searching for musical truth: SP Tech Timepiece 3.0

targa · « **on:** 7 Feb 2009, 11:55 pm »

ALL, I want to share my experience with SP Tech Timepiece 3.0 (TP3) speakers. I have not written any serious reviews nor am I pretending to be a good reviewer/ writer. Please, be patient as you read on. A common passion - with you - for music drives me to share my perspective with you. TP3 do so many things right that I have not heard before in any of other speakers that I have the pleasure of owning or auditioning extensively over time.

Before I go into the details of my observation of TP3, allow me to provide some context for this discussion. What is extremely important to me is “musical truth” and what I imply by this is simply the ability hear music as the artist and recording engineer intended to express on a recorded disc. For example, when I listen to a disc of Midori playing Paganini, I basically listen to Paganini through a set of at least 2 different lenses: 1. interpretation of Paganini by Midori, the artist and 2. the recording engineering since he/ she can influence the listener experience/ perception by # of microphones, positions and other factors used in the recording. Given this, I would not want to introduce third set of variables - my audio system - that potentially can “push me further away” from Paganini. I, therefore, prefer the most accurate and transparent system that I can afford such that I can listen to music as intended by the artist of my choosing (and recording engineer).

Now have said that, my criteria used in looking for speakers come down to the 3 points below. My reference is simply ‘live (acoustic) sounds’ as I can hear them in real life...

1. accuracy, e.g. do cymbals sound like cymbals, snare drum sound like a snare drum? can I hear/ feel the presence of a voice through the speakers?
2. transparency/ resolution, e.g. can I hear instrument voices in the back of the stage? can I clearly differentiate the many instrument voices of in a full orchestra?
3. coherence, e.g. do I hear continuous spectrum of sounds from high to low? do the high and low notes have the same, common “signature” or - even better - no signature at all?

The process used is that I take notes as I listen to different types of music and discs and will share my experience here. I will share as time allows and will keep adding. Below is my first set of notes from today (Feb 7) listening session. I bought and have the TP3 only last 7 days but have not been able to listen much until today.

Midori: “The Essential Midori”, track 2/ Paganini Solo Caprice 5
This CD is well recorded and I liked this track. Playing Paganini is technically complex and emotionally intense. The track started out at a slow pace and picked up in the middle and last part. As Midori played her violin slowly, I clearly heard the notes she played but also detailed sound of the bow striking against the string. The amount of details and air around each note was incredibly real. Each note sounded full and round. I heard the woodiness/ graininess/ rawness of the violin coming through fully and completely. The sound was warm and full just like I could hear live in a music hall. I felt like Midori was playing in front of me and I could sense the short, rapid movements of her arm as she played faster. I could hear her fingers pressing hard against and moving up and down the violin neck - through this I could sense the technical complexity of the piece. Also, I heard the acoustic echo of the room she was in and that told me that microphones were placed at least 3 -5 feet away from where she stood. The high and low notes sounded extremely coherence. On few occasions through the track, I heard her moving closer and away from the mics as she played fast. Every detail came through. I sensed the intense virtuosity, emotions in her playing that I was not able to hear before ever and anywhere. In summary, the sound image was 3D, articulate, detailed, full, warm and extremely real..

….

konut · « **Reply #1 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 12:01 am »

You're off to a great start. Please continue. What constitutes the rest of your system?

ted_b · « **Reply #2 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 12:19 am »

Lance, is that you? Great start, regardless. I like the style very much.

Welcome to Audio Circle, and to the SP Tech customer family. Make sure you give feedback over in that Circle too..

targa · « **Reply #3 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 01:48 am »

Ted - yes. thanks!

here is my current set-up (will get smarter how to use this forum) associated with the above feedback:
source: Pioneer Elite BluRay BDP-94HD (modified by the upgrade company)
power: Linar Audio 10 integrated (modified)
power conditioning: Transparent PowerIsolator
power cables and interconnects: pure silver (forgot the brand)

over the past 2 years, I have owned the following components:

source: Krell Standard SACD, NAD M5
power: Audio Research VT100 mkIII (amp), Audio Research Reference One (pre), Jadis Reference Orchestra, Krell 400xi, + some other
speakers: Thiel CS2.4, JM Lab Utopia Micro BE, Martin Logan Vantage, Dynaudio S3.4, Harbeth 7ES3 + many other bookshelf in 1-2K range, e.g. Totem, Usher, Tyler Acoustics..

