Article: Review | KANTO TUK vs. AIRPULSE A100, Part 2

[DuckToller]

View full article

[The Computer Audiophile]

Thanks so much for following through on this review @DuckToller. Also, thanks for the measurements!

[PYP]

Thanks for an honest review.  Did you find a difference in the sound of the TUC using the different doodads on top?     Just kidding.  Enjoyed the photos too, even though there is the very obvious omission of our buddy Frisby.    

[Mike48]

Thanks for this informative article.

 

There is only one word for a rise like that around 4000 Hz: ouch! The Tuk is off my list of small powered speakers to consider.

 

Try using a log scale for the frequency axis next time. It matches what we hear better, which is why everyone else uses it.

[DuckToller]

10 hours ago, Mike48 said:

Try using a log scale for the frequency axis next time. It matches what we hear better, which is why everyone else uses it.

@Mike48here we go:

[Mike48]

I keep looking at this and wondering . . . could this speaker really be operating as designed? A huge peak at 4 kHz and huge dip at 10 kHz? It seems so bad, it's hard to imagine it's operating at spec.

 

I can't remember, did you measure only one speaker at a time? If so, did you measure both speakers of the pair, and did they really both measure like this? Did you try repeating the measurements with different amounts of toe-in and different vertical axis? Sometimes, speakers develop such anomalies when measured strongly off axis.

 

Just curious if there's any explanation (other than a poorly designed product).

[DuckToller]

15 hours ago, Mike48 said:

I keep looking at this and wondering . . . could this speaker really be operating as designed? A huge peak at 4 kHz and huge dip at 10 kHz? It seems so bad, it's hard to imagine it's operating at spec.

 

I can't remember, did you measure only one speaker at a time? If so, did you measure both speakers of the pair, and did they really both measure like this? Did you try repeating the measurements with different amounts of toe-in and different vertical axis? Sometimes, speakers develop such anomalies when measured strongly off axis.

 

Just curious if there's any explanation (other than a poorly designed product).

Thanks Mike, glad you asked !
As I indicated in the article slider's photos both channels were separately measured and the stereo performance was captured as well. For another visualization here is the third measurement series I did at the 4th of June in two opposing smoothings.

 

 

I need to admit, that every time I look at the LOG graph, I tend to prefer the other one due to a less aggressive visualization. Looks like a bug in the LOG'ed layout, much less without.

Some core information:
- As noted in the review, the units had a b-stock badge an the packaging:
"Please don't get me wrong, I do regard the Kanto TUK as an exciting product, from which I've received a pair of B-stock models in excellent condition."
- I did listen to the speakers in the desktop & the mid range setup first before I measured them. I was the first 2 seconds impressed from and afterwards quite dissapointed about the SQ.
- The setup was hand measured exactly the same for both speaker pairs.
- The measurement procedure as described in the review:
"I used the SPL measurement of Room EQ Wizard, conducted through a UMIK 1 with 90deg calibration, top axis in line with the tweeters, 80cm distance, 1m between the speakers. The speakers had a minimum toe-in. Their setup was in the middle of the room, 1,05m away from the sidewalls and 1,50m from the rear wall. Measuring using 4 256k log sweeps 20Hz to 22khz  at -12db. Exactly the same configuration was used to measure the Airpulse A100. Using the exact SPL as before  (67,8dB) was achieved but proved to be difficult for reasons you may interpret from the graph."
- I did always Right Channel, Left Channel, Both Channel, Confirmation measurement 1 and 2 on Both Channels, which means I usually had about 4-5 measurements saved into most of the mdat-files. This had worked correctly with the A100 and I could not see why it shouldn't work with the TUK.
- obviously, single channel did not show this extreme dip at 10,5 kHz and after, however the 4kHz hump evidence is stark; independent from any chosen visualization. I attached some of the first measurements I did in different smoothing.
- the signal was provided for both speakers via iFi micro iDSD BL into analogue in to avoid differences from the inherent DAC implementation.
- After noticing the great difference for the TUK in stereo measurements, I tested with them with alternative acoustic references, none / less toe'd in and different SPL. The outcome did not change significantly, neither for single channel nor for the stereo result.

To narrow the reason for the outcome I've noticed from the first measurements I did consider that the conditions for the  A100 should been as equal as possible and measured the A100 a second time, then they were even measured another time in a combined session which per my logic excludes a faulty DAC, mic or software related abnormalities, and points the outcome to something that relates to the speaker itself.

Nonetheless, I am not a sound laboratory expert, and imho possible faults are always prone to happen. That's why I conducted about a dozen measurements (including the small changes I noted before), just to assure myself that I am not the reason for the outcome. Which - from a different perspective -  could as well confirm it ;-.)  

I could think about either an amplifier problem or something with the signal transfer in stereo mode, which doesn't occur it can be hefty for the high range in single channel mode. Thus, it can as well be related how REW uses the data points it receives from the measurement. I had no intention to elaborate into that for the review, although, I had to discuss the acoustic outcome for the critical listening, mostly focussing on the low/midrange enhancement.

I do agree that the graph doesn't look like fully intended by the manufacturer, however, the hump in the midrange may take advantage on the first impression. I have read several reviews (pro and consumer) that describe the TUK correspondingly as punchy.

Best, Tom
 

 

 

 

 

 

[DuckToller]

I noticed that the first picture could not be enhanced ...
  

 

[Mike48]

Tom, Thanks!! --Both for reviewing all that and for doing the review in the first place. It is quite shocking just how bad the FR of these speakers is. In audio, one cannot depend entirely on measurements, but they are useful to know whether competent engineering underlies a product one might buy. With speakers as with people, "little quirks" can become unbearable over time.

 

Perhaps even more shocking are the favorable reviews by subjective reviewers, even while noting the need to turn down the treble. I would imagine that getting 4 kHz down enough with the treble control would bring other frequencies down far too much and, e.g., have a severe loss of air in the result. Maybe also take down the mid-mid (1-2 kHz) so much as to make the sound recessed. A general tone control can never be the solution to a huge peak in FR.

 

I have always been wary of speaker reviews without measurements, and this has cemented that.

 

And yes, you have given a great example of the importance of scale in presenting data. Because we hear on a log scale (octaves being a doubling of frequency), a log scale is universally used in presenting FR data.

 

Mike

 

 

 

[WAM]

There is a review (Kanto TUK) on hifichoice.com now.

[Mike48]

10 minutes ago, WAM said:

There is a review (Kanto TUK) on hifichoice.com now.

 

Yes. It says nothing about the frequency response issue found here. How could it? No measurement were made, and the reviewer apparently listened to only a few pop tracks. It's a poor excuse for a review, a heap of regurgitated manufacturer's claims and entirely subjective audiophile assertions, some of which say even less than they appear to.

 

Even worse than an entirely subjective review, it's an unsigned entirely subjective review.

[DuckToller]

24 minutes ago, WAM said:

There is a review (Kanto TUK) on hifichoice.com now.

 

As far as I could see it isn't a recent review but re-used content from a 2019 print article. 

Trust your ears and trust your source ...

Cheers, Tom

[WAM]

Just wanted to share it, no more, no less..