What’s this about? – In a nutshell, Eric Alexander, the owner of loudspeaker company ‘Tekton Design, LLC’, threatened ‘litigation’ over a published review of a pair of Tekton Design Troubadour speakers by YouTube reviewer Erin Hardison of ‘Erin’s Audio Corner’, where Alexander claimed some ‘discrepancy’ on the part of the reviewer relating to the measurements of the Tekton speakers. The review video was subsequently removed from YouTube, and it is unknown at the time of writing whether or not this was voluntary on the part of the publisher, or whether it was removed by YouTube following a ‘complaint’.

The story, however, goes back further, as it seems there’s also been a spat between Eric Alexander and Amir Majidimehr, founder, owner, and reviewer at ‘Audio Science Review‘ [link provided to actual forum thread of M-Lore review], in this case relating to measurements taken on a pair of Tekton Design M-Lore speakers. It doesn’t end there. Ron, of ‘New Record Day’ was also threatened with litigation by Alexander, again over a published YouTube review. I won’t be talking about the ‘New Record Day’ litigation threat here, I’ll be focusing on the current ‘live’ sagas and updating this page as they play out. Please feel free to comment at the end, but keep it respectful as I’m trying to do here.

DISCLAIMER – I don’t generally ‘re-publish’ any content from outside sources on this website, unless it’s the occasional snippet taken from say the technical section of a manufacturer’s product page. However, in this instance, I’ll be using more content taken from outside sources, so I thought it prudent to extend my website disclaimer. Please review our disclaimer which is printed at the bottom of this page.

Who are the protagonists in this Tekton versus online reviewers affair? –

1 – Erin’s full name is Erin Hardison, and he’s the person behind “Erin’s Audio Corner,” a platform known for providing in-depth reviews, measurements, and analysis of audio equipment. Erin’s website can be found here, and his YouTube channel is here.

2 – Amir Majidimehr is the owner of Audio Science Review and Amir’s website can be found here.

3 – Eric Alexander is the owner and lead designer of the loudspeaker company Tekton Design, LLC. Eric’s website can be found here and his YouTube channel here.

What did the reviewers do wrong, according to Tekton Designs, the manufacturer? –

The two cases have similarities – both involve a reviewer who recorded and published measurements of a Tekton loudspeaker and in both cases, the manufacturer accused the reviewer of ‘improperly conducting the measurements’, hence publishing inaccurate data.

Case #1 – Audio Science Review of Tekton Design M-Lore (Mini Lore) Speakers – In the case of the ASR review here, one of Amir’s many comments on the anechoic measurements included:

“Boy, that is a pretty chewed up response. It is not terrible at high level but there are a ton of variations across the full audible band.”

Tekton’s Eric Alexander claimed the measurement position was off the intended axis hence the measured data was skewed. (my summary, not a quote). The speaker is slightly unusual (not unique) in that the woofer is located above the tweeter and the reference position for measurement is intended to be the woofer center and not the tweeter. For more context, this is a quote by Amir from the published review thread:

“EDIT: Company has stated that the reference axis is woofer, not the tweeter. I have explained that this makes little difference but he insists.”

And further, it then appears that the speaker was retested, this time with the woofer being the reference position, with Amir commenting as follows:

“As predicted, there is essentially no difference. Tiny bit of change is expected around 3 to 5 kHz but that doesn’t in any way change the overall picture of this speaker’s response. It has a very uneven response. Please note that the company specifications claim “extremely linear” response:” 

And lastly, this comment from Amir:

“As of this date, April 11, 2024, despite promising otherwise, company has NOT provided any measurements of any kind for this speaker. I have repeatedly asked Eric Alexander both in emails and in this thread to do so but he has refused. Yet, he has demanded that I delete the review or he would litigate against me and ask for damages. Until such time that he proves with measurements that he has a case, this review will stand.”

Note: For the sake of painting the complete picture, there is also some debate over the speaker’s impedance curve measurement and the fact that the measurements were taken without the speaker’s feet installed. The holes for the feet are drilled through into the cabinet chamber, and if the feet are not fitted then the internal chamber pressure is affected, thus impacting the impedance curve measurement.

While the thread currently runs to 67 pages and 1340 posts (as of 1 pm EST April 11, 2024), I think the above captures the essence of what has transpired between the two parties. I haven’t read through the 1340 posts, I’m sure there’s a lot of back and forth and clashing of opinion.

