Tekton Double Impacts


Anybody out there heard these??

I have dedicated audio room 14.5x20.5x9 ft.  Currently have Marantz Reference CD/Intergrated paired to Magnepan 1.7's with REL T-7 subs.  For the vast majority of music I love this system.  The only nit pick is that it is lacking/limited in covering say below 35 hz or so.  For the first time actually buzzed the panel with an organ sacd. Bummer.  Thought of upgrading subs to rythmicks but then I will need to high pass the 1.7's.  Really don't want to deal with that approach.

Enter the Double Impacts.  Many interesting things here.  Would certainly have a different set of strengths here.  Dynamics, claimed bottom octave coverage in one package, suspect a good match to current electronics.

I've read all the threads here so we do not need to rehash that.  Just wondering if others out there have FIRST HAND experience with these or other Tekton speakers

Thanks.
corelli
Charles, it's difficult for me to understand your and Tom's findings to be mainly "listener taste" and "room" dependant. I can, however, accept system compatibility or optimization (or lack of) within a system playing a role, but to a degree. 

For example, 'anemic' is well, anemic. : )  To me, that's (fairly) unequivocal. 

This would be good to figure out. Perhaps those who have different and positive results with the MZ2 as a linestage can offer their thoughts as well?
@lancelock   April isn't that far off. Thanks for the heads-up. Chicago in mid April sounds more appealing, than Chicago in February. 
David,
I referenced listener taste/preference because it’s an unavoidable factor in that people "do"hear and interpret differently.
1. Clean and neutral to one listener is dry and analytical to another 2. Full bodied and tonally/harmonically rich to one listener is gratuitous and colored to another.

People do have notable differences in perception even when sitting side by side listening to the exact same system. I’ve had this type of experience. I am not suggesting my interpretation was the correct one, just that someone else heard something quite different from what I heard. It happens.
Charles

Charles, I get that and I understood what both you and Tom were communicating. Your most recent response makes that even clearer in the brilliant way you (and only a few others) are able to. And I fully accept your findings and results with the MZ2. 

I also believe that both of you are reasonable listeners and have reasonable assessments. Therefore 'anemic' (used as an example, since it was brought up) is likely anemic. I don't see how a component can somehow 'change it's spots' for lack of a better phrase. 

I'm trying to understand 'anemic' in this context...in other words, it wasn't something that was subtly better or preferred or marginally 'less' in some way or manner.

My base-line for this is that differences in quality components exist, but are not drastic. Perhaps I need to re-assess that base-line?
Hi David,
I don’t believe that any "baseline" adjustment is in order for you. Admittedly the High End vocabulary isn’t precise nor universal. This is further exacerbated when attempting communication via a forum format. Tom chose anemic and I immediately knew what he meant to convey.

Anemic in this sonic context means less full bodied sound, not preserving the innate natural tonal colors and harmonic richness. In other words something is stripped away resulting in a "lite" lower calorie alternative. Or less arthoritative dynamics (less powerful or forceful) presentation relatively speaking. Summarized, less meat on the bone and less of a flesh and blood (visceral) presence.

Again I recognize this is quite different from what Teajay has experienced in his own excellent reviewer’s system. To be very clear the MZ2 was not "bad"sounding, just however a "lite" rendition compared to Tom’s and my Line Stages. Our lite/anemic is another man’s "just right" neutral balance. Actually I don't mean to speak for Tom or put words in his mouth. He is more than capable of expressing himself. 
Charles