I have also listened and auditioned speakers like B&W, Avanguard and few other big $ that did not fit my preferences - and could not afford anyway..

richidoo · « **Reply #4 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 02:55 am »

If you are a violing freak like me, you have picked a good speaker. It's tonally neutral, detailed and intense. I've played solo violin on Bigfish's TP2.1 and am always impressed with the connection it allows. As you grow more accustomed to the new speakers you will hear even more in the way of emotions and technique. Another such disk that I love is Julia Fischer Bach Sonatas on Pentatone.

I saw Midori at the symphony a month ago, 6th row center. She played very softly but the expressiveness was just as you eloquently describe.

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #5 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 03:37 am »

Hi Targa:

A friend of mine had the same JM Lab Micros BEs you did. Can you share a sound comparison between the two?

Thanks,

Rocket_Ronny

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #6 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 03:40 am »

Quote from: Rocket_Ronny on 8 Feb 2009, 03:37 am

A friend of mine had the same JM Lab Micros BEs you did. Can you share a sound comparison between the two?
Rocket_Ronny

... or between the Harbeth 7ES3 and the Timepieces?

targa · « **Reply #7 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 03:08 pm »

Session 2, Feb 8
Maria Callas, the Voice of the Century CD. I have listened to this CD a lot. I know that her songs were recorded between 1950s - 60s while re-released many times. I am not sure if the records have been “re-mastered” to higher bit resolution but in general, sound quality is expected to be not as good as more recent recordings. However, I can definitely confirm that the lesser sound quality of the CD came through the TP3 much clearer that other speakers I used. I am elaborating this point in details below.

Track 1: Maria Callas’ voice was coming as sweet as I expected. Simply heavenly voice. All details I heard before were there but more. The sound was now less full and warm as compared to a good recording (like Midori). The soundstage was more 2D (left and right and limited depth..) I could clearly distinguish her voice from all other sounds but still felt like the distance between her voice and other instrument voices was much closer than other recording. My impression was like the mics were 10-15 feet away (forgive me, the distance described only serves to paint my mental picture). You and I know for sure that mics were not placed that far away – particular at that time – but what I heard was limitations of recording technology/ techniques of that time. Again, I listened to this CD on all my speakers at home and when auditioning, I never noticed the “compressed” soundstage as clearly as I can now..

When I talked about the distance of mics above, a very good analogy I use for myself is this: imagine I am watching a group of 7 people standing 15 feet from me.. At that distance, I can see who is on the left vs right but I can not guess who is a bit more in front (and how far in the front etc) vs back very well. When I come closer like 3 – 5 feet away, I can tell much better who is more in front vs back and even better guess how much further front vs back.. Same thing with sound, the further away the less I hear the small sound cues that tell me the depth of the soundstage…. Same principle with paintings.. How can a painter create 3D out of a 2D canvas..? The people closer to the front are painted bigger (in sound: louder), with more lines and details (in sound: details) and truer/ deeper color (in sound: fuller, presence).. Enough said..

Track 2: beautiful voice, again. I do catch a bit more air between her voice and the instrument voices than I could before. However, when she raised her voice to (very) high notes, I distinctly heard a bit of distortion in the sound that I was not be able to hear before… very interesting. I am absolutely sure that this was the record and not my system or the speakers because I heard many high notes on other recording (e.g. singing by Renee Fleming) coming through perfectly clean. Also, I picked more background noises, such as someone foot stamped on the floor or dropped something. Again, this background noise was not obvious to me before…

Bottom-line, I heard more into recording than I could before. I got more insights into the music but also the “making” of the recording. The sound was less “euphonic” and “romantic” than what I used to. The key question now is which sound do I prefer? For me, I can tell you that I absolutely prefer the accurate, transparent sound that I heard through TP3 better even with all the described “short-comings” of the recorded music. Why? I simply got more insights into what I hear and I can make my own (better) judgment on her voice vs. the recording quality.. I like listening this way better.. Again that is just a personal reference… My thought is simple: right or wrong, good or not so good, just provide (my system) me all information and data points as accurate as possible and I will make my judgment if I like to listen to the recording or not..

