AudioCircle
Other Stuff => Archived Manufacturer Circles => Aether Audio => Topic started by: JLM on 3 Oct 2003, 12:27 pm
-
Here's a very promising new speaker company that uses a variety of leading edge technologies:
http://www.4sptech.com/html/1024X768/home/index.htm
Warning, their site has bunches of theory/information to digest.
And here's a recent review (very enthusiastic):
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1003/sptechnology.htm
What do you think?
jeff
-
Wow, that's one "over the top" review!
After looking at the review and the manufacturer's "theory" link, I think the reviewer may have missed a very important design decision that WILL affect the overall performance of this speaker :scratch: . This speaker company is VERY convinced that 4th order Linkwiz Riley crossovers are the best choice bar none. :shake: Unfortunately that flies in the face of most other high end speaker designer's findings. Those type of crossovers have many unwanted side effects due to HUGE phase rotations at the crossover regions :o .
Typically, 4th order issues are VERY audible when doing side by side comparisons with speakers that have first or quasi second order cross-overs (for instance). :nono: It's one HELL of allot easier to design a great measuring speaker (frequency response wise) when you choose 4th order! If these crossovers sounded awesome, why wouldn't every speaker manufacturer would go this route :?: Any speaker will be able to play louder and cleaner with MUCH lower distortion when it has a 4th order design. Unfortunately, there are sonic side effect due to the phase rotations with 4th order designs that just can't be totally eliminated :cry: . This is what worries me about this particular speaker :o .
:nono: Here is a relevant example for comparison's sake: Many Revel owners are finding problematic sonic issues with their speakers. At first, most audiophiles are damn impressed with the "clean" and very low distortion sound that is typical of Revel speakers. (The Revels also have veeeeery smooth frequency responses and measurements). After time (or comparisons with other phase coherent audiophile speaker) some Revel owners find something amiss with their speakers :bawl: . Many owners aren't sure they can put their finger on the problem, but something just isn't right. I've known quite few Revel owners to take their speakers to high end Salon's and/or audiophiles houses to do A/B comparisons with other speaker designs. This is when the discovery process typically begin :idea: . Most owners find that their Revels are somehow lacking some of the details that other First order crossover speakers seem to get right. :oops:
I am still surprised that no one has "called out" Revel on their "cheap and dirty" design decision! It's a damn shame because Revel has unbelievable resources and facilities to make a great sounding speaker with first order crossovers. I've talked to the designer Kevin Voeks (sp?) myself about his crossover choice. :argue: He was very short and to the point stating that it's been "proven" that no one can differentiate phase in listening tests (i.e. his choice to use 4th order crossovers). All I have to say is that other high end speaker companies are killing themselves with all the work required making 1st order designs when they could easily go with 4th order if this is true :banghead: Don't believe this lame brain nonsense for a second :rules:
Of course there is a small chance that this particular speaker company finally figured a way around all of the sonic downsides of 4th order designs as compared to first order crossovers :P Then again, this would be an historic event since no other speaker company in the history of speaker design has managed to do this feat yet :jester:
-
If I understand your post, you're suggesting the author-
(1) "may have missed" the fact that SP Tech believes in and uses the Linkwitz-Riley 4th-order crossover (I'll take your word for it...may have missed it when I scanned the site), and
(2) seem to imply he is either unable to detect the obvious sonic problems associated with their choice or is blissfully unaware.
To review, the author (assuming no embellishment):
- has designed and built speakers for over 30 years
- has in those years "been an avid listener to a wide variety of loudspeakers."
- is an experienced musician and listener
- and has accomplished well over 10,000 hours of professional mastering.
I wouldn’t know Bill Roberts (the author) if he walked up and bit me, but based on his experience, don't you think it highly unlikely that all the negatives you listed about their crossover of choice were lost on him?
I have no reason to believe he did anything but what we're all supposed to do - he listened. I think he listened with his presumably highly trained ears, compared the speakers with what he's heard in 30+ years in the industry, and unceremoniously dumped his favorite reference monitors for the past 27 years for these.
Over the top? I dunno...does it get any more over the top than replacing your favorite monitors?
DU
-
Ah yes, experience....... :shake:
Kevin Voeks of Revel has even MORE "experience". He has been in high end audio just as long and has the absolute best listening and testing facilities in the world :!: Yet he too made this 4th order design choice even though many Revel owners latter find out the problematic nature of his loudspeakers (as compared to excellent 1st order designs which have the ability to flesh out more details if all things are otherwise equal).
My mentor always used to tell me: "Never let schooling get in the way of your education". :nono: IMHO, I also believe that I should never let "experience" get in the way of my education. Experience should teach us what is better through "lessons learned". Unfortuantely, in many humans "experience" also has a way of re-enforcing INCORRECT stereotypes, ideas and concepts. Have you ever heard the statement; "he is set in his ways". This usually comes from "experience" :oops:
I am seriously wondering if the speaker company is "set in his ways" due to his choice of using a 4th order design as being the "best souding". Louder, cleaner playing speaker at high volumes; "Yes"! Best sounding, "NO". There is a better souning crossover choice in my experience!
I would have been VERY impressed if the speaker company's website (not the reviewer necessarily) had stated something like: "we recognize that 4th order crossovers had many issues in other companies speaker designs in the past, but through research and tweaking we have managed to achieve the steep slopes of 4th order WITHOUT the nasty phase rotations". This was NOT stated by the speaker company. They stated that 4th order Linkwitz Riley are the BEST, period! This is NOT a correct statement IMHO (or many audiophiles for that matter) :wink: .
Are companies like Avalon, Vandersteen, Thiel, Merlin, Dunlavy, VMPS and Wilson into self punishment? :banghead: Their design work would have been MUCH MUCH MUCH easier if they had used 4th order crossovers versus 1st order designs! These company's speakers would have been able to play MUCH louder and sound "cleaner" at high volumes if they had just gone with 4th order crossovers (due to the steep slopes that a 4th order exhibits) :scratch: . IMHO first order crossover speakers are a BITCH to design correctly unless you have a ton of drivers or the speaker doesn't need to play very loud. Again, why the hell would any speaker designer worth his salt go with 1st orders if there was a 4th order design that sounded just as good :?:
:nono: This is my argument to why ALL 4th order speakers cannot be perfect or considered "absolute reference" designs. (MANY could sound pretty awesome but with inherent phase rotation errors none the less). The nature of all 4th order crossovers is that they exhibit undue phase rotations at the crossover points of each driver. This cannot be entirely avoided and will ultimately be less than a perfect solution as compared to excellent 1st order implementations (for instance).
I must be clear here and state that I DO believe that this speaker must be pretty damn awesome for the reviewer to gush over it so much. I just wanted to point out that it is NOT perfect by any means due to the fact that it has 4th order crossovers. The reviewer is into things like mixing and that requires the ability of the monitor to play very cleanly at high volumes. If I were a betting man, I'd bet this is why the speaker company chose 4th order. Not because they are the most revieling and transparent crossover choice, they're NOT :!:
-
Did you guys read the "Our Mission" link? :o
http://www.4sptech.com/html/1024X768/control_menu/our_mission/mission2.htm
-
Did you guys read the "Our Mission" link? :o
http://www.4sptech.com/html/1024X768/control_menu/our_mission/mission2.htm
Yes, I did. Interesting, huh?
I'm not quite sure what message it is they're trying to get across, but it seems apparent they believe there's more to life than speakers and music.
Novel concept.
DU
-
Long time lurker, I decided to post.
First of all, I am the reviewer, so no hiding behind a cloak.
The designer used to work for Crown. After reading their crossover details, their is a distinct point that seems to be left out of this exchange.
From the SP Website:
"All SP Technology products are designed with crossover alignments that include the "acoustic" response of the individual drivers in the final transfer function."
Most realise, a waveguide exibits quasi 18dB/Octave natural passive rolloffs, depending on flare and throat but normally, the passive modes do have an inhibited rolloff. Along with a drivers natural rolloff and the impedance transformation such a waveguide would provide, an electronic first order with the impedance character presented to the driver could give a forth order reponse using first order crossover components. I think the statement made on the SP site quoted above must be considered more carefully before a judgement can be announced. Maybe actually hearing this speaker would present more accurate evaluation?
I have not taken them apart, their are no schematics available. I used my ears and did direct comparisons in a number of rooms with close to 1000 lbs of various equipment. I tend to think that loudspeakers should be for emotional attachment to the music. You should forget you are listening to speakers. This is what they do.
I detect no such phase anomilies at X over FQ and actually, their is a nice phase chart listed on the SP website.
I think this should mean something..
Also, take the review from my standpoint. The loudspeakers do everything I ask them to. nothing more, nothing less. Their are "scads" of fantastic loudspeakers. These are a no risk situation. Also stated in my review, don't just take my word for it, look at what other professionals are saying. I will be happy to do private exchanges using my email tab on the ETM site. I also do not think it is prudent (for me) to exchange on a public forum but it is important to point out some stated facts that reside in detailed reading. If only I did not have those 3 typos (sp) on the review...too late to edit!
Cheers, Happy listening.
-
Infiniti,
Thank you for providing us with adiitional feedback about these speakers. Your review definately has me wanting to audition them in the near future. I certainly hope you are correct about their crossover choice and the susequent benchmark performance. I have been sooooooo let down in the past by other so-called "break-thru" designs, that I now always take the devil's advocate approach first :evil: . It would be great if more audiophiles had access to affordable speakers that were completely devoid of sonic issues. There always seems to be some sort of trade off with affordable speakers until you appraoch or exceed ten thousand mark! That's a boat load of money in my opinion. I'm secretly hoping that this speaker resets the "bang for the buck" catagory. We certainly will all benefit from some fresh ideas in speaker design! :P
:idea: Now for the big question: Are these speakers the break-thru product that the reviewer implied they were :?:
-
First of, the nature of any electro-acoustic tranducer at any price point or design is not devoid of sonic issues. Every conceiveable design will have them. The key is to have as few of them, the least objectionable, at a price point that is in the grasp of ownership...by a wide range of consumers.
I listed many compromises. I like the way a Planar loudspeaker handles certain ranges but most cannot cover all the ranges. Maggies, elctrostatics, all of them have compromises. The mids of the ESL57 (Quads) will always excite emotion....but what about that clumpy bass and beaming highs?
Always remember, ALL loudspeakers will have inherant traits that WILL occur and mainly this is based on associated equipment, listening room and the recording itself plays a major role. Add that up with all the differences in Preamps, wire and cable, power grid and location..and you have it an absolute wonder that any reproduction of music at a state of realism is obtainable at all. When my Dog barks and gets stirred up from hearing a Dog barking through these speakers, I realized with her superior hearing, that she is fooled, that is just a hint of the realism this loudspeaker can provide.
Be forwarned. This speaker likes 500 watts/channel
One fellows love is anothers hate. We all have different tastes. You cannot and will not satisfy all people all the time with any product. I drive a car I happen to like. That does not mean Ford, GM, Volvo, Mercedes or Toyota is going out of business. Loudspeakers, although very subjective can never be totally void of issues. It is minimizing audible issues to a point that they are masked and the music and the emotion comes through, time and time again...should be a loudspeaker designers goal for a wide range of music lovers. This loudspeaker IMO, does that for me. It is an excellent tool for evauating and protecting the musicians recordings to their fullest fidelity, exposing problems in the recording chain. It is all about the music, human experience. I do not get paid to provide reviews nor do I review anything unless that product is represented to have ultimately high value. You will not see me review a 40K pair of loudspeakers. I feel their are plenty affordable loudspeakers that can satisfy all but the fussiest of users..in their case, a live performance acoustically has fault!
Another thing I put in the review that was subsequently edited out is the fact that for large rooms and huge systems and a no holes barred system, the timepieces can be delivered, splayed in pairs of 5 with 20 amplifiers. System cost is over 50K for those who must have that level of SPL. I have not heard it but it may show up at a convention in the near future. This system is said to provide bottom extention in the teens with the 10 woofer combination. Unlimited dynamics to over 130dB
Do not confuse this with the "end to all" loudspeakers. No such product exists. They do so many things right..but all loudspeakers have "issues" All of them. Pick from what has the least..and ones you can live with.
Over the years, I am blessed with a good percentage of my listening being comprised of actual musicians in the acoustic realm. To possess Master tapes and recordings of super fidelity, also is something the average or even the advanced audiophile may never experience. Comparing what is heard acoustically, to the final product is key. If you put on a POP recording of good quality (Brothers at Arms, Dire Straits is a good example) and it sounds like the musicians are in front of you...you have great loudspeakers. I dare say, I have no desire to spend 20K or 50K on speakers. I have heard speakers that cost 1/4 million and probably heard 70% of the loudspeakers in extended circumstances in the 7 to 30K range. It is about perspective. I am probably the only person that thinks that most speakers out there have way too much bottom. Speakers designed flat in a free field environment will never be accurate in a consumer or studio setting.
Quote:
Now for the big question: Are these speakers the break-thru product that the reviewer implied they were ?
At this price point?, Yes.
With the money back gurantee? Certainly. You have no risk.
Remember, I am an equipment reviewer with ETM.com I in no way at this writing have any finacial, business stake or influence with the manufacturer. My opinions reflect a quinessential value for the product being offered. However, my relationship with the manufacturer is subject to change. I like them enough to reccomend them. This in itself is a form of promotion. IF they sucked, I certainly would point that out as well. I try to review products that represent value. One day I may review something that was over hyped and you will see my opinion in the review. I have had seveal products that have been hyped by major magazines that I felt represented POOR value and I have noted this in several forums. Look at certain speakers/products of high end.. that show up on the used market after around 3 months of ownership. you know who they are...don't you!
Cheers and happy listening. It is all about the music and human expression.
-
What hasn't been brought out in this discussion yet, is the fact that neither of the two designers has any choice in the matter of crossover slopes, they both must employ at least 24db/oct slopes in their designs. Mr. Roberts
has to use a steep slope crossover because horns have a specific low frequency cut off point dictated by their physical size. When the horn is operated below this frequency severe response anomalies occurr. If this problem is to be avoided they have to be turned off and quickly at or before this frequency. In Mr. Voeks case he has chosen metal cone drivers which have a narrow region where their frequency response is flat. Outside that region the bass and the midrange ring like a bell and show as much as a 15db spike in their output at the metal cones' resonant frequency. These drivers frequently require notch filters and high order networks to supress this oil can resonance problem. In both cases this
passive parts approach is inadequate to cure the problems the drivers bring to the table and leave the music still alive after the sonic bandaid has been applied. A digital
crossover is a potential solution for both these designs.
