that I haven't found a trustworthy all-data solution in forty years, and I haven't discovered an effective one that connects to or stems from hundreds of thousands of data trials over hundreds of speaker designs. Yes, data work.

I search for information that can tell me more about the engineering behind a finished item's sound—things that the general public seems not to mention—but I have no way of knowing if a device that provides those fundamental signs does the job well. They do not map. The correct sound exists, as do good physical design objectives, though we're already losing certainty about them as they too must yield to their real sound. However, neither I nor anybody else in my circle can come up with a plug-and-play shorthand for it.

It certainly would be ideal if there were some sort of way to quantifiably correlate specific measurements to quality of sound. When talking about it what there are instead are approximations and ideas.