Eric Alexander has ‘pushed back’ actively on ASR’s forum and became involved in the discussion thread around post# 164. In the interest of balance, and giving both sides fair representation, I’ve picked several of Eric Alexander’s salient comments relating to the ASR review and included them below. Again, these posts may be edited or even removed at some point, and I have no control over what appears at the links when and if you decide to click on them. For my protection, I have screenshots for everything quoted here:

From post #164: What a disservice to the audiophile community. This reviewer does not possess all of the truth in the electro-acoustical universe concerning how loudspeakers should sound – nor do I

While Eric’s comments certainly challenged the review and the overall narrative, his tone was professional and generally non-confrontational. Likewise, he was welcomed to the forum by Amir and others and invited to participate in the dialog warmly and respectfully. Continues:

From post # 179: I respect your opinion. Sound is subjective, we all have our own HRTF, and we all have individual needs/expectations. This alone proves the perfect loudspeaker will never be a reality. Furthermore, the Mini Lore is a $375 (delivered) loudspeaker hand-built in the USA. Can we see it for what it is? It’s simply a fun loudspeaker for many people; let’s try to see the Mini Lore for what it is.

amirm said:

“Botched measurements – the loudspeaker was tested on the tweeter axis and the loudspeaker was designed and intended for the listener to be directly on-axis to the 8″ driver.”

Nothing is botched. In far field listening, the acoustic axis doesn’t make much difference. Besides, I am hoping you are not expecting listener ears to be locked in vise on the driver axis. It would also be unusual for the woofer to be reference axis given the fact that most of what it plays is omnidirectional.

From post #181 and referencing an earlier post from Amir: “I disagree. Anyone seated inside 15 feet should be listening to this model directly on-axis with the 8″ driver.”

While the dialog continues on the forum thread I think the above is enough of a representation of the ‘facts’ and statements presented from both sides.

On April 10, 2024, Tekton Design’s Eric Alexander posted the second of two videos relating to this controversy on his YouTube channel, presenting something of an emotional rebuttal to the claims made by Amir at ASR. It’s worth a watch if you haven’t seen it already. [Link to video in new window]

In the off-chance that the video is removed, I’ve saved a transcript just to cover my bases if needed. I’ll be discussing this video in my comments at the end.

Here’s my summary of the Tekton versus ASR controversy:

1. ASR obtains Tekton M-Lore (Mini Lore) speakers and conducts a range of measurements, including anechoic.
2. The speaker is initially measured ‘off intended listening axis’ and measures with “a pretty chewed up response” (Measurer’s words, not mine).
3. Tekton’s owner, Eric Alexander, challenges the measured results and points out the measurement error.
4. ASR re-measures the speaker using the woofer as the reference axis and publishes new data, with Amir commenting: “As predicted, there is essentially no difference.”
5. Measurement data has been requested from the manufacturer, presumably so that the data can be compared with ASR’s findings, but ASR claims that as of April 11, the data has not been forthcoming from Tekton Design.
6. ASR’s Amir Majidimehr claims that Tekton’s owner Eric Alexander has “demanded that I delete the review or he would litigate against me and ask for damages.”
7. Tekton’s Eric Alexander publishes a video on YouTube giving an overview of his position and stating that: “4:03: in my opinion Amir should have been more amiable to suspending or modifying his review when I informed him weeks back that there were problems.. I feel blindsided by Amir I believe he owes me a personal and a public apology.. I believe Amir should be doing everything in his power to rectify this problem”.

I’ve taken dated screenshots of all the content referenced above. It is clear that edits have been made to the original published review and data, and I cannot rule out the possibility that some of the quotes above may be removed or changed by the author(s). I can say that as of 1 pm EST on April 11, 2014, the quotes referenced above are accurate.

Case #2 – Erin’s Audio Corner Review of Tekton Designs Troubadour Speakers – The initial review posted on YouTube by Erin Hardison of Erin’s Audio Corner has been deleted, at the behest of Mr. Alexander. Here is the statement Erin made to his subscriber base:

I did read the original review on Erin’s website and I did watch the YouTube video review before it was deleted. I also watched a follow-up video published by Erin on his YouTube channel which had commentary on this issue between him and Tekton, and I also watched a YouTube ‘short’ on Erin’s channel where he was thanking people for their support (in this matter between him and Tekton, though that was not expressly stated by Erin in the short video). The follow-up ‘short’ video was also deleted.

On April 13, 2024, Erin published a new video [Tekton Troubadour Review: Take 2] where he candidly explains what’s transpired between him and Tekton’s Eric Alexander, and it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. Below is a screenshot of Erin’s follow-up video and you can see the threatening email letter he received from Alexander, Erin claims this is one of several exchanges of a similar tone and flavor, and he describes the ordeal in detail in his video here.