-
Agreed. I am now using them bi-amped, even though I have no desire to do this. I did it for experimentation sake. To me, whatever the component choice and configuration in the passive network is, it sounds more coherent that the 6dB/Octave active crossover at 950 I am employing.
Basied on this, I suspect a pretty fast rolloff on the woofer with the high pass being more passively controlled due to impedance matching to the waveguide. Of course, trade secrets or taking this speaker apart and dignosing the parts is not an option I would consider.
I still maintain that part of this crossover is being achieved passively through impedance transformation, in the ultra lows, to the x over region, to the rolloff at the top. The waveguide should not be confused with a horn IMHO. The driver back there looks like an esotarT330D, but the manufacturer has not disclosed the actual manufacturer of said element. Could be anything...but it definitly provides full output coverage at 1000hZ, used by itself, it goes very low, well into to mids...almost dark mids. It does the OOOOOO sound nicely, driven alone.
-
Agreed. I am now using them bi-amped, even though I have no desire to do this. I did it for experimentation sake. To me, whatever the component choice and configuration in the passive network is, it sounds more coherent that the 6dB/Octave active crossover at 950 I am employing.
I still maintain that part of this crossover is being achieved passively through impedance transformation, in the ultra lows, to the x over region, to the rolloff at the top. The waveguide should not be confused with a horn IMHO. ...
I would suggest that the the speakers apparent claimed reasonably flat response curve shown on the companies website reflects the crossover slopes employed in its design.
-
When using external devices (as in transmission line and waveguide surfaces) the output fQ response can be a deception of what goes on electronically. Figure the passive elements of the design and how they react to back EMF to an amplifier through the crossover. All of this is proper balance. One cannot guess actual crossover slopes or implementation by looking simply at the fQ curve. Agreed?
I think is about how they sound with reproduced music and emotional response. Specs, curves and technical data cannot describe your personal response after extending listening. This is why I gave no advanced technical data in the review, rather, left it up to their website to cover questions of technical aspect!
A solo Violin recorded in my studio, played back on the TP2's reveiled whether upstroke or downstroke was used with the bow. This is pretty reveiling to actually imagine the instrument, playing.
In my review, I reserved the techobabble. It is about reproducing music and emotion is why I gave this product a good review. I just watched some PBS with them. I forgot I was listening to speakers. I think this is the key.
Cheers and happy listening!
-
Thanks to all who have responded, especially Infiniti driver.
To be honest the 4th order crossover sent up the biggest red flag in my mind as well. Thanks for the explaination.
I just returned from a weekend at Steve Deckert's place (he is Decware) with other Decware forum members. It means a great deal to be able to dialogue with manufacturers and reviewer, even more so on a public venue.
It seems to be a wonderful time to be in high-end audio with the SP Timepieces and Sony DVD/receivers turning the audio world on it's head.
As a long time transmission line fan it's interesting that a couple of twists on the concept have been introduced recently that are both radical yet hard to deny (this speaker and the VBT subs).
jeff
-
Wow, I'd love to hear these speakers or their big brothers, the Continuum. The descrption in the review is exactly the kind of listening I'd like to participate in on a daily basis. My question is, the Timepieces are rated at 85db@8ohms, and the Continuum at 88@4ohms; which is easier to drive? And will 100watts per channel (Levinson 383) at 8ohms be enough to get 95/100spl?
-
You should easily get that level of dB. Remember, dB 1W/1M or 2.83VRMS is for one speaker. With the pair, you enjoy another typical 3dB.
All things mathamatical, lests look at this for example:
First, you will not run the Levinson at 100Watts RMS because their would be no room for peaks, Typical music listening at 10 watts RMS with 10dB of headroom would give the pair:
Pair=3 more dB Sensitivity.
91dB 1W
101dB 10 W
Peak 111dB 100W
This is at one meter.
I would say it would be safe to say that the amplifier in a mid sized room should be able to reach the volume you desire.
I don't think the levinson amplifier would have any problems with a 4ohm nominal load.
-
PS.
I had conversation with the designer of this Loudspeaker system tonight on the phone, showd him the thread and he confirmed everything that I wrote about them.
If you would like (or think it is prudent, OR NOT) for him to join in this conversation, feel free to ask him either on his website if that is ok with the site and you folks here. Any and all technical questions "sans" design secrets, he says he would be pleased to answer.
It is up to the protocol of the Webmaster/Moderators whether this is a good idea or not.
Ask and you shall receive.
Personally, no words here or otherwise will ACCURATELY protray your feelings toward this product, in your room, with your system. Based on this fact, if extra interaction with the designer is needed, let him know. He is aware of the thread and if asked, will answer.
I wish to be within the guidelines of this website and rules.
He may post for you to do a private /email message.
Happy listening!
-
I had conversation with the designer of this Loudspeaker system tonight on the phone, showd him the thread and he confirmed everything that I wrote about them.
If you would like (or think it is prudent, OR NOT) for him to join in this conversation, feel free to ask him either on his website if that is ok with the site and you folks here. Any and all technical questions "sans" design secrets, he says he would be pleased to answer.
It is up to the protocol of the Webmaster/Moderators whether this is a good idea or not.
Ask and you shall receive.
I would gladly welcome another designer/manufacturer here. I only ask he abide by the rules (http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=4374), and hopefully identify himself in his signature. As long as people here have questions regarding the speakers, then he should be extremely helpful. Thanks!
-
Wow, that's one "over the top" review!
After looking at the review and the manufacturer's "theory" link, I think the reviewer may have missed a very important design decision that WILL affect the overall performance of this speaker :scratch: . This speaker company is VERY convinced that 4th order Linkwiz Riley crossovers are the best choice bar none. :shake: Unfortunately that flies in the face of most other high end speaker designer's findings. Those type of crossovers have many unwanted side effects d ...
Hello everbody!
My name is Bob Smith and I'm the president and chief engineer of SP Technology. I just stopped in to see what all the fuss was about. I guess Bill Roberts' review of our product created some controversy. I suppose I'm sticking my neck out on the chopping block here but if it helps dispel some partially incorrect notions then it's worth it.
First off, I'm not here to plug our products - don't have to. That's what reviews are (hopefully) for. Our products stand in their own defense. I am only concerned here with the underlying physics of design. I would hate to see a potential customer turn away from us or any other manufacturer's product because he or she was led to believe a partial truth. Reference the above quote. I offer the following for the more technically minded individuals out there that do consider the science behind the design in their decision making. I'm certainly not trying to impress anyone with my technical knowledge either.
Now first off Mr. Ehider, I'm not here to slam you or suggest that you don't know what you are talking about. Quite the contrary, you are correct, the fact is well established that higher order filters introduce larger amounts of phase shift than do lower order designs. But the complete analysis of a design has to take into consideration a multitude of variables, some of which will alter a simple "textbook" interpretation of the facts. The universe is full of complex phenomena that tend to represent "apparent" paradoxes, refusing to yield their secrets to simplistic linear analysis.
In crossover design, one is concerned with the relative phase between drivers more than with total phase rotation - or at least he/she should be. The need here is obvious. If the drivers are not in-phase at crossover then they will not sum to a maximum amplitude. This does not mean that the speaker will not exhibit a relatively flat response on some pre-designated vertical axis. If they do though, it will be due to the fact that one or both drivers have a peaked response at crossover to begin with. This is how many designers manage to get a flat response out of inferior or problematic drivers. The problem with this approach is that as you move off vertical axis, the response becomes very non-flat and is different depending upon if you move up or down from that point.
Also, it is a well known fact that the first order (6dB/Oct.) crossover theoretically sums to perfectly flat magnitude AND phase response. The problems with this crossover are many though. The frequency and power demands on the drivers chosen for this type crossover are extreme and for full range reproduction, at least one midrange driver is virtually unavoidable. For arguments sake, if we throw money at the power and frequency response problems, we can make them go away. What we can't get rid of though is that third driver or the extreme vertical off-axis errors that result.
Combining the output of two drivers employing a true first order response (which many claim to but don't) presents enough of a challenge to the designer in his/her attempt to minimize the severe off-axis colorations in the vertical plane. Combining three drivers in this manner virtually guarantees that the "sweet spot" will be very narrow vertically unless the listener is seated a great distance away from the speaker.
One high-end manufacturer has offered what appears to be a solution: make use of coincident driver technology. If you design the tweeter to co-exist at the center of the midrange driver then you will have eliminated the source of vertical (or horizontal) lobbing errors. This concept is by no means new except for the fact that, in this instance, it has been applied with a first order crossover design. This would seem to be an ideal solution to the first order design’s inherent lobbing error issue except that, upon closer inspection we find a whole new level of design complexity and the resulting compromises inherent in co-incident driver design.
Seeing such technology is, for the most part, public domain and quite mature, virtually all loudspeakers would be built using co-incident drivers if they truly offered a final solution to this problem without introducing even worse ones. For further reading on the subject an engineering white paper will soon be available on the SP Technology website.
As I have said, lower order networks often (but not always) exhibit many problems that I am certain many enthusiasts and certainly most professionals would prefer to avoid. I could go on further into the effects of vertical lobbing errors, the resulting non-flat reverberant field produced in the listening space, the systems unnecessarily high sensitivity to room placement and the severely limited listening positions that also result, but that is another post.
Absolute total phase rotation together with frequency amplitude response will reveal the total "group delay" through the system. This, I believe, is what Mr. Ehider is referring to. And I strongly agree, group delay has been proven to be audible under certain conditions. Its most profound effect is upon transient response. The percussive attacks of musical instruments sound constrained and lack realism when their waveforms are "ripped apart" and smeared by being passed through filters exhibiting large amounts of group delay. We could conjecture about 3-D information and soundstage being degraded but I am convinced this is more a function of diffraction errors, higher distortion levels, poor resolution and inferior dispersion than the minor delay effects in the 0 - 2 millisecond range that crossovers produce.
Mr. Ehider, what you and many others may not realize is that much research by others has gone into the study of the Linkwitz-Riley 4th order crossover with regards to its effects on transient response. One study I am aware of (can't recall the names right now) actually showed that it exhibited the best overall response compared to all others except the true first order type. It does this while also offering all of its many other benefits with regards to driver protection, reduced distortion and idealized vertical lobbing response.
What you may also not be aware of is that to a certain degree, the delay it does introduce can be somewhat corrected for by simply setting the high frequency driver back further form the plane of the lower frequency driver. This approach is not a cure-all but it does help improve time alignment considerably. Another peculiar fact; many do not know that under certain conditions, a highly linear phase response can be obtained by combining a 4th order low-pass network (to the low frequency driver) with a high-pass first order network (to the high frequency driver). I know this to be fact as I have produced such results in my own laboratory. This completely flies in the face of conventional thinking.
Again Mr. Ehider states "It's one HELL of allot easier to design a great measuring speaker (frequency response wise) when you choose 4th order!" I must ask you, have you ever tried to design AND implement into a massed produced speaker product a 4th order network? All of the designers out there reading this know the answer to that question. A fourth order network implemented with the full compliment of componenets is anything but easy to produce. It is even harder to reproduce on a consistant basis due to component sensitivity. Try running a Monte Carlo analysis of the component tolerance variations and see what you get. I've heard of more than one designer stating that they'll never attempt a passive implementation of a fourth order design again! You did get the "HELL" part right though.
So you see, things are often not as simple as they may seem. It is wisest if one does not get caught up in the pet theories of others and pass judgment based on an overly simplistic view of the facts. A little knowledge is not the same as knowing.
To address one last small matter: Mr. Ehider made the comment that, "This speaker company is VERY convinced that 4th order Linkwitz-Riley crossovers are the best choice bar none." This is not true. In fact, we went out of our way on our website to state that, "Our position is to use what ever works the best in a given application. While it is true that we prefer to use the Linkwitz-Riley alignments due to their superior phase properties, we will not be restricted by academics in our quest for excellence. From time to time we may choose to use other alignments as well -- form always follows function. Natural Law will not permit any other approach and we ARE bound by it both philosophically and practically."
I sincerely hope the above information has been informative and useful. It is not to be interpreted as condemning or given in the spirit of "one-upmanship." I sincerely thank every individual that has posted here concerning our product, especially Mr. Ehider. I too struggle a bit with a tinge of cynicism from time to time. With all of the misleading advertising and unbelievable claims being made in the loudspeaker market, it's a wonder we're not all hopeless cynics.
Take Care All,
- Bob
-
What do you think?
jeff
I think their webmaster sucks. So much graphics my dial-up connection cannot download it even at 3:30 AM. Not interested in looking at it.
-
Again, I am very much thankful of that reviewers and manufacturers that participate in open forums like this. And I appreciate how easy it is for us listeners/consumers to get "worked up" about aspects of audio (please this is not a slam against anyone, because I've done it too). I'm always impressed when someone like Bob can come here and in a level headed fashion address various concerns.
With all the emphasis on accuracy and professional monitoring I wonder how "musically enjoyable" these speakers are. I've heard Lowthers a few times and am impressed by much of what they do, but personally could not live with the hyper-detailed presentation they offer. This level of detail forces me to pay attention to details at the expense of missing the "musical essence" of the performance. Does this make sense to anyone here? It's a bit like impressionist paintings (which I like). If you look too close, all you see is colored dots/blotches. You have to pull back and simply enjoy the overall image. Musical details are a hoot, but often I just want to relax with music.
Similarly, do these speakers render "ordinary" recordings unlistenable because they are so detailed? Unfortunately many of my favorite recordings are poorly recorded and many of the well recorded performances I've found I don't enjoy.
I've checked the SP website and found no available dealership. Can customers come to the factory/shop to audition? (I live 3 hours away and would rather make the drive than fuss with shipping to gain a first impression.)
Psych:
I agree with your comment about web designers that go overboard. Although I have cable modem service, it's often so slow with my Pentium 2 computer as to make some sites unusable.
jeff
-
Hi JLM!
In my coments on this board, mainly what I talked about answers your above questions. Review my comments again on the musicality aspects of listening.
Tkx!
-
I like Voeck's designs... When he designed for Snell he did some fantastic work. I don't understand what the big deal is with '4th order' crossovers... I'm outta my league in this regard... However, I don't hear any issues with the Peforma F30's. (http://www.revelspeakers.com/products/specs.asp?ID=7)
It's just a matter of taste. I like lively, detailed sound with good bass punch (or slam). The only anomoly I've noted is that the bass and treble overall seem very separated unless the speakers are positioned perfectly and I have some room treatments.