More later..

rajacat · « **Reply #8 on:** 8 Feb 2009, 07:27 pm »

Nice review.

Would the extraneous detail revealed by the Timepieces be noticed by someone who is listening to the recording session live? Perhaps this detail would be filtered out by human hearing thereby enabling the listener to concentrate on the essence of a live performance. Maybe too much value (volume?) is placed on non essential sound to the detriment of the performance.

-Roy

targa · « **Reply #9 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 12:00 am »

many thanks for the comments and feedback.

thanks richidoo, I will look into Julia Fischer Bach Sonatas..

Rocket_Ronny, Russell Dawkins,

I am glad to respond to the questions about JM Lab Micro BE and Harbeth 7ES3. I want to say that both speakers are excellent and that explains why many people are correct to like them. However, my perception is based on the outlined criteria above. Also, I only speak to the sound and not about the form or aesthetics of the speakers.

7ES3 is on the warm side whereas Micro is on the cooler side of the neutrality. 7ES3 sounded full and warm. Very good detail but did not communicate the ambiance as well as TP3. Also, the dynamic bandwidth of 7ES3 was limited when compared to TP3. 7ES3 did not resolve complex pieces of music as well and could not play loud. Not that I do care about playing loud, however the dynamic headroom in TP3 does help in resolving complex passages (that are often loud and with many instrument voices). 7ES3 were definitely more romantic and mellow sounding and therefore more colored to my ears. 7ES3 would be excellent for choice for jazz, vocals and small assembly music. Not so much rock.. and no surprise here. Paired better with SS amp than tube..

BE tweeters were very transparent and resolving but I felt that the woofers did not keep with tweeters well. Coherence was not the best to my ears. The Micro were as detailed and communicative as TP3 although were more on the cooler side, e.g. less warm and less full than TP3 (…may be explained by the fact that TP3 go deeper). TP3 also handle macro dynamics better.. Micro paired better with tube amp than SS. The most striking trait of TP3 - when compared to the better speakers I owned - is its ability to portrait an incredible 3D soundstage..

Also, a word about selective hearing comment from Roy..

You are absolutely right about selective hearing, seeing, etc.. I do that too. You are also right to be cautious about the amount of sounds or information (..allow me to use the term information to be generic about the processing capability of my brain) coming through.. I am quite conscious about this fact. When a lot of information is presented without a solid structure or framework, this makes it difficult for my brain to process and recognize… I then hear ‘noise’. However, when information is present in a structured manner, it is much easier for my brain to process and recognize the patterns in the information presented. If, therefore, a lot of details is coming through the speakers but well organized in a solid 3D soundstage like TP3, I can still choose which part of soundstage I want to focus on but I do hear music that I can recognize..

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #10 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 12:50 am »

Thanks Targa for sharing those comparisons. I have heard the Grand Utopias and Mezzo's but not the JM Mini's and did wonder how good they were. My friend thought quite highly of the JM Mini's. It is hard to beat the fantastic coherency of the SP's though, and I find they have a good balance between warm and cool. Tonal balance is fantastic as can be heard in violins and such.

Now all I have to do is not be jealous of those TP 3's.

Rocket_try, try, try not to be ..., try_Ronny

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #11 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 01:09 am »

(quote) "When a lot of information is presented without a solid structure or framework, this makes it difficult for my brain to process and recognize… I then hear ‘noise’. However, when information is present in a structured manner, it is much easier for my brain to process and recognize the patterns in the information presented. If, therefore, a lot of details is coming through the speakers but well organized in a solid 3D soundstage like TP3, I can still choose which part of soundstage I want to focus on but I do hear music that I can recognize." (quote)

One of the reasons that detail is more intelligible might be because the SP tweeter is set back into the cabinet so the voice coils of both drivers are on the same plane and waveforms are arriving in sync. Information arriving out of time and phase is also being limited by the waveguide. Couple that with a quick response time, a quiet enclosure and wide dynamics, and you got yourself a loudspeaker.

targa · « **Reply #12 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 03:33 am »

jimdgoulding, thanks for the explanation since I would not know how this/ making speaker works..