So what happened? Reconstructing the remaining remnants of this saga and comparing them with the facts I witnessed in the reviews before their removal, and taking most of the information in Erin’s video [Tekton Troubadour Review: Take 2] at face value, it appears that Erin conducted a review and measurement of the Troubador speakers, and while his subjective review was fairly neutral, his measured findings showed some mildly unflattering data that caught the eye of the manufacturer. Erin brought attention to a small impedance bump around 250 hz, which frankly, wouldn’t have been audible and Erin doesn’t claim that it was or is.

Similar to the ASR incident, the speakers had been measured of axis and without their feet attached. Consequently, the measured FR and impedance diverged from the manufacturer’s claims.

Erin obtained the feet from the speaker owner, and retested the Troubadours, with results largely the same. The minor differences are discussed in detail in Erin’s follow-up video review. [Tekton Troubadour Review: Take 2].

It’s noteworthy that industry reviewers Audioholics have chimed in on the debate, as have other YouTubers, and no doubt more will follow. I think the Audioholics video here provides another reasonable overview although it’s heavily slanted in favor of Erin’s position in the saga. Here is a screenshot of the YouTube video’s description field which I think sums up the Audioholics video content succinctly:

The video was published on April 9, and as of April 12 had been watched 25,614 times, so clearly this issue is attracting a lot of attention in what is a relatively small community.

What else do we know? – Here is a social media post captured from Erin Hardison.

Subsequently, Amir at ASR became aware of this event and started a thread on his forum at ASR, requesting donations toward a legal fund to support Erin in his quest. [Thread is here]

A veritable s**t storm has been whipped up online over this recent incident with Erin, even more so than that involving Tekton and ASR – and I’ll tell you why later.

The next piece of the puzzle to emerge online was the publishing of a video on the Tekton Design YouTube channel, which I have to say is the worst attempt at damage limitation that I’ve ever seen. I’m predicting that Mr. Alexander will delete the video at some point, but as of now, it’s still available here. (I do have a transcript from YouTube if it’s needed.)

You’ll see from the video that Mr. Alexander isn’t suing anybody and that the word ‘litigation’ does not mean taking somebody to court in his mind, it means a discussion between the attorneys of each party, one generally lasting around 20 minutes. [litigation:  https://dictionary.justia.com/litigation Definition of litigation: A legal procedure where a legal case is presented and fought in court.]

The video posted by Alexander, creates a problem, one of trust. The tone of the video is one of being a victim, and having done nothing wrong – just a quiet word or two between our lawyers (paraphrasing). Any sympathy you might have for the guy and his position will be tested once you watch Erin’s April 13th video [Tekton Troubadour Review: Take 2] linked to above.

Here are some extracts from the [Tekton Troubadour Review: Take 2] video, courtesy of YouTube’s ‘Transcript’ feature:

1. Eric Alexander expressed that my review puts his work and abilities as a designer in a false light, and he demanded that the review be removed and a mea culpa follow-up review be done, which was non-negotiable.
2. Instead of simply asking me to take down the review to investigate further, which I would have been open to, I was faced with threats. [Taken from email screenshot: “I will not tolerate this and will begin litigation first thing in the morning if your review isn’t pulled”]
3. In response to Eric’s demands, I agreed to pull the review temporarily, provided that he would send the feet, so I could conduct further testing to see if it resolved the issue. He agreed to this, but also mentioned that the damage was already done, citing a significant order cancellation he believed was linked to my review.
4. Unfortunately, the retesting did not reveal any significant changes that would alter the core of my original review. The resonance at 250 Hz remained, confirming my initial observations. This outcome suggested that the issues I noted were not due to the setup or testing conditions but were inherent in the speaker design itself.

I believe the key points of the issue have been covered above. For a more comprehensive perspective, watching Erin’s video “Tekton Troubadour Review: Take 2” and the two videos published to Tekton’s channel, will provide additional insights and complete the narrative presented here.

So where are we?

AT THE HEART OF THIS SAGA – OBJECTIVITY vs SUBJECTIVITY AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS.

The crux of these issues with Tekton revolves around two main points (there are certainly others to consider, but I’m going down this particular path):

1. The appropriateness, or otherwise, of challenging reviewers when their assessments do not match the expectations of manufacturers.
2. The acceptance that objective statements come with a higher burden of proof than subjective statements.

Challenging Reviewers.