I know this thread is about SP so, back to them... I'm just having a tough time understanding why someone would imply that 4th order is a bad design and that their are known issues with it... I've tried to glean what I can from the comment here but, I'm not getting it.
-
Bob of SP,
Your post was so eloquent and courteous, that this alone is strong encouragement to give your company a closer look. If you only knew how many speakers have visited my listening room. :oops: I hope you decide to stick around and become a regular. I am also appreciative to Infiniti for his considerate comments. Thanks to JLM for bringing SP to our attention.
So, if SP offers a 30 day return policy, who here will be first to put that 30 day trial to the test? Is SP factory direct? Maybe SP would be willing to cover the shipping cost if one of us here would be willing to post a review in the Critic's Circle...hint hint :wink:
-
So, if SP offers a 30 day return policy, who here will be first to put that 30 day trial to the test? Is SP factory direct? Maybe SP would be willing to cover the shipping cost if one of us here would be willing to post a review in the Critic's Circle...hint hint
SP already covers shipping both ways for the Timepiece 2.0s. Pretty confident, huh?
FWIW, unless someone else moves pretty quickly, I'll likely be the first to get them.
DU
-
[
SP already covers shipping both ways for the Timepiece 2.0s. Pretty confident, huh?
DU
I took a brief visit to SP's website. I couldn't find anything about a 30 day trial period. Regarding shipping, this is what I found:
All shipping fees must be pre-paid by you at the time of shipment. Any product(s) returned with shipping fees due will be rejected as well.
[/i]
-
DU
I took a brief visit to SP's website. I couldn't find anything about a 30 day trial period. Regarding shipping, this is what I found:
All shipping fees must be pre-paid by you at the time of shipment. Any product(s) returned with shipping fees due will be rejected as well.
[/i]
It's in the "Purchase" section: http://www.4sptech.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PLST&Store_Code=STL
Here is the quote: "Purchase a pair of Speakers and then audition them for thirty days "risk free" in your own space. All prices INCLUDE SHIPPING! If you're not absolutely "blown away" by their performance for any reason, just ship them back and we'll refund your money in full AND pay all return freight charges including insurance!!! (Free return shipping NOT valid on the Continuum A.D.)"
DU
-
I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their continued interest in our company. Thanks too for abiding my previous, long winded post. I'd also like to address a few of the issues that have recently posted.
First, please accept our apologies Psychicanimal. We're sorry for the inconvenience. I'm not going to try and pull the wool over on you folks. Our company is small and just really getting started. We didn't have the resources to pay for a big time web design company to put together our website in the way we wanted. Sooo...my eldest son Jason (26), being quite the computer genius, volunteered his efforts. He and his younger brothers Jeremiah and Britton all contributed with 3-D modeling, programming, etc. Seeing that the "apple doesn't fall too far from the tree," they're all a bit obsessive like their old man. Hence, the slightly "over the top" web design. That's cool though. They're already putting together a lower "res" version for dial-up users so I hope you folks can be patient. I had to throw this plug in for them though as even though some may think my Webmaster "sucks," I'm pretty darn proud of him/them. When you consider that they're all self taught, I'm even more impressed. So there!
JLM: I'd invite you over to hear our product in a heartbeat, if I had any for you to hear, that is. We sold out all of our stock in July. Since we didn't have any orders and the ETM review hadn't been firmly scheduled, we decided to make good use of the time and upgrade our tooling. We're back in production now but we're building to order. Haven't had a chance to get ahead of the curve. Heck, I don't even have a production pair for myself! - sold 'em. So soon as I get a pair that I don't have to ship we'll have you over. Send me an e-mail or private message and we'll make arrangements.
audiojerry: Thanks so much for your kind words, we try to be civil. I reckon I'll be around for as long as time permits. Things are getting hectic though. Sorry for the mis-info on our site about shipping fees. That's old and needs to be removed. The fact is, we are offering the "No Risk" round trip deal - for a while. We can't do this forever though, for obvious reasons. I hope all of you that are interested get in on it before we withdraw it.
Double Ugly: Thanks for the support; we need good folks like you to help us get the word out.
So long for now. Dare I say?
God Bless Everyone,
- Bob
PS. OOOPS!!! I may have misled a few with the above statement that "Heck, I don't even have a production pair for myself!" I didn't mean to imply that the reference "mule" or prototype used in the lab was not in our possesion. She may be ugly but she's mine. Only have one (no stereo pair) but that's the one every production unit we make is compared to. So don't worry folks, the original is safe and sound.
-
So long for now. Dare I say?
God Bless Everyone,
- Bob
You can daresay anything you want as long as it's not a personal threat or something very aggressive in nature.
We'd like to see you around more. This has been a good thread with lots of excellent information. Feel free to visit our FAQ (http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/faq.php) section and all the other circles.
Thanks and hope to hear more from SP and its products down the road.
-Carl
(one of the moderators for this forum
-
Bob,
Glad to see another Hoosier on the site. We have a Market Square section that would be perfect for your company to make commercial posts should you desire. That circle is for advertising type posts for companies that do not have their own circle here.
Anyway, it looks like you are a class act and I wish you and you business great success.
Rob Curtis
Fort Wayne
An Admin here at AC (but don't hold that against me :wink: )
-
I will have to second the experience of infiniti driver. I owned Revel Salons. After 6 months, I began to be dissatisfied with the sound. It became apparent after extended listening that the drivers did not sound continuous and there was a bump or ringing in the upper midrange that sounded like clarity initially.
I bought the Vandersteen 5 which is a time and phase correct, first order crossover design. To my ears it is one of the most coherent speakers I have heard, and I think partially due to it's first order design.
-
re: web design - Use text links or un-animated buttons, little java, no frames (frames make it prohibitively difficult to bookmark), no pop-ups, no Flash, skip the intro page, go easy on the Quicktime...your site will get a real kick in the pants! :thumb: I am sipping off a T1 myself and one of the pages took many minutes to load. Not good. So really, the dial-up users aren't the only ones thumb-twiddling. Also, showing the whole range at once on the ordering page makes more sense than showing one at a time and stepping through them in linear fashion. :? Just my 2 cents... "Obsessive" is good, obsessive about fast load times is better! :wink:
The speakers certainly sound interesting, I'd love to hear them side by side with my current studio monitors which exhibit some similar design approaches, although they differ in many ways.
Bill Roberts: Could you tell us more about your mastering facility and its acoustics? I'm curious and it may help to put the review in context. For example, how far apart were the speakers placed and how far away were you when auditioning them?
-
Bill Roberts: Could you tell us more about your mastering facility and its acoustics? I'm curious and it may help to put the review in context. For example, how far apart were the speakers placed and how far away were you when auditioning them?
The room is 22'X14' with a sloping ceiling. Nine feet 4 inches in the front and 8 feet 4 inches in the rear. The house was built in 1925. The flooring is maple and the area where the chair is has a 12 X 8 foot carpet inset. The loudspeakers are on the long front wall, spaced 77 inches apart and 53 inches away from my nose to the front left and right inside walls of the speakers. They are spaced 17 inches from the wall. The ceiling is pecky cypress and the lathe has 1/4 to 1/2 inch spaces between the long boards...running long ways left and right. They vent into the attic space...so the room cannot be "pressurized"
Along all walls is Acoustics first sound channels treatment covering all walls except where the windows are (3) and they are covered with blinds. The windows are the jalousy style Florida windows. The room is very dead and that the ceiling opens along the lathe into the attic, extream low frequencies have a place to "go".
Thats about it for the room. I use a solid state logic console as my preamplifier and sources range from FM, Broadcast, DBS, Hard drive, Turntable, SACD player, ADAT and analog tape of 1" and 1/4" as well as some very well recorded cassettes I made in the 70;s from live acts. I also use a DAT machine and record to hard drive using the SSL mic pres of live musicians at venues as well as solo acoustic instruments and vocals recorded here using the Bruel&Kjaer 3529 Microphone system.
I also have other rooms of various degrees of absorbtion and reflection and move review pieces around the house to see how they perform in other situations with a wide variety of equipment.
-
I have the following questions regarding SP Technology Loudspeakers:
1. Prior to discovering your products I was and still am interested in speakers, which utilize ribbon drivers. Proponents of ribbons claim the advantage of their low mass, which improves transient response. Since your products use a conventional dome driver, how do they compare with ribbons regarding transient response?
2. The specifications on your web site indicate that the primary difference between the Time Piece 2.0 and the Continuum A.D. is power-handling capacity. I am sure there are other differences, could you please elaborate?
3. The frequency response indicated on your site rolls off after about 16000. Why did you choose to do this there are many domes that extend well into the 20’s, or is it a by product of the wave guide technology?
-
I ordered two Timepiece 2.0s w/ matching stands yesterday. Also picked-up a used BAT VK-3i on Audiogon at a reasonable price. I'll pair it with the ZR1600 I'll get from Nathan as soon as he's ready to offer the mods.
I'll try to address the Sony 200-CD changer's issues by placing a dAck! between it and the BAT, connected with one of Nathan's new digital wonder cables.
Hopefully I'll have everything in place by the time the speakers arrive in approximately 30 days.
DU
-
I have the following questions regarding SP Technology Loudspeakers:
1. Prior to discovering your products I was and still am interested in speakers, which utilize ribbon drivers. Proponents of ribbons claim the advantage of their low mass, which improves transient response. Since your products use a conventional dome driver, how do they compare with ribbons regarding transient response?
2. The specifications on your web site indicate that the primary difference between the Time Piece 2.0 and the Continuum A.D. is power-handling capacity. I am sure there are other differences, could you please elaborate?
3. The frequency response indicated on your site rolls off after about 16000. Why did you choose to do this there are many domes that extend well into the 20’s, or is it a by product of the wave guide technology?
Hello Audio Architect!
Pesonally, I will answer to the best of my experience your questions but I feel it would be much more prudent to wait for SP Pres. answers to the questions concerning the Timepiece 2.0 and the tweeter implementation...but from an educated and experienced aspect, I will answer them as I can.
This said:
1. Prior to discovering your products I was and still am interested in speakers, which utilize ribbon drivers. Proponents of ribbons claim the advantage of their low mass, which improves transient response. Since your products use a conventional dome driver, how do they compare with ribbons regarding transient response?
Lets talk about ribbons from a designers view and freom a listeners view, shall we?
I was very intriqued with ribbon drivers in the middle 70's and started working with them in design by the later 70's.
You remember the AMT1 by ESS?
After getting aquinted with them, I could see certain attributes that certainly caught my attention from the musical standpoint, although, I found their were other problems with that design (dipole, poor acoustic coupling due to magnet shape, crossover interaction at certain modes) but what did stand out is that they were open, fast, and could go very high.
When I worked in design with ribbons, I worked with the foster unit that Speakerlab in Seattle Wa. used in their designs then. It was property of Rank organasation UK at the time and this caused some working relationships with said tweeter to be rather strange business wise and also "political" in nature as well. IF you were not under their guiese at the time, you had no right to use the unit as it was liscensed. This said, the tweeter was awesome from 5K top 25K. That is Wide range for a single ribbon driver.
Going forward, my problem with most ribbons as in tweeters...(note that) (sans some of the newer 2000$/up units that I do not have the time or luxury to devuldge in) is firstly, they are quite fragile in power bandwidth. They do their finest job reproducing upper harmonics above the 4K fundamental up to the 30K and 40K range, althjough their dispersion is more non-linear than a dome (most ribbons use a mini waveguide to get around that) and the power response below 4K tends to cause serious problems, no matter how you load them acoustically. This said, they serve well as super tweeters to provide some additional "air" above 12k but for lower Frequencies, one would need to design the ribbon driver around that particular range. Basically what I am sayings is in my experience, ribbons that go all the way down to 100hZ, have a limited bandpass as do those that go in the above 20KhZ regions. All this means is if you want to try to reproduce 1K to 20K with a ribbon, As the timepiece waveguide demonstrates) their will be sacrifices in dispertion, powerband and other anomilies, because ribbons have a limited frequency range sweet spot. As been demonstrated by FOSTEX in their early 90' RB series of reference control loudspeakers, they had to use a four way design to keep all their ribbon drivers behaved in their specific range of frequencies. IT was a 4 way system crossed over if memory serves me from edgeless 12" woofers to 200hz, then 1K then 7K. It did sound mighty good indeed, and was a 40K dollar speaker syste. 3 way ribbons with woofers.
Ribbon tweeters have a hard time doing 20K and 2K at the same time coherently. They have a limited bandwidth power wise VS frequency.
So that is my exprience with ribbons to date. OF course, someone may find a way around said problems with another set of rules governing ribbons. Time will tell. At this day, the AMT 1 upper frequency driver, although not accurate to power response, did cover the widest frequency for its size In a ribbon device, in a single device, in it era.
the apogees (1 Ohm), and the Carver amazing loudspeaker, never took the design to a point that overcomed the objections to my ears and to the state of musicallity. Thie was always something, if you chose to look around it, that would be your choice.
Next:
Proponents of ribbons claim the advantage of their low mass, which improves transient response. Since your products use a conventional dome driver, how do they compare with ribbons regarding transient response?
Since ribbons have a limited frequency range in which they operate in linear fashion, you are comparing a driver that can go from 950hZ to 18K within a 1.5dB range to a driver that may not have that (or will not) spread. As per my observations, I feel that mass loading a driver with air in the impedance transformation gurantees a stable transient response througout its range, theirfore due to the wide bandwidth of the waveguide, you enjoy linear response throuout a wide range of frequencies both in amplitude, rise time and lineararity in frequency reponse. Perhaps SP Pres can elaborate.
The specifications on your web site indicate that the primary difference between the Time Piece 2.0 and the Continuum A.D. is power-handling capacity. I am sure there are other differences, could you please elaborate?
This is a question for SP Pres. I have not listened to the continuim so I reserve any explanation of fact. I will say that the 4ohm load presented will enjoy the amplifier delivering more power and the added cone ara and air movement potential shall result in higher dB enjoyment. As per what was done to the high pass unit to "keep up" with the compound woofers, only the designer is qualifyed to expound in this.
The frequency response indicated on your site rolls off after about 16000. Why did you choose to do this there are many domes that extend well into the 20’s, or is it a by product of the wave guide technology?
