[bellhead]

In another thread, spence wrote of the Timepiece 3.0:

They are seamless and reproduce everything perfectly (perfectly of course if it was recorded that way).
If  your tunes were recorded bad, you'll hear it.

I replied in the thread, but I would like to ask about this
for all of the SP Tech speakers:
Are they ruthlessly revealing?
Can I play poorly recorded CDs without hearing etch, grain, tizz, shrieking, etc.?
Can I play R.E.M., the Beatles,  and Motown along with quality classical CDs?

I used to have Aerial 10Ts and Apogee Stages, which were nice and forgiving,
at the expense of some detail. Wilson Watt Puppies drove me crazy on anything but
the best Reference Recordings. Thank you for your comments on your experiences.

[Double Ugly]

Ruthless?  No, at least not in the same way your Watt Puppies are.  But as I mentioned in your other SP Tech thread, they are revealing.

FWIW, I have a lot of non-audiophile recordings and .mp3s, and while some sound better than others (none are fabulous), they haven't made anyone run screaming from the room.

[Bigfish]

In another thread, spence wrote of the Timepiece 3.0:

They are seamless and reproduce everything perfectly (perfectly of course if it was recorded that way).
If  your tunes were recorded bad, you'll hear it.

I replied in the thread, but I would like to ask about this
for all of the SP Tech speakers:
Are they ruthlessly revealing?
Can I play poorly recorded CDs without hearing etch, grain, tizz, shrieking, etc.?
Can I play R.E.M., the Beatles,  and Motown along with quality classical CDs?

I used to have Aerial 10Ts and Apogee Stages, which were nice and forgiving,
at the expense of some detail. Wilson Watt Puppies drove me crazy on anything but
the best Reference Recordings. Thank you for your comments on your experiences.

Belhead:

Have you read this review?  
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/sptech_2.htm

I believe Jim Merod was using the Timepieces as studio monitors.

Ken

[bellhead]

OK, thanks for the quick replies! I appreciate it.
Specifically, does anyone listen to the Beatles, Carly Simon, or the Supremes
(or other vintage Motown) on the SP Techs?
Sometime I think the best test of a speaker is with ordinary recordings, kind of an acid-test.

[bellhead]

OK, I read the Jim Merod's Positive Feedback review, and, similar to spence,
amid the praise, he notes that the Timepieces are:

revealing of small audio details that demand exquisite sonic accuracy

I guess he meant this as a compliment. But is this the dreaded "accuracy"
that is "Hi-Fi" if I'm not listening to Reference Recordings or MFSL or Diana Krall?

I'm just trying to read between the lines here.
For what it's worth, I've seen the same theme in the reviews of the exalted Magico
Minis. (I have not heard those either.)

The bottom line here is that, for my personal tastes, I don't want to hear
any excuses about how "this music is not recorded well enough for these speakers."
I mean, what good is that?  And I know it's not necessary. I have
Sony R10 headphones, and they are pretty spectacular on anything (with tubes in front of
them, at least), and Sennheiser 650s also are very musical on just about anything
you throw at it.

(I don't mean to sound negative here and challenge everything, I'm just trying to
get at the bottom of this.)

[satfrat]

OK, thanks for the quick replies! I appreciate it.
Specifically, does anyone listen to the Beatles, Carly Simon, or the Supremes
(or other vintage Motown) on the SP Techs?
Sometime I think the best test of a speaker is with ordinary recordings, kind of an acid-test.

You gotta be kidding me if you actually think 1970 recording technology is the best music source for todays speakers.   Sorry but that statement makes no sense to me even tho I think I know what you're saying.  And I personally feel you're not really looking for a highly revealing speaker if what you really want is a forgiving speaker that won't exasperate 1970 type recordings. It sounds like "I want my cake and eat it too" statement.

Cheers,
Robin

[Bigfish]

OK, I read the Jim Merod's Positive Feedback review, and, similar to spence,
amid the praise, he notes that the Timepieces are:

revealing of small audio details that demand exquisite sonic accuracy

I guess he meant this as a compliment. But is this the dreaded "accuracy"
that is "Hi-Fi" if I'm not listening to Reference Recordings or MFSL or Diana Krall?

I'm just trying to read between the lines here.
For what it's worth, I've seen the same theme in the reviews of the exalted Magico
Minis. (I have not heard those either.)

The bottom line here is that, for my personal tastes, I don't want to hear
any excuses about how "this music is not recorded well enough for these speakers."
I mean, what good is that?  And I know it's not necessary. I have
Sony R10 headphones, and they are pretty spectacular on anything (with tubes in front of
them, at least), and Sennheiser 650s also are very musical on just about anything
you throw at it.