This controversy is far from new, with a long history of instances dating way back in time. For example, Bob Carver is said to have taken legal action against Stereophile following a poor review of one of his products. The controversy began when Stereophile published a review that was less than favorable towards one of Carver’s amplifiers. Carver, believing that the review was not only detrimental to his product’s reputation but also unfair and possibly inaccurate, challenged the findings of Stereophile. While the specific legal actions Carver intended to take against Stereophile for the original poor review are not well-documented in terms of court filings or outcomes, the incident is often referenced in discussions about the power dynamics between audio manufacturers and reviewers. It highlights the lengths to which manufacturers might go to defend their products and reputation, as well as the complex relationship between subjective listening experiences and objective reviews in the audiophile world. 

There is no doubt in my mind that some reviewers, both print and online, have been subjected to legal intimidation for simply sharing their honest insights. However, each narrative involves an interplay between freedom of expression, moral and ethical responsibilities in reporting one’s opinions and findings, and the maintenance of a brand’s integrity.

Objective / Subjective Statements And The Burden of Proof

Integral to this debate is understanding the distinction between subjective and objective evaluations, particularly in how they’re perceived and the standards to which they’re held. Subjective reviews, such as personal opinions on the sound quality of a pair of speakers, are inherently based on individual experience and perception. These are valuable for their insight but are recognized as personal viewpoints rather than universal truths, and can be judged that way.

On the other hand, objective measurements, such as actual recorded data on speaker performance, presents factual, verifiable information that stands independent of personal feelings or biases. When publishing such objective data, the responsibility of the publisher escalates significantly. Accuracy, transparency, and clarity become paramount, as these findings are not open to interpretation in the same way subjective experiences are. Misrepresentation or errors in objective data can lead to more serious repercussions, both legally and in terms of credibility, than subjective opinions ever could or should.

Objective data calls for a higher standard of rigor and integrity from those who publish it. Both forms of review play crucial roles in consumer decision-making, but they demand different levels of scrutiny and accountability from publishers.

So who is right and who is wrong?

There’s no doubt in my mind that Eric Alexander of Tekton Design is largely in the right, and in principle, challenging these reviewers was mostly justified.

The problem, and the reason we’re here now dwelling on it, is how he went about it.

The complexities of the situation make it difficult to definitively declare one party entirely right or wrong. Instead, the nuances of the disputes provide a broader commentary on the dynamics of audio equipment reviews, the nature of public discourse in the industry, and the balance between subjective and objective evaluation standards.

Objectivity: As already discussed above, objective reviews rely on measurable data to assess audio equipment performance. This type of review holds a high standard because it claims to reflect the technical capabilities of a product beyond personal preferences or biases. When ASR published a negative review of Tekton’s speaker, backed by measurable data that did not align with the manufacturer’s claims, they were operating within their rights and responsibilities to provide honest, data-driven feedback. Likewise, Tekton was within its rights to challenge the review if it believed that it was conducted erroneously.

Moral and Ethical Considerations:. From a moral standpoint, manufacturers must respond to critical data constructively, especially when the critiques are based on objective data. Threatening litigation, as Tekton did with Erin, Amir, and Ron at New Record Day can be seen as an attempt to stifle honest criticism, which does not align with ethical business practices or the spirit of constructive discourse in the industry.

Likewise, reviewers in the audio equipment industry face an ethical responsibility: to ensure their testing conditions are fair and reflect the manufacturer’s specifications – when available, and to evaluate products in a way that realistically simulates typical consumer use. This can be challenging, especially when manufacturer guidelines for testing are not something that the manufacturers might typically publish. Ultimately, the ethical responsibility of reviewers is to the consumers, providing an accurate, unbiased assessment that aids them in making informed purchasing decisions.

The Dance – Testing Standards and Wearing the Tekton Hat.

From Tekton Design’s perspective, the company clearly perceives itself as a victim of unfair testing practices in the reviews conducted by ASR and Erin’s Audio Corner. Mr. Alexander’s primary contention is that the testing conditions were not aligned with Tekton’s specifications, which he believes fundamentally skewed the results. Specifically, the omission of the speaker feet, and the off-axis measurement approach, are seen as significant flaws in the testing methodology, despite there being no real written or verbal instruction on how these tests should be conducted. And why would there be? These speakers are manufactured as a consumer product for the reproduction of recorded music, they’re not intended to be calibration devices for reviewers’ test equipment.

Tekton argued that these deviations from ideal testing conditions are serious enough lapses that potential customers could be misled about the performance of their products. ASR argued that the results didn’t improve noticeably even after correcting the test procedure.

Tekton has already stated (in their YouTube video) that the negative ASR review has damaged their reputation and led to a drop in product sales, the inference being that there are consequential financial losses. [Erin shows email correspondance from Tekton claiming actual financial loss as a consequence of Erin’s ‘negative’ review and the subsequent fallout]. This is a serious situation.