Lets look at a bare dome tweeter. It is small, ususally 1" or less. The radiationg area of the dome has a physical limit of vibration in hZ due to the moving mass and how much air it can "grab" This said, Domes fall terribly short in trying to propagate (we are talking 1" dome tweeters or up to 33MM, more than one inch) the lowest frequencies due to being too phyically small to move enough air at those frequencies (below 1.8K actually) to be linear within the diaphrams natural propagation pattern and what it can push. The low frequency effective limit of a one inch dome is 1.8K in power response. Most 1 inch tweeter voice coils would smoke at 10 watts driven with a 10 watt pure sine wave at 1800hZ Reason why is for the tweeter to be able to be light enought to actually do a nice 22K hZ frequency, the voice coil wire is 52 gauge windings and thermally, it cannot take that kind of juice at 1.8KhZ also.....where as above 12K, the dome is radiating sound from a small portion of the dome, namely the decoupled part of the center of the dome. Of course frequencies travel down the surface of the dome and you get interferance..but a 1" dome can effectively radiate full power response (1") at 23khZ but with vary narrow dispersion, usually less than 17degrees, even with a phase plug.
The waveguilde itself allows the dome in the timepiece loudspeakers to operate as low as 950hZ because it has an impedance transformation due to being coupled with the air in front of it, effectively. Because of this impedance transformation, the driver is unable to have flat power response throughout the entire waveguide above 20khz. It WILL reproduce above 20KHZ in very limited dispersion. Off axis, their is substantial rolloff above 18K...but I measured 2dB rolloff at 18K and pretty darn flat at 16K.
What does this mean? It means if you take linear power response of the system at a 30 degree reading, the highs above 16K roll off. Point source, no such anomily. It is only fair that the company provide real world specification rather to ignore them. The impedance transformation is a trade off. The dispersion narrows above 16K in order to provide flat power response down to 950hZ..
If you sit directly within ear shot of the waveguides of the SP technology loudspeakers, then you will enjoy wave proagation to 20KhZ at a relatively flat power response. I used my B&K 3529's to measure at direct beam, flat to 21K very very close to the actual dome itself (at distance, the rolloff is there)...but this is cheating, we do not have laser beam ears. I use them slightly off axis...because I can and they are accurate at 22 degrees...where many speakers are not. I let them point to a spot that is at my elbows if I have my hands extended...so they do not point at me. Even when I did have them point source, since I am almost 45, I did not enjoy any "extra" high frequency response.
I hope this has some enlightning to you questions about driver. As a long time speaker engineer, I really love reviewing my knowledge in this and if it serves you properly, and others, it is great to interact!
Everyone, have a great weekend. The grill is fired up...Just waiting to wrap the veggies and put them on.
-
I ordered two Timepiece 2.0s w/ matching stands yesterday. Also picked-up a used BAT VK-3i on Audiogon at a reasonable price. I'll pair it with the ZR1600 I'll get from Nathan as soon as he's ready to offer the mods.
I'll try to address the Sony 200-CD changer's issues by placing a dAck! between it and the BAT, connected with one of Nathan's new digital wonder cables.
Hopefully I'll have everything in place by the time the speakers arrive in approximately 30 days.
DU
Looking forward to your future comments - lots of new equipement to discuss ! Thanks ! :D
-
"Hello Audio Architect!
Pesonally, I will answer to the best of my experience your questions but I feel it would be much more prudent to wait for SP Pres. answers to the questions concerning the Timepiece 2.0 and the tweeter implementation...but from an educated and experienced aspect, I will answer them as I can."
Thanks Infinity Driver for your reply and explanations. Hopefullt the designer will reply with additional explanations.
-
I hope some... if any, that I wrote, can entertain some conjecture of this art. Your comments and questions of my understanding are most welcomed. Different people have different experiences and observations.
Feel free to ask at will with any or all parts of my explainations in interaction, for not only a better understanding, but learning for me, baised on your observations.
A lab team together yields better results than one indivigual, their understanding.
Perhaps...more expounding on your experiences is of order. Lets see what you feel about your listening with ribbon drivers VS my experiences with them.
Perhaps we can fill some gaps in!
Last communication with SP Pres. is the company is in Manufacture mode and he may not have time to respond to the forum. It takes hundreds of hours to build one pair of Timepieces, and he has multiple orders , so his team is at work around the clock, slowly putting the production units together, and then all the testing involved.
Loudspeakers such as this do not get "mass produced".
Cheers, and as always, happy listening!
-
Just dropped in to let everyone know I'm still listening. Don't have time to answer your valued technical questions though. Much needed rest awaits. Been building speakers and I'm pooped. Never fear - long winded dissertations are looming on the horizon. Thanks Bill, for pinch hitting for me.
I did want to take time out to thank Carl and Rob though. You guys made my day. Your encouragement is greatly appreciated as well as your advice. I sure hope I don't disappoint my fellow Hoosier. See - HA! There is more than corn in Indiana. Uhh...Hmm?...well, I guess that depends on who you ask. We do have really good corn though. High-End, even. You can tell by the big ears! :jester:
Night all - be back soon...in force.
- Bob :thumb:
-
Here are a couple more reveiws, from Pro Audio Review and Independent Review:
http://www.4sptech.com/reviews/par.pdf
http://www.4sptech.com/reviews/bartlett's.pdf
You'll need to copy/paste the second link (bartlett's) into the address bar. As well, you'll need Adobe Acrobat to read them, but they're well-written and informative.
They are on the SP Tech site, but not easily found (for me, anyway). Subsequently, I thought some of you might appreciate quick and easy access to additional reviews/perspectives.
DU
-
I have the following questions regarding SP Technology Loudspeakers:
1. Prior to discovering your products I was and still am interested in speakers, which utilize ribbon drivers. Proponents of ribbons claim the advantage of their low mass, which improves transient response. Since your products use a conventional dome driver, how do they compare with ribbons regarding transient response?
2. The specifications on your web site indicate that the primary difference between the Time Piece 2.0 and the Continuu ...
Dear Audio Architect,
Thanks for the questions. You people will never learn, all I need is a soapbox and you're more than willing to provide. Now you'll be sorry.
Really though, I don't want to offend all you ribbon lovers out there with the following. In fact, a good ribbon can sound pretty sweet. They can have issues though and there is a physical mechanism for them. That's why I'm here. We believe the educated customer is our best bet.
You mentioned that ribbons are known for their excellent transient response due to their light weight. This can be true but speed without control can be a dangerous thing. We were all teenagers once weren't we? Need I remind you?
The issue here is damping. In a ribbon, what were dealing with is a stretched membrane (sans sloppy ribbons). You can find such things in your average drum kit. Ever notice how drums do not make pure tones when they're struck? Instead, they make very "strange' sounds compared to other musical instruments.
If you look in any first year college physics text your liable to find a few paragraphs dedicated to the analysis of the complex and non-harmonic modes of vibration that occur in stretched membranes. There is always a fundamental tone generated but the higher harmonics are not really what we typically call harmonically related. These vibrational modes are very discordant and produce the unique (and sometimes irritating) sounds of many percussive instruments.
You have the exact same potential for unwanted modes of vibration in a ribbon driver. This goes for electrostatic drivers as well. It makes little difference which half of the electromagnetic force you choose to push the membrane around with. The only difference is one of conveniece. Does the designer like to fight with high voltages or multiple magnets?
So, back to damping. Lets slam that driver membrane with a very short pulse of force and see what happens. That's what a transient is. Smack your average snare drum with a drumstick while your at it. Yes, the drumstick is applying force to a small area of the drum head while the driver is applying force to the whole membrane (supposedly), but the two are more similar than not. I think you get the idea.
Just like the drumhead, that driver membrane is going to move out (or in) and back - but is that all? The drumhead keeps on moving and you can bet your sweet Krell that driver membrane will too. So will a cone to some degree. If Newton hadn't invented that inertia thing then all would be well (except for the fact that the earth would stop orbiting and instead crash into the sun, ending all life and stretched membrane drivers).
The problem with the membrane is that the only thing that will stop the ensuing "ringing" is the damping effect of the driving amplifier and the inherent "lossiness" that is engineered into the membrane material itself. That's the most difficult part of ribbon or electrostatic design. Finding a material that is light enough to work at all and still have a reasonable amount of energy loosing capability. Such drivers are nothing more than the miniature equivalent of a stretched trampoline. Once they get excited they have the potential to produce all sorts of discordant tones that were not in the original driving signal. The harder you drive them, the greater the tendancy to do so.
If you don't believe me, take your favorite ribbon or electrostatic driver and run an impulse response test or ETC (Energy Time Curve) and see what you get. You might not like what you see. All those little squiggles after the impulse has past are stuff that ain't suppose to be there. But never fear - they'll make the music have more "harmonic bloom" - yeah, right. I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for sale too.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there are manufacturers that have managed to get just the right amount of "eye of newt" in their magic potion, but it ain't easy. If they were "so bad" then there wouldn't be a market for them. My only point is that they're not magic at all. Stretched membrane drivers represent a different set of compromises as compared to cone designs. Not less, just different. Maybe even more.
Cone drivers (if properly designed) have the advantage of the increased rigidity of the "cone" shape. They would be little more than stretched membrane drivers themselves if they didn't. The cone shape turns, what would otherwise be a floppy circular drumhead, into something that more resembles a rigid "piston." Pistons are good - they get you to the audio shop and to work the next day so you can make enough money to buy speakers. They're very rigid and they go back and forth real good. If they're made right, they don't change they're shape while they're moving back and forth. If they don't change they're shape while they're moving back and forth then they don't produce stuff that's not supposed to be there. Simple.
And we all know that stretched membrane drivers are more dynamically limited than dynamic cone drivers(ever wonder why they're called dynamic drivers to begin with?). If stretched membrane drivers travel too far...Smack! - right into the magnet or electrode. Just ask any Q--d owner. The cone driver has the advantage of the long stroke of the voice-coil. Longer stroke is better. Just ask your w... - Nevermind. :roll:
I could go on about how the large diaphragm area of a stretched membrane driver limits their dispersion and causes variations in their frequency response, but I've beat up enough on them already. Besides, you all know how picky they are with regards to room placement anyway, as well as their narrow "sweet spot." If I went into any more detail you'd fall asleep and the "stretched membrane lovers" would be out to kill me.
Huh? Oh...gotta go, there's this fella named Gwedo at the door and he wants to take me for a ride out in the country. :shake:
See you soon (I hope),
- Bob
-
Hey - I like this guys sense of humour!
Plus - look at the ammunition I can hurl back at my local
Q--d owners :mrgreen:
-
Be careful, Bob is one deceptive guy. While he was making me laugh with his humor, he must have reached inside my wallet, because I'm now out almost 14 hundred bucks! :oops:
Seriously, after fielding all my questions regarding his company, products, and background, I decided to place an order for his Timepiece 2.0. In all his correspondence with me, Bob showed patience, class, sincerity and integrity. His thorough explanations provided me with an impressive picture of his R&D history of speaker design, his well grounded approach to running his new business, and his ability to support his customers and future growth, which I am sure will blossom if his speakers measure up to the quality that I see in the man.
Another point worth mentioning: Bob realizes that I hold my current system and speakers in very high regard, and that I would be surprised if I ended up liking his Timepiece better. Knowing this full well, Bob was still completely agreeable to paying shipping both ways if I decide to return them, and he is so confident in his speaker that he has given me Carte Blanche to post my impressions on this forum no matter what. Bob understands that I will be testing them with both tube amplification (Audio Research VT200), solid state (Odyssey Stratos Extreme Monoblocks), and possibly even digital (Sony AVD-C700ES).
There is a lead time of about 30 days for Bob to build and ship, so please be patient.
It seems like Indiana is suddenly sprouting a bunch of talented designers -ie: Robert Schult, the cable man, of Ridge Street Audio.
It must be all those frustrated engineers from Purdue who are not exercising the artistic/creative side of their brains :)
-
<NT> :P
-
$1400? Isn't that the price for EACH? Are you into mono now Jerry? :wink: I know I'm probably not allowed back into your house after my failed cult initiation attempt but if you wanna come over and stack those against my HR-824s you're welcome to. My reasoning is that both share many similar design attributes, but one is double the price. I think it would make an interesting comparison.
SP guys: What's the reason behind the pay now\COD later thing? Just curious.
-
1/2 down, 1/2 COD. Customer service!
I see apex JR has the HR824 Woofers on sale for 27.50. Could come in handy if you need spares.
http://www.apexjr.com/speakerstuff.html
-
It should be noted that you may reach Bob toll-free @ (877) 324-6800. It's the same number found on the website, sans the 219 area code.
He mentioned in an earlier post that the web site needs updating, and this is obviously one of the "needs".
Hopefully he's too busy making my speakers to make the changes. :wink:
DU
-
Jerry,
As I also hold your Dyn's in high esteem I am looking forward to your thoughts about the Timepiece. I am fairly close to pulling the trigger myself. An added benefit for me, being a fellow "Hoosier" it is always nice to support my local economy.
It's hard to exercise your creative side when there is so much "cow tipping" to be done in West Lafayette. :)
Regards,
Jeff
-
For those interested in an extremely well written narrative on loudspeaker theory, I had time to read the SP Tech tutorial on its website:
http://www.4sptech.com/html/1024X768/home/index.htm
It provides easy to understand explanations on various topics including horn theory, wave guide theory, acoustical impedence, diffraction, impulse response, and radiation patterns.
I must admit that Bob's narrative was was very persuasive at showing the flaws of other loudspeaker designs, and that his design has been thoroughly researched and supported by solid principles.
I highly recommend this reading. It has really got me pumped now to get my Timepiece order and find out for myself how his principles have been implemented.
-
AudioJerry,
Unfortunately I am of the opposite position that this speaker company provided an "extremely well written narrative on loudspeaker theory" via the link you provided. (Good reading yes, feelings and ideas yes, great overview of loudspeaker theory no).
As I read through the designer's ideas, I found that they were just that - ideas! I have nothing wrong with the designer outlining what he did or how he goes about his design, but as I read his material I came up with just more questions that he had not answered in his dissertation of his design!
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not slamming the speaker's website material. It's a very good overview of the designer's view and some of his supposed choices. Unfortunately it is just vague enough (at times) to possibly be a marketing piece! I just don't think there's nearly enough detail on loudspeaker theory here. Just an overview of this company's mantra. After all this company's success depends on sales, right? How do we know that this isn't a marketing piece trying to convince others that this is a truly great speaker that you must buy because "they have considered everything"?
BTW: I've seen other "loudspeaker theory" detail overviews from the likes of companies such as B&W and Martin Logan too (in some of their prior marketing literature). Their products NEVER measured up to their "theory" IMHO. What did I learn from their theoretical overviews? That words are cheap and technical details that "make sense" can be created out of thin air by a talented marketing person!
-
How do we know that this isn't a marketing piece trying to convince others that this is a truly great speaker that you must buy because "they have considered everything"?