(I don't mean to sound negative here and challenge everything, I'm just trying to
get at the bottom of this.)

I think you should tell this group what speakers you have heard that you like and ones you have heard that you don't like.  Based on your comments above my guess is you may not be happy with the accuracy and revealing nature of the SP Techs.

Ken

[bellhead]

Robin, thanks--point taken. I guess am am looking to "have my cake and eat it too."
But isn't that the miracle what good audio strives to achieve? And I guess speakers
find themselves on some sort of a continuum (no pun intended), so there is a balance
between harsh-exposure and opaqueness. But I do know that, for me at least,
some speakers can somehow present "distortion" in a way that, although you
can detect it an hear it, it is somehow not unpleasant.

For instance, I have some vintage classical CDs with tape hiss, and good speakers
present it, but it is not annoyingly searing.  You can hear through.
And (sorry to turn this into that 70's show),
but if you listen to Jim Croce's gravely, close-miked voice on what I think is
a "good" system, you know the grit and grain is there, but it seems somehow
natural. The same goes for Nat King Cole. I remember hearing Von Schweikert VR9s do this well (for, unfortunately,$60K).   

So, I'm just trying to find out how the SP Techs perform in this regard.
Anybody?
--
One more example of this theme: In another review here by rms, he also states:
I can focus on details that I could not pick out before with other monitors or my headphones. And even though I now have many hours of listening time in with the Continuums I still find myself saying WOW! after playing a really great recording.

So, again, it begs the question: what about not-so-really-great  ones?

[satfrat]

I just read Double Ugly's reply in your "other" thread and I feel he really nailed the answer for you as well as anyone can. No one can tell you what you are gonna hear or like with the type of material that you're looking to use. I'd say your best bet is to try and find a SP Tech owner close by that you might be able to get an audition or better yet try a set in your system with your material and see if these speakers chase you out of the room. 

But either way,,,,, good luck.

Cheers,
Robin

[giantsteps]

I just read Double Ugly's reply in your "other" thread and I feel he really nailed the answer for you as well as anyone can. No one can tell you what you are gonna hear or like with the type of material that you're looking to use. I'd say your best bet is to try and find a SP Tech owner close by that you might be able to get an audition or better yet try a set in your system with your material and see if these speakers chase you out of the room. 

But either way,,,,, good luck.

Cheers,
Robin

 I was about to post thinking along the same lines. For God's sake simplify! Check out the Audiophile Pet Peeves thread and break loose. Order the spks, listen to them....you don't like them...well.... send them back! Must the quest be complicated?


 Frank

[bellhead]

OK, off the top of my head,
I have liked Von Schweikert VR9s and VR5 HSEs, Aerial 10Ts, Apogee Stages and Divas,
Dynaudio Evidences, Eggleston Andras, the Aurum Acoustics system,
Joseph Audio RM7s, Vandy 5As, B&W N803s, Quad 988s,
Audio Physic Avanti III's and Virgos, Verity Parsifals, and Merlin VSMs.

I have never really liked Wilson Watt Puppies in most sessions,
JM Labs Nova Utopias, Pipedreams, Gershmans, Zu Definitions, any Martin Logans,
Krell LATs, Sonus Faber Amati Homages, Vienna Acoustics Beethovens,  and Meridian speakers.

[giantsteps]

 You need help.


 Frank

[bellhead]

Frank, thanks for the advice. I didn't know they would let me try them out
at home.

(Well, it's just that I had a number of speakers that didn't work out for me,
so I guess I'm a little paranoid about this. Thanks again.)

[giantsteps]

 Take your time. Stay cool.


 Frank

[bellhead]

Will do. All the best to you.

[giantsteps]

Will do. All the best to you.

 You too.
 Take care,


 Frank

[AliG]

Buy a Bose....everything sounds 'good' on Bose. My 66 year-old Dad can hear no difference betwen Bose and my $20k setup. You don't need high fidelity system to enjoy music. At the end of the day, it's all about the music. What's the point of spending $30k only to find that 70% of your 'normal' records sound crap on it??

OK, I read the Jim Merod's Positive Feedback review, and, similar to spence,
amid the praise, he notes that the Timepieces are:

revealing of small audio details that demand exquisite sonic accuracy

I guess he meant this as a compliment. But is this the dreaded "accuracy"
that is "Hi-Fi" if I'm not listening to Reference Recordings or MFSL or Diana Krall?