Furthermore, Tekton could argue that adherence to standard testing conditions is a matter of ethical responsibility for reviewers. Inaccurate testing leads to reviews that may not truly represent the product’s quality, potentially misleading consumers and harming the manufacturer’s brand. From their perspective, correcting the record is not just about defending a single product but about upholding the broader principle of fair and accurate representation in consumer reviews.

From Tekton’s viewpoint, their decision to challenge the reviews and even threaten legal action could be seen as a defensive move to protect its business interests and ensure that its products are evaluated fairly and accurately. Tekton should feel justified in demanding that reviews be conducted under the manufacturer-recommended conditions to accurately reflect what consumers can expect from their products in typical usage scenarios. Question: Were these typical usage scenarios adequately catered for by the two reviewers?

The Court of Public Opinion: Reputation Management and Handling Disputes

Comparing the fallout from the disputes between ASR and Tekton, and between Tekton and Erin’s Audio Corner, you’ll see that they’ve evolved differently in the public eye, largely due to differing perceptions of the power dynamics at play. ASR are seen as an industry powerhouse and a dominant force. This perception has meant that the fallout from their dispute with Tekton hasn’t spurred significant public outrage. Conversely, in the dispute between Tekton and Erin, Tekton is viewed as the “600-pound gorilla,” a more dominant entity compared to Erin’s smaller platform. This has resulted in greater public backlash against Tekton, highlighting how perceptions of power influence public reactions to such conflicts.

When ASR published their review of the Mini Lore speaker, the data and supporting narrative had the capacity to impact future sales of that particular model, a fact subsequently confirmed by Eric Alexander in his YouTube video. However, Alexander’s decision to threaten litigation and pursue damages as an attempt to force Amir to remove the review and clear the record was misguided—a fact that hindsight only emphasizes but one that should have been predictable by Alexander from the start. The same applies in the case with Erin.

Mr. Alexander contested the review on two grounds: firstly, that the measurements were taken off the intended listening axis, and secondly, that the feet weren’t installed, thus affecting the accuracy of the measured impedance curve data. Before taking such a stance, he might have asked himself: would a re-measurement under ideal conditions yield data impressive enough to warrant a retraction of the original review? Presumably, with accurate data readily available, Alexander would have known that the answer to this pivotal question was no. In both cases (Amir and Erin), subsequent re-measurements under manufacturer recommended conditions did not significantly improve the data, and the negative narrative escalated as a result. In my opinion, seeking to have the reviews redacted under these conditions was a strategic error on Alexander’s part.

Regardless of any consideration towards public perception, Mr. Alexander’s strategy in both cases was to float the word ‘litigation’ into the conversation and make the problem go away. In part, his strategy achieved the intended outcome—Erin removed the review and related YouTube content under the threat of litigation, problem solved, right? In today’s digital age, where information spreads rapidly online, such strong-arm tactics are prone to backfire. And indeed, they have. The swift publication of two YouTube videos by Tekton Design in an attempt to quell the backlash serves as clear evidence of the public’s negative reaction to what many perceive as bullying tactics against two reputable online publishers. The problem didn’t go away, it escalated.

Is there a better way going forward?

CAH April 2024

DISCLAIMER

Copyright Disclaimer:
We at Audio Resurgence respect the intellectual property rights of others and strive to comply with copyright laws. We operate under the belief that any content we republish is in the public domain or we have obtained explicit permission to share it on our platform.

If you believe that any content published on Audio Resurgence infringes upon your copyright, please contact us immediately here. We are committed to resolving copyright issues swiftly and will take appropriate actions as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable intellectual property laws.

Freedom of Information:
Audio Resurgence supports the principles of freedom of information and the sharing of knowledge within the audio enthusiast community. However, we recognize that this must be balanced with the rights of content creators and copyright holders.

Limitation of Liability:
Audio Resurgence and its contributors will not be liable for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions in the content provided, nor for any actions taken based on such content. Readers are advised to conduct their research and due diligence when evaluating audio products and services, and when evaluating the opinions, comments, and actions of content contributors and sources.

This disclaimer is subject to change at any time, and the use of Audio Resurgence constitutes acceptance of this disclaimer. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

CAH Owner/Editor

Owner, Editor, designer, and writer of articles and papers on such diverse topics as audiophile industry products, law and legal, natural health industry, and executive recruitment.

See Full Bio

Electrical Engineering Home Entertainment Industry Home Audio And Electronics Products Law and Legal Natural Health Industry Executive Recruitment Cycling / Mountain Biking Personal Injury Law