Well Eric,
It's good to get a more skeptical viewpoint.
Of course it is marketing material and intended to persuade the reader. What's wrong with that? Is it illegitimate for a business to market its product? It's all part of the free enterprise machine. In this instance SP's narrative on loudspeaker design was just one more factor in an overall strategy to encourage this potential buyer to consider the product. In truth though, I had already placed my order before reading the theory dissertation.
A far more persuasive factor was the offer of a 30 day in home trial with shipping paid for in both directions, should the buyer decide to return them.
I'm not qualified enough to discount any arguments presented in SP's theory. Because it raised more questions for you than were answered, does that make the arguments invalid? It might make for some interesting discussion if you could state some specific concerns.
Regardless, I have chosen in a way to become AudioCircle's ginea pig with absolutley no risk. :P Stay tuned, we'll see if function follows theory.
-
What did I learn from their theoretical overviews? That words are cheap and technical details that "make sense" can be created out of thin air by a talented marketing person!
Did you read the reviews I linked earlier...by Pro Audio Review (http://www.proaudioreview.com/par/august03/SP_Technology.shtml) and Bruce Bartlett? (To access Bartlett's review, cut/paste the following: www.4sptech.com/reviews/bartlett's.pdf)
I'm particularly interested in your take on the data produced by Bartlett, and whether you believe it to have been "created out of thin air..."
I've ordered the speakers, too, but otherwise have no interest - financial or otherwise - in the company. As I see it, I have nothing to gain except potentially great speakers. If they perform poorly, I've lost nothing but time thanks to the free round-trip shipping, and precious little of that.
If they prove disappointing, I’ll be the first to admit it. I have no reason not to because, again, it is of little consequence. The world’s full of good-to-great speakers, and I’ll keep auditioning speakers until I find “the” one. I can’t and won’t speak for Jerry, but IMHO he's reasonably convinced he already has "the" speaker, and is auditioning the 2.0s out of curiosity as much as anything else. Again, nothing at stake.
You, however, seem bent on at least implying that they, and to an extent their designer, are frauds without ever hearing them. I don’t understand that.
I have little at stake in the success or failure of the speakers or SP Technology, but your approach makes me wonder if you might have a bit more.
DU
-
We have 3 people in the professional audio industry reviewing the speakers. I personally have never talked to the other two, on the phone or otherwise. It is uncanny that 3 separate parties with separate lives with separate tastes...mind you who whole heartetly are most acustomed to reaching some form of dissagreement openly, would mirror each others thoughts, and one that has lab measurements documented to back up his words. This my Friends speak volumes of what the SP experience is...and I can also gurantee, someone can have less than stellar results from them... if they do not take the time, caring and feeding, to heed the words of proper set-up and use. To professionals, set-up is second nature. We know how rooms "work" due to thousands of hours of using microphones in said rooms.
It is rare, indeed when 3 engineers of the same field, mirror each others thoughts.
With that, enough said.
If they don't work for you...something upstream or downstream (equipment, wire, room) needs some serious attention.
One of the best attributes of this system is its ability to work well in a vast difference of acoustic situations. This is possably one of the only reasons SP tech is willing to offer the gurantee they do.
Comments from new owners will be not only welcomed, but varification of all that has been said. Remember, thier are "NO" perfect loudspeakers, only ones with the best balance of imperfections, usually work the best.
-
Here's a better overview of my prior posting so everyone can better understand my two core points along with a clearer overview of other subpoints that I was trying to convey too:
Point #1 - I was ONLY questioning Audiojerry's statement that SP's site represented an "extremely well written narrative on loudspeaker theory". (Not necessarily SP's ideas, nor Sp's product offering, nor SP's design choices. Just the actual subject of "loudspeaker theory" itself! ...a VERY big and complex subject indeed IMHO!)
Point #2 - I STRONGLY feel that we should all be aware and suspicious of ALL technical dissertations, by ANYONE!. This helps us avoid buying into potential marketing slickness that may or may not exist. There's really no way to know the true reasons to why a company truly made all of their design choices. We all hope it was out of research and determination to make the very best product. Unfortunately a good story also sells. Technical mumbo jumbo typically yields MORE money in high end audio. Playing devils' advocate is a very good thing when reading ANY technical dissertation IMHO.
For the sake of clarity, here's a better re-iteration of other subpoints in my prior thread:
:nono: I DO like SP's website! Pleeeeeeeese re-read my last posting: QUOTE: "Don't get me wrong here. I'm not slamming the speaker's website material. It's a very good overview of the designer's view and some of his supposed choices."
:nono: I am NOT critical of their design choices, nor do I think their speakers are anything less than stellar, just because I think their website does NOT qualify as "an extremely well written narrative on loudspeaker theory". (In my mind, there's a HELL of alot of material to cover to qualify as "an extremely well written narrative on "loudspeaker theory"!)
:nono: I did NOT state that SP had actually created technical details out of thin air! What I pointed out is that MANY speaker companies have the potential to create convincing technical details "out of thin air", and pointed out two abusers that are very successfull speaker companies! (All it takes is a talented technical marketing person!)
:nono: I would like to add some new points here as well:
" I think that SP's website is a fairly well written narrative, on his own personal design choices, with a decent overview of his feelings and design approaches, for his particualar speaker offering"
" I DO hope that these new SP monitors are all they are cracked up to be! We need more superstars in a land of overpriced underachievers! I would love to tout a new speaker offering in the very rare world of great sounding affordable speakers available today!"
-
ehider:
Thanks for your comments and for taking the time to clarify. Speaker design is way too complex a field to be covered in a couple of postings and I understand why manufacturer can't be more forthcoming.
I started this post because:
1. Of a referal from someone at AA last summer who thought the timepieces were something special;
2. I agreed with several of the technical points stated on the SP Technology website;
3. I respect the SP Technology folks for stating their overall design principles and life values on their website.
I appreciate the dialog here, it has helped to clarify the crossover points, it has generated responses from the designer, and it has resulted in a couple of chances for posters among us to trial the products. I would however advise folks here to keep an open perspective and a thick hide. It's nearly open firearm deer hunting season here and like the hunters we need to be very sure of what we're shooting at before pulling the trigger.
Thanks to all for continually making this a great site,
jeff
-
If you say so, ehider. I still contend your comments have been consistently negative, but that’s my perception and I have no interest in debating you about what you meant. Despite evidence to the contrary, I'll take your word for it.
For the record, I knew to whom you were referring when you made the comment about creating things out of thin air. My point wasn't that you made it about SP Tech, but that you chose to make reference to that kind of marketing in an SP Tech thread shortly after accusing the manufacturer of using *gasp" marketing to sell his product (as Jerry so adeptly pointed out). Intended or not, I believe the implication is clear.
That said, I agree with much of what you say. I suppose the way you said it and the zeal with which you presented it hit me the wrong way. If I’ve misrepresented your words or intentions in any way, I apologize.
DU
-
I've been following this thread with great interest and I have spoken to Bob Smith re: his speakers. I do not own a pair of his speakers -YET.
I've been looking to upgrade to new speakers for quite some time. It is truly mind boggling how many choices are out there that's for sure! I currently own Nuance 440's a speaker designed by Winslow Burhoe (pioneering speaker designer of AR/KLH/EPI/Epicure fame). They have been an enjoyable speaker but they have limits and compromises. Curently, Factory direct companies seem to offer the most value overall (I have looked at VMPS, Newform Research, BESL, GR Research and others) . Their use of no-compromise parts is attractive. I have also been following the product developments of Canadian speaker companies such as PSB, Axiom, Paradigm, Mirage, Totem, Nuance, Studiolab and others. I have owned Kef 102, Spica TC50, and Paradigm speakers in the past.
I still believe in the basic principle of Winslow's 2 way speaker module or mutiples of this module consisting of an 7-8" woofer crossed over as low as possible to a tweeter using Linkwitz-Reilly allignments. This creates the most musically satisfying sound to my ears so far. Simplicity is key here I think. Joh Bau's design in the Spica TC-50 was also a simple design with great musical effect. A legendary speaker for sure.
I have seen this principle implemented in lower cost designs such as some earlier speakers that Winslow designed for Nuance. (330's, Spatial 3CLS-A brand that has gotten bad raps because of many people who paid ridiculous prices for these speakers). The weakness in these designs is in overall parts quality I believe. These speakers could play cleanly only to certain levels at which distortion and compresssion rise dramatically. A proprietary wave-guide was used for unifiorm off-axis response and power response with great spatial and lively effect. The results were pretty incredible especially considering that the parts used would definitely not be considered on par to what Bob is using. I have been looking to find a speaker that shared some similar design principles but one that raised the wick so to speak with regards to driver quality, accuracy, detail, power handling/reduction in compression, better cabinetry/resonance control, and better crossover parts.
I have a good feeling about Bob's Timepiece 2.0's. A speaker that I am considering upgrading to. As noted in a review on these speakers-they are "Expensive (but worth it)". But compared to what else is out there, these may well be the best designed 2 way speaker in the world and a great value. The market is so chuck full of mediocre products that are touted as being the next best thing. I'm sure many will think of Bob's speakers the exact same way. But, I am definitely going to go hear these as soon as possible and will make the drive from Southern, Ontario Canada to do so.
Now only if Nuance would have taken their designs up to the next level with respect to parts quality and kept Winslow Burhoe as designer! Then I'd probably own a new pair.
Talk to you soon Bob. Gotta start saving some more loonies.
Jeff
-
Extremely well written, Eric. That's my position, and I'm sticking to it. :) It was concise, eloquent, easy to understand, nicely supported by diagrams, logical, and persuasive.
Because it raised more questions than answers for you doesn't weaken my position.
It seems to me that your main issue is that you believe the whole intent of the narrative was to promote and market the designer's product, and you seem to suggest that deception was masked in SP's approach. You then support your argument by associating it with similar marketing hype from other manufacturers.
Do you believe that the SP narrative has the ability to convince a customer that he made the right choice regardless of his audition experience? Of course not. I believe that SP's website material does a good job of stating its case and why it believes the reader should audition their product. SP can gain nothing by strongly promoting a mediocre product, and offering a 100% no-risk guarantee. In fact, this would be a pretty speedy road to bankruptcy.
If you were shopping for speakers, would you not consider SP Tech because you take issue with their deceptive(in your view) marketing?
-
There's a ton of audio design philisophical rambling on websites the world over. Some of it is pure marketing horseshit and some of it is real. No matter who wrote it, it is there to make you want to buy their stuff.
Really all that matters is what the speakers sound like. When Jerry gets them he will see if he is drawn into a private prison of myopic ignorance and slumber or if these speakers are of of Divine origin, possessing a transfinite potential and nested as a sub-set within a Super-Universe of infinite dimensions that is ruled by Absolute Truth and Natural Law.:rotflmao:
-
Personally I'm hoping for that "Devine origin" thing. :angel:
Approximately 2 weeks and counting till the Timepieces arrive...
DU
-
OK - you guys got my attention.
Glad to see we haven’t fallen into obscurity. I’d be tempted to launch off into some marketing hype in order to drum up some business right now but thanks to some of you folks, I don’t have to. Controversy seems to be the best salesman. I’m just glad I didn’t have to dye my hair green and parade around in a wedding dress! :lol:
I can’t resist temptation though, so here’s some marketing for everyone to ponder. I highly recommend that owners/advocates of SET amps and other low powered units NOT PURCHASE our speakers. In fact, we will not extend our “NO RISK” guarantee to you if you do. I only mention this because I’ve had quite a number of inquiries regarding such and I really don’t have time to keep up with them, especially seeing that it shouldn’t be necessary in light of the lower sensitivity rating of our products. Also, I don’t recommend our products to individuals that only have mid-fi receivers and the like. Either our products are so poor that you have to mate them with quality electronics to get a reasonable sound quality out of them or they’re so revealing that the shortcomings of low quality components are blatantly revealed. Either way, that’s for the market to decide. Maybe ya’all could help pass the word. It would help me find time for more important things.
Now - does that sound like marketing hype? If that was what we were about I should be telling everyone, no matter their equipment, to purchase our product. Or better yet, just remain silent on the issue. To be frank, I’m not savvy enough to push something that doesn’t basically sell itself nor stupid enough to try. As Jerry said, the No Risk deal would be a fast path to bankruptcy. At over 70lbs. shipping weight each, it cost $98 bucks and some change just to ship the review pair down to Bill Roberts in Florida, what with insurance and all. And that was only one-way. I must be awful stupid to offer such a deal if I wasn't convinced we had a winner.
And as far as ehider has stated, he is correct; our theory page is not nor was it intended to be a tutorial on loudspeaker design. Volumes would be required and there are plenty already out there for your reading pleasure. Instead, it was intended to inform those already familiar with design with regards to the – dare I say – “logic” behind our somewhat unique approach.
My good friend Bill Roberts has shared a rather eloquent quote: “Insanity is the act of repeatedly doing something the same way and expecting different results.” Our speakers look different because they are different and therefore have produced different results. Whether or not that is a good thing is for you all to decide. Telling everybody about why they are different on our THEORY page is not so much a marketing ploy as an opportunity to avoid repeating myself endlessly with each inquiry. That along with the increased likelihood of being thorough and giving our favorite customers (the scrutinizing type) a chance to refer back to it at their convenience.
As a side note: I would ask ehider or anyone this question. Why in the world would I want to educate my competition in loudspeaker design on my website? Contrary to the idol worship that some seem to assign to the art, loudspeaker design is not exactly rocket science or require a PHD in Quantum Mechanics to effectively engage in. You have no idea how many years have passed wherein I would regularly peruse all the audiophile magazines, fearfully looking for my design concepts already being marketed by another company. To my thinking, the principles employed in our products should have been obvious to any serious engineer long ago. Thankfully for us at SP Technology, few engineers out there seem to understand the basic concepts of Natural Law or how to apply them – form simply follows function.
The “No Risk” deal, on the other hand, IS a marketing tactic. Duh. I may not be that smart financially but I can’t think of a better way to get everyone’s attention. ‘scuse me, but I think it’s working. Yes, we’re taking a gamble. I’m BETTING that there are honest folks out there that will give our products an honest try and in the end they won’t return them. You, on the other hand, can BET that when the word finally gets out, that the “No Risk” deal will eventually go away AND the present pricing structure of our products will change. That’s a promise. I’ve found that a little faith is often rewarded many times over. As the recent C-1 Bankcard advertisement goes, “So what’s in your wallet?”