I'm just trying to read between the lines here.
For what it's worth, I've seen the same theme in the reviews of the exalted Magico
Minis. (I have not heard those either.)

The bottom line here is that, for my personal tastes, I don't want to hear
any excuses about how "this music is not recorded well enough for these speakers."
I mean, what good is that?  And I know it's not necessary. I have
Sony R10 headphones, and they are pretty spectacular on anything (with tubes in front of
them, at least), and Sennheiser 650s also are very musical on just about anything
you throw at it.

(I don't mean to sound negative here and challenge everything, I'm just trying to
get at the bottom of this.)

[satfrat]

You don't need high fidelity system to enjoy music. At the end of the day, it's all about the music.

  That my friend is just about the most honest statement that an audiophile could ever make and you have my admiration for making it.

Cheers,
Robin

[groovybassist]

bellhead:

I own Timepiece Mini's and run them with Naim gear.  The Mini's are definitely revealing of what's on the recording.  Most of the time, this results in the ability to hear instruments, their texture and inflections more clearly, which adds to the musical experience.  However, if a recording is "hot", you'll hear it as hot.  I've also owned the Joseph RM7 MkII's - to my ears, they're brighter and crisper than the Mini's, and that crisp character wasn't accompanied by the positive attributes the Mini's have.  I just found the Joseph's bright.  Hope this helps.

-Mike

[mixsit]

In another thread, spence wrote of the Timepiece 3.0:

They are seamless and reproduce everything perfectly (perfectly of course if it was recorded that way).
If  your tunes were recorded bad, you'll hear it.

I replied in the thread, but I would like to ask about this
for all of the SP Tech speakers:
Are they ruthlessly revealing?
Can I play poorly recorded CDs without hearing etch, grain, tizz, shrieking, etc.?
Can I play R.E.M., the Beatles,  and Motown along with quality classical CDs?

I used to have Aerial 10Ts and Apogee Stages, which were nice and forgiving,
at the expense of some detail. Wilson Watt Puppies drove me crazy on anything but
the best Reference Recordings. Thank you for your comments on your experiences.

After reading your two threads I'll toss this in for what it's worth.

What you're trying to balance is valid - high fidelity vs 'too much truth', and it might depend on what one wants in general. I see two distinctly different aspects at work -in music at it's simplest and basic level vs the pursuit of perfection, in the recordings, the reproduction, the enabling of the illusion, right down to the joy and pride of superb tools and systems. Sort of like a left brain vs right brain thing.
But ask this. Are there songs, and times, where the music connects -regardless or in spite of ridiculously poor fidelity? On the other hand there are countless recordings out there -not surprisingly, that are full of imperfections. Whether they 'deliver the goods' might depend more on which of our perspectives (or blend of both) are in play, less so the relative level of accuracy' down the recording chain.

I want to be up font here as to how I faced this, and what drove me. And it may sound (and be) completely atypical, inverted reasoning. I was lead to SP after deciding rather than looking for speakers to like, to get the most, flat, plain fidelity I could find and afford -and to like that -to take that chance.
Now my needs are weighted heavily on the technical side for neutrality, as I use them in recording and mixing in my home studio. This is where IMHO SP's engineering and design pay off and make perfect logic to me- a coherent, controlled disperse point source down to 700, large drivers doing what large drivers do well. 'Right brain is happy.
The recordings; The clear differences in the tone qualities are there, the un-cloudy definition in the low and upper bass ranges, right on up the top, are a joy -in fidelity, and to work with.

When we are creating a mix' on the way to becoming a finished recording, part of the task is to minimize the tone faults individual instruments and to find their balance within the song. Knowing this it is easy to extrapolate (by my sick methodology  ) to the point of thinking that all (most?) recording are contrived 'best efforts' of the engineers to present the end product -musical illusion, to the target. They will pick one mic over another with rises or dips in the response to hide or favor a singer or instrument's traits, making these pushes and pulls' at each stage in the process right on down the line, literally dozens, sometimes hundreds of 'moves, manipulations.
The final result of this- From project to project- Tone, presentation, -the presentation of reality' and illusion -are all over the map.
Knowing this may spoil in some way, for some, the pursuit of the 'high fidelity' game. Or it may liberate. Knowing there are 'faulty recordings of great music, some will only 'fly' for you when in the left-brain moods at best. But I am more at ease with turning them off when the don't 'fly for me, or turn a tone control if if that fits- rather than chase again with a 'speaker specific' solutions.
And yes, the old/crude off kilter stuff survives as well, (perhaps even more likely?), on the SP's I believe specifically due to the 'low hype' factor.
 aa