Rocket_Ronny, I quite agreed with what you said about TP. In general, if the TP3 would have any issue with coherence, i think that people who pay attention would catch that easily since the TP3 cross-over is at 600hz which is within the (broadest) bandwidth of human voice, e.g. 80hz - 1.2khz (correct?).. and in general, human voice is most recognizable to us. On the other hand, the Micro cross-over is at 2.5 khz so.. I think incoherence (if any) takes some time to discover..

The one speaker that I have not owned nor auditioned is ATC.. Any one has experience with that? I know Ted did and has talked to him at length.. I am very curious about ATC (accurate, transparent, dynamic?)

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #13 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 05:33 am »

ATC makes a self amplified or active two way model, the 20 something or another. What's unique about them is that with active speakers the amplification (usually two per speaker) is after the crossover instead of before and dedicated to the specific drivers. The time alignment of each driver can then be made uniform electronically by designing in a delay in the crosover to the tweeter. When the mid/bass driver is a cone and the tweeter is a surface mounted dome, waveforms aren't actually arriving at the same time. But, in the case of active speakers, they would/could be. I haven't heard the ATC's- I use another make of active speakers- tho I think one could expect very articulate sound and imagery and jump city in the bass*. Speaker cables are not required, of course.

*amp power isn't being shared or sucked up in the crossover

ted_b · « **Reply #14 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 05:43 am »

ATC makes MANY active (and passive versions) speakers, ranging from small 19's and 20's (named for their cubic space) all the way to ultra-massive 300's. Telarc uses 100's mostly, in a 5.1 config. I owned (pix in my gallery) the active 150's (size of industrial washing machines) and they were incredible, but overpowered the room. They had three internal amps, all placed after the crossovers, so the amps were built and handled only their respective frequencies. They were something else.......and listed for like $50k. The active ATC's are in a large majority of the world's best recording studios.

Net/net, SP Tech's are just as accurate and dynamic, albeit passive. My, what Bob could do if he made my Revelations active!!

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #15 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 03:34 pm »

Damn, Ted, you ain't playin are you! Just looked at your gallery. What are your impressions of your older Sason's? Did you ever do the painting, etc.? Love to see new photos! Were I ever to change speakers the SP's would be on my short list. The Mini's for my room.

ted_b · « **Reply #16 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 03:43 pm »

Jim,
Thanks. I can't speak for the newer shorter Sason design, but the originals were great monitors that disappeared in my room, but I could never get them to integrate into the lower 40 hz with any sub I tried (and i used the Velodyne SMS-1 bass EQ to help). When I later heard the dynamics of the SP Techs it was all over.

rydenfan · « **Reply #17 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 06:58 pm »

Quote from: targa on 9 Feb 2009, 03:33 am

The one speaker that I have not owned nor auditioned is ATC.. Any one has experience with that? I know Ted did and has talked to him at length.. I am very curious about ATC (accurate, transparent, dynamic?)

Who cares? With the way you describe your speakers why even think about another speaker??? Just sit back and enjoy the music

satfrat · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 07:21 pm »

Quote from: rydenfan on 9 Feb 2009, 06:58 pm

Quote from: targa on 9 Feb 2009, 03:33 am

The one speaker that I have not owned nor auditioned is ATC.. Any one has experience with that? I know Ted did and has talked to him at length.. I am very curious about ATC (accurate, transparent, dynamic?)

Who cares? With the way you describe your speakers why even think about another speaker??? Just sit back and enjoy the music

Geesh!!! Why do you continue to exhibit rudeness towards fellow members? Maybe you should take your own advise and "Just sit back and enjoy the music".

Cheers,
Robin

ted_b · « **Reply #19 on:** 9 Feb 2009, 07:25 pm »

Robin,
Are you stalking Rydenfan? What gives? This is like the third or fourth thread in a row that you've slapped him on.

I told Lance the same thing (i.e now that you've found the loves of your life, the Timepiece 3.0's, let go of the ATC idea and enjoy)...doesn't seem to be a rude idea at all!