The point is, our products are under priced and that was a marketing tactic too. Don't worry, we're not going to gouge anybody later on, that would fly in the face of everything we stand for. Never-the-less, we will have to have a price increase at some point as we switch over to dealer representation. The dealer has to get his cut in order to make our products more convenient for everyone to audition. That's business.
Finally, we’re glad to see that others are investigating some of the other ideals and concepts that we are committed to share. Believe it or not, there are other things more important than audio. I know – BLASPHEMY!!! Sorry, but the unfortunate fact is that there are very few things that will last forever. While there may be a number of audiophiles that do, I’m certain that no matter how good - their audio systems won’t. In the end, we at SP Technology are more concerned with people than products or money. Yeah I know, just another marketing ploy…as far as the cynical soul is concerned. We really do hope though, that everyone discovers their Transfinite potential before they experience their finite end.
May the “Logos” be with you all,
- Bob
-
Instead of condemning ehider to execution by means of drawing and quartering, I'd rather invite him to continue expressing his views. I believe he has a rich background in audio and can be a source of valuable information and advice. We all have our personal biases and take strong positions on some of them. Respectfully disagree? Sure - that's what makes for enjoyable debate. After exchanging emails with him, I don't believe his intent was to criticize SP Tech or discourage potential auditions.
Back when a lot of us frequented Harmonic Discord, ehider made a lot of positive contributions. He gave me permission to post this link on a new speaker design on HD, where he provided some excellent thoughts.
http://www.harmonicdiscord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9499&highlight=ehider
I'd like to see more posts from members who have a lot to offer and the ability to do so intelligently and respectfully. :)
On that note, Eric, what advice would you offer to someone considering SP Tech speakers? :wink:
-
Thanks for the kudos AudioJerry!
As far as I am concerned, SP has made it a "no brainer" for audiophiles to try their speakers since they offer a money back guarantee. Obviously this speaker is not an absolute full range mega multi-driver speaker, so those who have the money to afford something that can produce huge SPL's and serious subterranean bass may be happier with a VMPS RM-40 or GR Research Alpha for instance. Then again, perhaps SP's monitor will work well with an ancillary sub or two? IMHO it's all too early to understand what this new speaker is capable of providing an audiophile until we hear more "real world" experiences from others who try them out. As I've said in my other posts, I seriously hoping this monitor is all its cracked up to be!
-
Hey Everybody,
Just dropped in for a minute. I want you all to know I really do appreciate your comments and continued interest I sure hope I didn't come across in my last post as a jerk. I only wanted everyone to know that we're not into the marketing hype thing. I do plan on placing some ads in the near future but a company almost has to if they hope to reach people that aren't the diehard enthusiasts with internet access like you guys are.
Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know they should hold up planning on using any subwoofers with our speakers until ya hear them without first. Eric is right - in that we don't have a bunch of drivers in our designs. Heck, they're only 8 inch woofers to boot. But...you really got to hear that sucker pump out the low end before you'll believe it. Even though I saw it on the analyzer in the lab I wasn't prepared for that "air moving in the room" effect until I heard it for myself.
I'm not trying to shamelessly plug our products here. I just wanted to save some folks the grief of preparing all the gear and the expectation of making room in their budget for a sub. You might still want to but if you're going to bother at all, you should find one that will crank serious SPL at 20Hz minimum - more like hit 15Hz. Otherwise I personally don't think it would be worth the trouble and cost.
We have plans to market and have already done the basic research on such a beast but... we have to get the production machine churning out our present products efficiently first. I did the design over ten years ago, before I even started the Timepiece. It's a - I'll bet you could guess - hybrid horn/t-line design. :scratch: To be honest, I'm not sure I'll even use the thing in my own setup at home because I have an older house with plaster walls. I'm afraid it could do serious damage as I'm sure some of the natural resonant frequencies of the building structures are bound to be in that range. OK...maybe I'll try it...just once. :roll:
Catch ya later,
- Bob :thumb:
-
Bob,
Just a heads up that your site does not work on the Safari browser. You get an error when trying to enter from the main portal. Works fine on internet explorer. (Note: I use a Mac.)
Regards,
Chris
Edited for update:
Hmm? I take the above back to some extent. It had troubles loading fully on Internet Explorer (none of the pictures would load) but when I copied an inner link from Explorer over to Safari, Safari had no problem with the site once inside. Curious.
-
Thanks for the kudos AudioJerry!
As far as I am concerned, SP has made it a "no brainer" for audiophiles to try their speakers since they offer a money back guarantee. Obviously this speaker is not an absolute full range mega multi-driver speaker, so those who have the money to afford something that can produce huge SPL's and serious subterranean bass may be happier with a VMPS RM-40 or GR Research Alpha for instance. Then again, perhaps SP's monitor will work well with an ancillary sub or two? IMHO it's ...
In my opinion almost every speaker will benefit from one or better yet two subs. I have not heard the Alpha but I have auditioned th RM40 and as good as they are they are much better with a sub. As I am sure you are aware it is difficult for any speaker positioned for optimum imaging to produce base comparible to a good sub.
-
I know where Bob is coming from with the subs.
The timepiece 2.0's have very deep, rich bass, when the programme has it...otherwise, you hear what comes through accurately. Adding one or two subs would be difficult as the crossover would need to be around 32 or lower and then the phase would get offended from not having point source air motion...it would be like a whale in a washtub to the air motion at that point. Cutting the SP's off at 60hZ would do not real good either since the enclosure is designed to be phase accurate with full frequency response and the high pass filter would do more harm than good within the transmission area of the enclousre release.
A pair of subs or single sub crossed over at 22 to 25hZ would also muddy up the 40hZ range of the SP's because even 18/db/oct, 3rd order would cause ringing in the subs and throw phase off then again.
Nope, I cannot recommend any subs at all with them. If 30 is good enough for you (mind you they are only down 19dB at 10hZ) then as is would be the way to go.
(edit for spelling and insert)
IF you can find a set of subs that have virtually "no output" above 32hZ, this would be the key. So far, who makes them?
Certain rooms can roll the bottom off below 40hZ and others boost heavy at 27hZ from experience. look at all my postings in this topic before setting them up and read the binder.
Useable response to me is +/-3dB if you look at the review once again.
They do well down there...it is a surpirise that I did not expect.
-
...I just wanted to save some folks the grief of preparing all the gear and the expectation of making room in their budget for a sub. You might still want to but if you're going to bother at all, you should find one that will crank serious SPL at 20Hz minimum - more like hit 15Hz. Otherwise I personally don't think it would be worth the trouble and cost.
We have plans to market and have already done the basic research on such a beast but... we have to get the production machine churning out our present products efficiently first. I did the design over ten years ago, before I even started the Timepiece. It's a - I'll bet you could guess - hybrid horn/t-line design. scratching_head.gif To be honest, I'm not sure I'll even use the thing in my own setup at home because I have an older house with plaster walls. I'm afraid it could do serious damage as I'm sure some of the natural resonant frequencies of the building structures are bound to be in that range. OK...maybe I'll try it...just once. icon_rolleyes.gif
as i am also a believer that *real* subs will help most any system - even full-range speakers like rm-40's - i wonder if ya tink a pair of fully optioned vmps larger subs will meet yer criteria of being a worthwhile addition to yer sp monitors... tho, yer future offering *does* sound intriguing... :wink:
and, re: amps, i presently run a mesa baron, which can be set for 60wpc in full triode, 150wpc in full pentode or 90wpc or 120wpc in 1/3 pentode-2/3 triode, or 1/3 triode-2/3 pentode. negative feedback adjustable from 0db-8db. i'm tinking, that w/my subs, i could drive yer speaker w/the baron full-triode, no sweat, in my 26x38x8.5 room - especially w/yer m-t-m model. i am presently running 2/3 triode, 0db negative feedback w/a pair of tiny 86db-efficient proac reference 8 signatures, & i get plenty of gain...
thanks,
doug s., still dreaming of being able to afford $4k speakers...
-
I know where Bob is coming from with the subs.
The timepiece 2.0's have very deep, rich bass, when the programme has it...otherwise, you hear what comes through accurately. Adding one or two subs would be difficult as the crossover would need to be around 32 or lower and then the phase would get offended from not having point source air motion...it would be like a whale in a washtub to the air motion at that point. Cutting the SP's off at 60hZ would do not real good either since the enclosure is designed ...
Are the problems you mention exclusive to the Timepiece or is it your opinion that it is not possible to affectively integrate a subwoofer with any speaker system. I would also like to hear the Timepiece designer's opinion on this issue.
-
audiojerry - wait a minute...I've seen that thread! ;). On a sidebar, I haven't given up on my designing components. And I *have* finally had the opportunity to listen to the "$5,000" reference RM40's :).
Bob, your designs look very interesting, and on paper they make sense in regards to their strengths and tradeoffs in your design philosophy. I'd love to hear them some day.
Regards,
Rup
-
Here are my thoughts on the subject subwoofers or a "subwoofer"
A single bass commode is useful for home theater, because their is a sepate mono mixdown channel dedicated for a single subwoofer.
For 2 channel useage, a single subwoofer is a bad idea. The reasons are as follows:
In many styles of music and recording, their are separate low frequencies, timing wise (phase) from channel 1 to channel 2. The phase differences between the channels cannot be accurately tracked by a single subwoofer due to the physical fact that the cone cannot be in two different places at the same time. This carries over from a "wider than most folks talk about" frequency range. An example would be classical music. If the concert tympani (are) panned left of center, tympani in itself is a very wide range instrument. The hall phase cues between impact of the instrument, the initial far left and the delayed far right reverberation and sound travel dictates phase shifts not only in the low frequency spectrum but throught the entire range of said instrument. For the instrument to be accurately reproduced (located in space, full frequency range and dynamic cohesion) in your listening room, the best solution would be to have 2 full range loudspeakers so that the wave travel perception is not disturbed by the loudspeakers. It may be disturbed by your room, this is something you should look into and take care of. Live Jazz is another example. Older Beatles recordings where the kick is on the right and the bass line on the left would not be reproduced effectively.
The dynamic lineararity in the summing of the mix and the hall phase cues will be lost. Your "ears/brain" can fill in some of the information but why not do it proper to begin with?
Now this said, you can use a pair of stereo subwoofers. Integration is possable as long as one pays careful attention to the crossover. The use of any electronic, active or passive crossover that is not an "acoustical" crossover, will introduce some ripple to the voice coils and skew timing somewhat. Distance from the drivers in this bandpass may or may not be critical..it is that you are introducing variables that must be addressed.
When I built loudspeakers, my "best" system was a 5 piece. Two pieces were 90hZ and down, two pieces were 90hZ up and the 5th piece was the passive and active crossover network in a rack mount box...simalar to a 4 rack space amplifier. Intergrating this system required wild use of getting the phase accurate at all crossover frequencies and the spacing had to be done geometrically. It took years just to design a set of subs that would integrate with the rest of the system and 2 of those years was spent on the crossover network bandpass at the 90hZ transistion.
Having been through "what it takes" to get accurate subwoofer integration on a wide variety of music in more than one room was a real chore. Something that I could not do easily. I feel that adding subs to any exisiting wide range loudspeaker system is a hit or miss proposition. Some get very "lucky" and I have heard systems where no matter where you set the phase switches, positioned the commodes, et al...overall, the magic from the main two loudspeakers was lost.
Full range loudspeakers like the ESL57, the Martin Logans and the Soundlabs are all but impossable to intergrate subs with.
I say, for home theater, use a sub...you will need it as the L/R channels do not contain the full theatrical effect. For 2 channel usage, go with two subs...you can try them, you may get lucky. Some do get lucky, other do not.
What really matters is when you put your source on, kick back after a tough day at the office, you are rest assured that you do not have to worry about messing with the system constantly from recording to recording and you enjoy your selection to the fullest. I actually have selections I will put in "repeat mode" for 2 hours, simply because I cannot get enough and every time I listen, I am hightened to another level of emotion.
Remember the Kiss Princapal.
On a side note: Loudspeaker cable. I have tried many home brews and compared them all. Once I found the ones that made me forget the home-brews (Thank you Mr. Ray Kimber) my quest for speaker wire building, tweaking and changing came to a rapid halt. I am no longer bothered about the loudspeaker cable.
The Loudspeaker cable in question is the Kimber 8TC. I highly recommend the purchase of them.
I feel at this time the benefit is not worth the hassle unless you are very patient and you get lucky in assembling a system, using subs. Many loudspeakers "NEED" subwoofers. The Timepieces could benefit...or it could cloud up the sound. I feel they really do not need them unless you want to reproduce 26hZ and below with authority. If so, get a pair.
-
infinity driver, i agree w/ya, regarding two subs being mandatory for proper 2-channel audio. from that point on, tho, i must respectfully disagree... :)
it has been my experience that i can match my passive subs w/yust about any speaker - monitor or full range - successfully in my room w/a flexible crossover. i have also had good results in another room, so i don't necessarily believe room issues are an insurmountable problem, tho in some cases, i's sure they can be, as is the case w/speakers w/o subs.
use of a pink noise generator & spectrum analyzer has proved a key tool in getting proper integration w/my extremely flexible marchand xm-9LL x-over. speakers i've tried include nht super-zero's, thiel 3.5's, swan m1.2's, proac reference-8-signatures, proac 1sc's, meret re's, totem arro's, gr-research criterion's. crossover points have been from 50-125hz...
and, i yust discovered a pair of proac 2.5's in the upstairs room today - a relative is moving, & dropped some stuff off the other day when i was at work - these will find their way back downstairs & into the listening room some time in the not-too-distant future, i'm sure. should be fun! :)
anyway, i strongly recommend anyone considering subs to go for it, regardless of whether or not ya run "full-range" speakers. it's not really all that complicated to set up properly & integrate w/monitors, & they've improved every speaker i've ever tried 'em with, even the thiel 3.5s, which are -2db at 20hz, & which are known for their strong consideration of phase issues in their design. they worked yust fine, tossing their outboard eq, & crossing at 70hz.
i don't think it's an accident that many hi-end no-holds-barred designs incorporate separate subs into the package, for a four-speaker set-up...
doug s.
-
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:46 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
infinity driver, i agree w/ya, regarding two subs being mandatory for proper 2-channel audio. from that point on, tho, i must respectfully disagree...
it has been my experience that i can match my passive subs w/yust about any speaker - monitor or full range - successfully in my room w/a flexible crossover.
Actually, look in the bold type I placed in your post, it this, I see no dissagreement, whatsoever. As for the rest of your post, you seem experienced enough to pull it off consistantly and that is a great thing!
