Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.    

Mola Mola Tambaqui / Kubala-Sosna XLR / Mola Mola Kaluga / KS biwire / B&W 803 D3

Ethernet:  iMac/Roon > ... in-wall 5e ... > Sonore opticalModule [Sonore 5V LPS] > UpTone EtherREGEN + Cybershaft OP13 [UpTone JS-2 LPS] > Tambaqui ( = DAC/Roon Endpoint/preamp)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...