However, I would like to see an X-over point less than 32hZ and preferably 26hZ (mind this, for my room and set-up) for the SP Techs...if I wanted to get solid below that. Some form of instinct tells me that what the SP Techs do, down to 35hZ does not need reinforcement at all. Doing so would seem tough to integrate.
I will be the first to admit this is conjecture on my part...as I am basing this on having not tried(!) with these speakers. I do have a set of full range 3 way speakers that in this room can reach below 20hZ with extream authority..but going into the woofer section of them and crossing them over to mate with the SP Techs is hardly a chore I am willing to forego.
As a side note
As a mastering engineer, I have some recent recordings of a Nichols&Simpson Organ that has full involvement , flat to way below 20hZ that I recorded. (Used B&K SPL METER to find the nice flat locale for the mics with the 40hZ and below) I did two mastering renditions of this recording both on my old reference a year ago...and newly on the SP Techs that cannot reach the bordon pipes with authority as the others can. Of both masterings, the translation that I get with the SP Techs is a fuller sounding, more authentic transfer. I did have to watch the cones to make sure my power response down there was not getting "out of line" so to speak. For a division of two in FQ, I assume X to be X2 in cone motion. Some of those pedals moved the cones a good 1/2 inch peak to peak...but no audible nasties. No release, suspension or other noises...especially no doubling noise. Played back on systems that do reach the teens, I hit the balance very nice to the event. That meant alot to me. Remember, I used them for enjoyment and professionally. They make the cut, time and time again. One thing to note. They have almost too much bass at times in this room. This room was calibrated around other loudspeakers that did well in the 17 to 35hZ range but had a dip at 50 to 80hZ. The SP Techs do not have this dip so I have to be careful in calibration. Of course, I have a calibrated room for measurement which is quite inert. I don't like the sound in there (with any speaker) though..too dead for fun.
Keep up the good work and fun!
I commend you on your subwoofer skills of intergration! I have worked in stellar rooms...and some that were downright horrible. This writer must take into consideration a broad band of reader skills in the area of sub integration and a broader band of rooms.
I see where you and I agree favorable on this issue, I just feel a blanket statment that they will work in many situations (especially X-overed around 60-70hZ) may not be good...but in my rooms, that is what I see.
I also said "go for it" if you can get a good x-over to work.
It is a mixed bag. I simply cannot enjoy quality recordings on a single sub...and we agree there as well.
I do congradulate you!
-
infinity driver, thanks for your thoughtful reply... my present room is quite large, so overloading w/bass isn't really an issue.
(from the audiocircle gallery):
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=327)
the marchand x-overs are all quite flexible - ya can set the x-over point at 26, 32, or whatever ya want - it's only a few dollars for different plug-in modules. and, their latest (xm-44?) allows different hi-pass & lo-pass settings as well. my xm-9 doesn't allow this, but it does have a "damping" wolume pot for the chosen x-over frequency, as well as hi-pas & low-pass pots...
regards,
doug s.
-
I've been a dual sub user, but agree that they can easily be more bother than worth with standing waves and resonances within the room. In a large enough room (20,000 cu. ft., not a typo) they sounded magnificant.
Regarding speaker cable, I've had Kimber Kable 4TC and was happy, until cryo'd single stand plenum rated CAT5 blew it away. Now the 4TC is happily relegated to my 2.1 HT system. My previous CAT5 (simple multi-strand Radio Shack cable I made for $7) was also better, but had trade offs (less efficient and less bass output). The new CAT5 beats the 4TC on all categories. Advantages include cost ($20 per 10 foot pair in a group purchase), more inner detail, smoothed out horns to add natural sweetness, and yet provided a relaxed presentation.
-
Great looking music room, Doug - hopefully, your speech impediment has no effect on your listening. :P
-
Great looking music room, Doug - hopefully, your speech impediment has no effect on your listening. :P
hey dgjerry, i do *not* have a thspeestch impediment - iths a *typing* impediment! :wink:
doug s.
-
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=327)
The bass was OK, but your midrange was too colored Doug! :wink:
-
whoa!
The master at work!
Nathan, do you mind if I send you 5k pictures so you can photshop them for me? :)
that white balance is a pain in the booty!
-
thanks, nate - that's ackshully quite a bit closer to what it looks like in there! :) the original shot was taken at ~1/6 second, w/no flash...
doug s., w/no foto-shop experience... obviously! :wink:
-
Nice job on that photo nathan - looks like a Kodak moment ! Nice room Doug ! :)
-
My Walnut finish Timepieces have arrived, and they are stunning with their high gloss piano black front baffle and gently contoured tweeter waveguide - very sensual. The shipping boxes are impressively engineered, and they did a great job of protecting their valuable contents.
I'm a bit pressed for time, but I wanted to share what I've already learned. Every impression is highly positive thus far. I will not make any direct comparisons with my reference speakers until I've spent sufficient time acclimating myself and the Timepieces.
Let me highlight the qualities I've discovered already:
Percussive attack: in Spades!
Dynamic headroom: tons!
Effortless presentation
Clarity of details without emphasis
Very flat frequency response (this is just my impression - no measurements)
Soundstage and imaging may be the most palpable I've ever experienced
Off axis listening is excellent with impressive soundstage recreation even when sitting beyond the boundaries of the speakers
Cabinet is rock-solid - exceptional cabinet construction
[/list:u]
Drawbacks?
They are fairly large for stand mounted monitors, and heavy, and they may not be ideal for a small listening room.
They need a muscular amplifier. They may be underpowered by my VT200 tube amp, but I will be trying them with Odyssey Extreme Mono's in the near future.
At this point, I would recommend emphatically to anyone asking my advice that they audition these speakers, even if they can afford something far more expensive. They are fantastic!
My home is open to anyone wishing to hear them.
-
Hey Jerry, You've been getting a nice selection of equipement passing thru you doors, I'll look forward to a review of those speakers. Enjoy !! :)
-
"My home is open to anyone wishing to hear them.
I'd love to hear them Jerry! When will Mrs. Audiojerry be gone? I don't want her running after me with a garlic necklace or anything! I can provide hearing protection if necessary. :P
What was that SP said about them sounding great up until the drivers reach critical mass? :idea: Muwhahaha! I think this bit should be properly tested, don't ya'll!? :D
I could play a little :guitar: :cuss: :drums: :guitar: and Jerry could play some :violin: :sleep: :violin: or some :guitar: :singing: :guitar: It'd be a hoot.
-
You crack me up Nathan :lol:
I think I could sneak you into the basement. Later Fridays or Saturday nights would work best. You've got the hear that percussive attack of a snare drumstick caressing the skin of Dianna Krall's cheek. Check your p.m.
-
What was that SP said about them sounding great up until the drivers reach critical mass? Muwhahaha! I think this bit should be properly tested, don't ya'll!?
[/code]
:nono: Just be forewarned everybody, SP Technology Loudspeakers does not warranty blown drivers!
This is for the very reason quoted above. Unless you can hear your amp clipping or better yet, have clip indicators on it, you will be increasing the average or RMS power being delivered to the speakers as you drive your amp deeper into clipping. Hopefully you can hear this but usually the loudspeaker will produce more audible distortion first - unless you have a rather small amp to begin with.
Whether you believe the following or not, I will share this with everyone just so you know. During testing and critical listening we use a Crown Macro-Reference amp rated at 750W/ch. RMS into 8ohms and 1,060W/ch. Peak. This amp provides a huge supply voltage to its output stage. On our first serious listening test we kept cranking up the volume - expecting to hear some distortion. The volume was increadibly loud - louder than most people would ever listen at. At a certain point we noticed a light flashing at the front of the room. It was the amp's IOC clip indicators flashing! That meant we were pumping over 1,060 watts into those babies and we couldn't hear a hint of distortion!!!
Since then we've repeated this and confirmed that we can clip that amp once every several seconds for at least 10 minutes without harm. We didn't want to push our luck so that's about as long as we dared to let it go at that level. Also, that was on wide dynamic range recordings. If you try that with highly compressed recordings like heavy metal (we did) you won't clip the amp and will end up pumping more average power into the speaker. That will blow the woofer (we smelled the voice-coil enamel baking) as it is only rated at 125 Watts RMS.
So... have fun - but be careful.
-Bob
-
This is all very exciting. Jerry, please do keep us posted as I know you will.
Bob (SP Pres), what amplifier characteristics (or example by brand/model) do you recommend that would mate best with your speakers? I can easily see building a system around these remarkable products. As they're a bit more than I wanted to spend on speakers, and way less efficient, I'm hoping your amplifier advise will compensate.
thanks
-
bob, i know your two-woofer model is 3db more efficient (according to the specs - the graph looks the same as the one woofer model?), & will handle double the power of the one-woofer model, but how is imaging/soundstaging effected? any difference in standing-vs-sitting w/the two different models? some folk have faulted the soundwave propogation of m-t-m designs - any insights here?
thanks,
doug s.
-
Bob,
Any plans to be at CES 2004 next month? Thanks
Jim
-
I recently set them up for an experiment amongst several very good loudspeakers in a relatively controlled environment using natural recorded sounds of birds, sounds of street traffic and rain and storms. Also this series of recordings I made included various natural sounds from simply walking down burbon street to walking through a forest. It was all captured to DAT via a pair of B&K4006 running battery power (not ideal for them) and the playback sounded most natural overall on the SP Tech 2.0 timepiece loudspeakers to 100% of the 14 people that were involved in this set-up. No one had advance information of the loudspeakers that were compared or could see them behind the acoustically transparent barrier that I constucted.
We all agreed that if the recording arts are to improve, recording, mixing and mastering engineers shall use loudspeakers that are as uncolored as possible. Some very well regarded speakers sounded "boxy" and others artifical.
Speakers tested were:
BBC LS3/5
Wilson Watt/Puppy circa 1997
Klipsch Forte
Quad ESL57
JBL 4311
Yamaha NS1000M
Dalquist DQ10's (new broken-in woofers and cleaned up xovers)
Snell type A
Each loudspeaker system was matched to 85dB with a swept 300hZ to 1KhZ sine wave to match volume level average.
Each preferred performance was "C" from A-I, which "C" , the SP techs.
Many folks got down to the comparing of three systems and of each, the SP techs were involved. Everyone had to come to a concensus of overall authenticity of the program material.
The Quads, the Yamaha NS1000M's and the SP's scored the highest marks.
This experiment was conducted over a 6 day period.
Afterwords, folks brought their own material and it was a sweep...the Quads would have won except the bottom end and the nature of the narrow sweet spot. The yamahas were very close but some boxyness in the 200hZ range was apparent as was more "up-front" midrange dynamics that left the woofer behind at times. The Yamahas excelled in the ability to reach the low 20hZ range with awesome authority but the naturalness of the overall dynamics became somewhat colored due to certain overall factors.
BTW, this experiement was in a free field environment...sans floor. Each speakers center point was 39 inches above the floor.
-
OK Folks - I'll give it my best shot.
Dear JLM - More is better...power that is. I'm certainly not out to slam the fortunate folks that have the means to afford the top notch gear like Pass, Krell, Levinson, BAT, etc. God bless 'em everyone. For the rest of us poor stiffs, whatever we can lay our grubby little fingers on that can deliver the juice will have to do. I'm talking 8 ohm power ratings here. You don't need 50 output transistors per channel to deliver kiloamps - you need voltage to keep from clipping those lofty digital peaks we pay so dearly for. The Timepiece is an 8 ohm design and the impedance never drops below 6 ohms, so an amp with a high 4 ohm rating won't do a thing for you (although that does imply stability). I worked in Crown's engineering department for 8 years on 40KW amplifiers so I think you can trust me on this one. If you can afford top quality then fine, but you'll get more mileage from a workhorse with headroom than some little frilly amp that has that "efflorescent harmonic bloom" - if you catch my drift. Rumor has it that there's a kick but Carver out there that's getting some raves and is bargain basement. Maybe some other kindly folks out there can help JLM with this one.
Dear doug s - Imaging of the Continuum is virtually identical to the Timepiece. Controlled horizontal dispersion and the lack of diffraction is the key here(Oh great! Now I've gone and told my competition how to make speakers that image well). They're the same on both models as they both use the same waveguide/driver. If anything - depending on your room conditions - it might be a little better due to the narrowed verticle dispersion reducing ceiling/floor early reflections. This is very room dependant though. The stand-up/sit-down is different. Here again, the Continuum has a narrower verticle dispersion pattern. The effect is noticable if you sit real close (less than 6 feet) but back further, the Continuum produces very little change in frequency response when changing from a seated to standing position (unless your 7 feet tall).
Dear Hogg - Nope, can't make it to CES this year. We're still trying to wring the bugs out of the production machine. I can engineer all kinds of great stuff - once. Making them by the dozens presents a different challange that is stretching all of us here at SP Technology. Maybe next year.
Have a great day everyone. :D :!:
-Bob
-
Infiniti Driver,
Wow, that sounds like a really painstaking and laborious test. Thanks for conducting it. Would you mind a few questions?
What was your motivation?
What was the make up of your auditioning audience?
Were all speakers generally well suited to the amplification and front-end?
Were all comparisons done with a single listener sitting in the sweet spot?
I have not begun my critical evaluation yet, but one of the aspects of the 2.0 that really stands out for me is their speed, or attack. Percussive sounds have more slam, or impact than anything I've heard before. This is not just limited to the very lowest frequencies. I believe that this is one of the qualities that contribute to the realism that you mentioned. You are right about them being extremely uncolored and un-boxy. I hope to learn more about them this weekend.
-
From audiojerry:
Wow, that sounds like a really painstaking and laborious test. Thanks for conducting it. Would you mind a few questions? It certainly was! Overall it took a ton of prep and bending of my schedule to accomidate everyone.
What was your motivation?
For the first time, I was able to have this many loudspeakers (these ones) in one place with a large enough room for some critical analysis. usually it takes time for any one indivigual to get a grasp on the differences but the recordings, the people, the speakers and the rooms lent itself an oppurtunity I was no about to pass up.
What was the make up of your auditioning audience?
Myself, two college band directors, one composer, one high end freak (smiles) one master guitarist, two studio engineers (one male one female), 2 high school teachers (female) two rappers, one tenor singer and a church organist.
I am 44, the two college professors 39/51 the composer 49, high end freak 42, master guitarist 39, engineers 29/32 teachers 27/33 rappers 21/20 tenor 62 organist 55.
Were all speakers generally well suited to the amplification and front-end?
I would say they all could give it their best shot. Amplifier was a McIntosh MC2500 with a modded Foreplay preamp (quite stable and uncolored with mods)
Were all comparisons done with a single listener sitting in the sweet spot?
Listeners were in groups of three seated one behind the other at 12/14.5 and 17 feet repectively on backless 24 inch stools with cushions.
It was amazing how closed in and colored the Watt/puppys were. Even the dalquests outperformed them in transparency.
-
Could you give some more impressions with people using their own program material and their impressions of the SP Timepieces? When you say the Quads would have one, do you mean the SP's won overall? Where were the Quads better etc. Thanks for your time and informative posts.
-
None of the participants brought any program material. I am sad to say, I have no data on this as it was not part of the session. The session included natural recordings "live" without any form of EQ, compression or artificial sounds. This is what everything was judged with.
As per the quads, many folks were left with the impressions... they did very well but everyone noted they could not handle the lower registers or the ability to translate the same thoughts from different seats. (we played musical chairs to offset one seat being "better" or "worse"). Each had the oppurtunity to switch and everyone excersized this at some point or another.
As per the Quads again... they also had moments of good intention and other moments of not so authetic. Overall, they were not judged to be inadaquate in comparison with the SP techs or the Yamaha NS1000's. If it were not for the slight woodyness in the lower mids, the Yamahas may have scored better. Some sounds simply were out of focus throuought the entire register with the Yamahas. Birds chirping while distant thunder was where the un-nasturalness showed itself in the Yamahas and the quads ommited detail in the distant thunder to the point of a "fake" quality...especially when the panel ran out of excursion at low to moderate volume.
other loudspeakers in the test were deemed "horrible" only after test "C" was played. We had to go back to scratch many times after the units "C" were played...due to the paridigm being opened to afford something that was satisfactory being deemed totally non-worthy of comparison.
(you don't know what you miss until you are enlightened)
We all agreed, certain sounds were very well preserved with the quads...just not all of them at once. The effect is as their were no speakers at all with the SP Techs, just the sounds...VS hearing some form of "issue" once they were played and the audiences were self conditioned. I must admit, the lack of open bottom-end brought a death blow to most of the candidates.
All in all, the test encompassed rigurous testing of loudspeakers attempting to recreate something that is normally heard without the use of loudspeakers.
-
Wow, I wish I could get that many speakers in a room at one time! Sounds like a really cool experiment. I've noticed that switching from one speaker to another often creates extreme contrasts of subjective quality in one's mind. You get accustomed to hearing one frequency balance and then when it changes it's like, "Ugh! No! Wrong!" But in time your ears adjust. It's all relative to a degree. It's amazing how quickly the brain acclamates to widely different sounds.
Is there any chance of the rest of us getting say, a high bit-rate MP3 file of these natural recordings to peruse on our own systems? Might be interesting.
Also this series of recordings I made included various natural sounds from simply walking down burbon street to walking through a forest.
Was there a moon over it? :P
-
The moon was slightly above and just outside the left speaker, but gradually moved towards the right speaker later in the session... :wink:
-
Nathan, if you have an ftp slot, you may email to audiowkstation@msn.com the user address, name and passcode and I can upload it to you.
I can do 16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192 or 32/192.
The 24/192 is 2 gigs but with my service, it would upload overnight no problem.
ALSO...for everyone else.
Great news!
I have a new listening room and it is serving well, excuse the mess since I am simply starting to get equipment in there but the SP's in the corner locations did not suffer from the bass rise that other speakers suffer from usually. In my review, I could not get usable output below 27hZ. This has now changes and I was able to get a whopping 106dB with 150 watts of sine wave each channel at 20hZ.
This means at 20hZ in this new room, they are only 5 dB down! 23hZ is only 2dB down and remember, this speaker gives NO HINT of having that capability unless it is in the programme.
I thought it was awesome that they actually reached that.
The room is 22 wide, 24 deep 11...sloping to 9 feet on the ceiling.
The picture is the new set-up of the facility. Unlike the other room, this one does presurize somewhat and so far, I am enjoying the balance of the pressurazation VS open Field response. It is not airtight and far from it...it simply has some boundary effects that come into play that really are not miss-communicating at all.
The NS1000's reside for now in comparison. Clearly the SP techs are a better overall tool.
Excuse the mountain Dew cans, I have to have it.
(http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YAD6An8e68V9nxeZMryp*154YS8HKWWWaCxDpmW4zAiOn7pIscUWqWnBw5N5J3!o!O6DOsEmfz1F8l3tv3fYkdK29FIjDNSADUezx0Njt3Q0RiyEIIdPnkk*EnW1RVPFKTMdnLMXAwy6cmsCTW96aQ/IM003810.JPG?dc=4675450913447601586)
-
Wow, I like the placid landscape mural as your backdrop! You've inspired me to try something similar in my room. It would help to enhance my mood while listening to music. (Probably not ideal for something like death metal, though :P )
I am not that surprised that you are able to get useable bass down to 20hz. Although I'm not getting that result in my room, the bass is so authoritative down to around 35hz, it's hard to imagine that it would roll off very sharply below that frequency. I like to keep them well away from the wall behind them, which provides no bass augmentation. The soundstage is as deep and expansive as that mural you have. I've had speakers that produced a deep soundstage before, but at the cost of sounding recessed as well. The Timepiece places images up front when the recording calls for it.
Does the Continuum have a lower F3?
-
2-gig?! Crikey! Erm...I was thinking more along the lines of a nice 256K MP3 or so, something manageable. Why not post an MP3 somewheres so anyone who'd like to hear it can download it? Doesn't do much good for just me to have some 2 gig wav file, even if I did have an FTP server with that kind of space available, which I don't. :( Yes, yes I know MP3s are horrible compromises and all that, but let's be practical. A 256K MP3 sounds dang good for the size IMO, and it's better than nothing. Just a suggestion of course, no pressure mind you! :)
106db 20Hz bass from 6.5" drivers - hmmm, hard to imagine. Usually you get a lot of cone flapping and no real sound to speak of, and you are afraid of blowing the voice coil. But if you say so I guess I'll believe it. Damn, it must be nice to have a room with those kind of dimensions. :cry: I will have to see\hear this for myself when I take another shot at blowing up audiojerry's system\ears. I am envisioning a little bit 'o "The March and The Stream" being pumped out by a PLX-1602 for all his neighbors to enjoy. 8) Although I think with the 3 grand he sank into in these suckers I probably won't get volume control privledges. Gotta keep them nice 'n pristine in case SP gets their first returned pair, right? :wink: :lol:
-
Nathan, for the record it's an 8" aluminum cone driver.
Reading SP Tech's website describing its bass loading techinque was rather fascinating. Check it out if you have time on your hands:
http://www.4sptech.com/HTML/600X800/home/index.htm
-
If you folks would like some really nice software...FREE....go to this page and d-load these tools.
The test tone generator is accurate and you can see what happens with 20hZ on a sine wave is all about on your system.
Nathan, shoot me an email and I can send you the file.
http://www.moonaudio.com/softwar5.htm
-
Infinitdriver, are you associated with Moonaudio?
Years ago it was one of the first audio websites I stumbled across and lusted over the super expensive audio gear for sale there. I see it still exists. I always wonder who these guys are that own this equipment.
Mindboggling
-
Reading SP Tech's website describing its bass loading techinque was rather fascinating. Check it out if you have time on your hands:
http://www.4sptech.com/HTML/600X800/home/index.htm
Well yes, one needs plenty of time on their hands when viewing any of those SP Tech webpages.
-
I just downloaded the moonaudio software.
Good stuff! None of my coworkers can hear past 16kHz. But, we haven't tested any women (or children) yet! :)
-
Glad to see everybodys having some fun! :mrgreen:
Wish I had a room that big too Bill. :cry: The picture was cool. I'm sure that goes a long way in increasing the credablity factor. I'll tell you folks, I've met some audio nuts but Bill takes the cake. This guy goes to extremes with his gear and recording like no one I've ever met. I'm glad to hear about the 23Hz response. That's exactly the free air resonant frequency of the woofer.
Jerry - the Continuum has the same F3 as the Timepiece. It was a tradeoff to enable us to make it a non floor standing model. Shipping weight issue. Also, the Continuum was designed to double as a horizontally mounted center channel in an A/V system. Don't worry, once things get going we have more goodies in store.
Nathean et al. - Would you guys please quit kicking my butt about the website? We're doing the best we can. Part of the problem is our server. It's a shared server / package deal with limited speed that's affordable for now. I didn't want to charge 5 G's for the Timepiece just so I could afford to do a co-located one of our own right away. It's in the plans but I'm sure everyone would agree that lower prices for our goods is the better way to go. We also didn't want to have to re-program the site when we do move up.
Besides, don't all you techies have mega-gigahertz processors these days? It doesn't take all that long to load pages on my old backup clunker 350 MHz machine. OK, OK...but we still build some serious kick-butt speakers. It's hard being perfect at everything.
In closing, just to let everyone know - I monitor this thread almost every day but I don't have a lot of time to write back immediately. If you ask a question - stay tuned. I'll be checking back in from time to time and I will try to answer everybody's questions. So long for now.
- Bob
-
Must...not....reply.... :shake:
-
(Smeagol) "Go on precious, reply... it's ok"
(Deagol) "Nooo! Don't do it!"
(Smeagol) "I command you to do it!"
(Deagol) "Boohoohoo!!!
Nathanm,
It's a consensus: Reply! :D
-
No no no, Smeagol killed Deagol back in 2463 so they would not have had that conversation. I assume you meant Gollum? Heh!
No, the Pres asked nicely not to "kick his butt", so I guess I'll honor that. But it's painful...:P Okay, I will slip in one thing: K.I.S.S.
But what about when I hear the Timepiece monitors? Is a 'butt kicking' review allowed then? Heh heh! No but seriously, I have a feeling I will like them. If they live up to the claim of slammin' bass and wide dispersion then they'll be 75% of the way there for me.
My hope is to not only to listen to these speakers of the highest value, but to do so such that their value and audiojerry's conduct reflect and promote the spirit of a "New Renaissance" throughout our great Republic and the world at large. As the original Renaissance of Medieval times was the remedy for the Dark Age that had enslaved mankind then; it's my hope that the message reflected in this company and its products will help to revive that same spirit. A resultant global "rebirth" of mankind in this present age is VITAL if we are to keep at bay these "Oligarchs of Design" and their "puppet offspring" that threaten us all. To celebrate this I will play a few cuts from "Master Of Puppets" if Jerry doesn't object too strongly. Perhaps "Pastor Of Muppets" too, if there's time.
-
Nathan, Are you going over to Jerry's to hear these speakers ? :)
-
Yep, that's the plan. I want to compare them to my 824s and I'm sure Jerry will have a plethora of other speakers on hand as well. Although I find it hard to believe his giant 200 watt "cat vomit" amp would have any trouble driving them plenty loud I am gonna bring along my QSC amp for grins. Plenty 'o juice there.
-
Nathan is free to play whatever he desires - I have a set of shooting range ear protectors :lol:
But seriously, although Nathan and I may not share the same primary music genre, we both have a wide enough range of tastes where there is some common ground, and I think we both can recognize a well-recorded work regardless of the type of recording.
Nathan, just for a frame of reference, the Timepiece is able to belt it out better than the B&W 801 white refrigerators you heard your last visit.
-
From audiojerry..
"Infinitdriver, are you associated with Moonaudio?"
Actually, I worked a large project for the owner a while back. I hope when he gets ready to do another one he will call on me..
Nose around on this site and you can find some references.
http://pro5.com/moonsound/index.html
-
All this talk of the 2.0 makes me want to hear the Continuum 3.0. Anyone hear these? They're an easier load, go deeper, and priced right.
-
For those interested, I have posted my review of the Timepiece 2.0 in the Critics Circle: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=6744.msg57719#57719
-
I had a great conversation with Bob of SP last night, and one of the things we discussed was the fate of my Timepieces. Orders have been brisk, which is good for Bob, but the lead time is getting longer. Bob, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but the most recent orders will take 5-6 weeks to deliver.
We discussed the idea of sending mine directly to anyone interested in giving them a try. This would avoid a long wait, and they are already broken in with over 250 hours of burn-in. Bob's offer of a 30 day trial period and free shipping both ways still applies.
My pair was either the first or one of the first pairs to be built out of his new manufacturing facility. His finishing person was a bit inexperienced and my pair is not 100% flawless. There are a couple of very minor indentations on the walnut veneer, and a very slight over application of the urethane or varnish coating in some spots. I'm kind of anal about cabinetry and finish. Even so, I do not find them objectionable. I would not have returned them because of finish issues. Bob has assured me that every speaker now coming out of production will be absolutely flawless. The gloss piano black finish is awesome. He also stated that he'd be willing to adjust the price due to the finish, or replace them with a new pair, but of course, you'd have to wait. In the meantime, you'd have a broken in pair available for immediate auditioning. I'd take pictures, but the flaws are too inconspicuous to show up.
If you are interested, contact SP Tech, and Bob will let me know what to do with them.
-
http://www.4sptech.com/PHP/Programs/Forum/index.php
Open forum for SP speakers here.
-
Hey infiniti - I noticed I have an unretrieved personal message for you in my Outbox. Might wanna check that. Thanks! :)
-
Got it, tkx!
I will let you know how my situation goes.
-
fwiw,
I tried the Timepiece with the Sony AVD C700ES with 120wpc. It drove the Timepiece very nicely with plenty of bass heft.
-
audio jerry, I actually tried them with a SAEX-900 Technics receiver (also know as an SAEX-510 and it seems these speakers are not super picky about the quality of the amplifier as long as their is pleanty of power. I never remembered that receiver sounding that good before. 120W/Ch...although toward higher levels, you could "see" the DC entering into the voice coil of the woofer via abnormal cone movement but no burn-outs, heat-ups are audible problems. I say their impedance curve to be an easy one for all kinds of amplifiers so long as you have at least 60 watts per channel. A Dynaco ST70 is really a tease...no quite enough power for a wide range of music but really nice on combo jazz.
-
hey everyone, im new here. i kinda have a rep for being a Troll, but that is positively unintentional. so, if i step on anyone's toes, please feel free to let me know.
anyways, this sounds very cool. i think i might try out a pair. let me scrape the money up first. cool website SP Tech! and definately an intersting product.
i didn't get a chance to read all the specs yet, but from reading through this forum, the TP's take a minimum of 300 watts/ch. what's the max? and what typ/how powerful and amp do you suggest. (again, may have already been covered, but this was a big thread when i got here, so i don't have eternity to read all that.)
as a side note, you said your son did the 3D modeling? no promisses or anything, but would it be all right to give him a call?
give me a hoot at troll1545@hotmail.com