[nathanm]

The fact that SP Tech allows one the ultimate luxury for a mail order speaker business - return shipping on their dime, not yours; almost makes any review of these speakers unnecessary.  However, $2800 is still a load 'o dough so perhaps a review is not wholly without merit.  Maybe reading someone elses' opinion of these things can at least help a guy decide if he wants to take the plunge or not.

I recently returned from audiojerry's place where we played the Timepieces against my Mackie HR-824 studio monitors and his Dynaudio whatchamacallits. (don't remember the number) The 2.0s were powered by either Odyssey monos, Audio Research tube amp or my QSC PLX-1604 pro audio amp.

These things are MUCH bigger than I imagined.  They oughtta photograph these things next to a soda can or something.  But big is good, I don't think I've ever seen a speaker I thought was too big!  I like the lack of a grill.  Nice not to have those ugly plastic doohickeys mucking up the face.

The Timepieces had superb transient attack and overall very clean, clear and tight sounding.  The problem is Jerry's basement...well let's just say Jerry's basement takes the bass out of basement!  The big blooming thunder, girth, grunt, power whatever you want to call it; just was not there!   Although they sounded very good, they did not excel in Jerry's particular setup, which is a very small triangle nearfield thing.  There was really no soundstage whatsoever; it just sounded like two speakers too close together.  Howver, off-axis response was great.  The sound didn't suffer at all when moving your head, getting out of the chair,  or walking around.  

To me this is an extremely important attribute for a speaker, regardless of the reality of actually doing any of those things when concentrating on a particular album.  Beamy speakers really turn me off in a major way.  And one could argue the merit of beamy speakers sounding excellent in one point in space instead of just okay in many.  But to me the beaminess destroys all hopes of mimicking reality.  Sound does not behave this way in real life.   Beamy speakers always remind me that I'm listening to a bunch of equipment - very artificial to my ears.

The Timepieces are extraordinarily inefficient and you better budget for either a multi-kilobuck hifi SS amp, or save your pennies and get the biggest baddest pro audio PA amp you can lay your hands on.  They gladly soaked up 800 watts from my QSC amp and even lit the clip LEDS on big transients.  Yikes!  We had the volume trims on the QSC cranked and the preamp was nearing the end of its travel and although it was good 'n loud I was not ready to cover my ears or anything.  The Odyssey coped very well, but you don't get the luxury of input LED readouts or anything to know how hard its being hit.  Apparently that whole "high current" thingy, I dunno what that's all about.  In any case,  think gargantuan muscle amps for these things if you like it loud.

Although I was most displeased with the lack of bass presence that I am used to in my own flappy drywall apartment, they did have an extremely clean, tight sound.  They just didn't work with the small scale placement IMO.  If you like lots of etchy treble detail these definitely had it.  There wasn't much warmth or body in the mids.  But I had a strong feeling that if placed 10+ feet apart and sitting a good 8+ feet away they would be much better overall.  For audiojerry's particular scenario there was no question that his Dynaudio monitors were much better.  Even with the small arrangement there was a soundstage and middle fill that was not there with the Timepieces.  They had a much more natural timbre, less analytic than the Timepieces.  I would've loved to take them home with me and try them in my usual speaker locations.  

Most of the tracks I brought along did not sound as good as what I was used to in the frequency ranges I enjoy.  They were able to produce bass on certain orchestral tracks, but you really had to have the volume up and still there wasn't the overhang I like - like when a guy pounds an orchestral bass drum it should sound like the sound is being poured into your room like molten lava.  With the Timepieces it was just a quick bloop of thunder and then nothing.  Hmph.  

This Strauss disc Jerry played had lots of explosive sound effects on it and when those went off it looked like the woofers were about to fly out, but it was kind of a thin explosion, no lower frequency thud.  More like a firecracker than a stick of TNT.  If Jerry has any bass nodes in his room I'd sure like to know what they are, cause I didn't hear any!  Heh!  If you could magically roll Jerry's basement up into a cylinder you'd have the ultimate bass trap - all the other acoustic treatment companies would go out of business!   (Although I wonder if the 3 dozen subwoofers he has in storage down there might be causing some kind of hemholtz uber-absorber???)

So overall I think these speakers have great potential, but in addition to the already high price you are looking at an equal layout for amplification.  Gets to be a pretty tidy sum.  If you've got a set of amps I'd biamp them without question, I'm sure they could use it.  More importantly, don't sit on top of them - give them plenty of room and you'll probably be rewarded.

[Horsehead]

Thanks for second opinion on the Timepieces.  Just wondering how two reviews could kind of be so far apart in certain areas.  Audiojerry praised the "punched in the chest bass",  soundstaging,  imaging etc.  
I have the Continuums on order so I can only imagine the size of these "monitors" if you thought the Timepieces were huge.  I will be comparing the Continuums against the RM40s w/TRT.  Thanks for your thoughts on these Nathan.

[Sa-dono]

Thanks for the review Nathan!

The Timepieces are extraordinarily inefficient and you better budget for either a multi-kilobuck hifi SS amp, or save your pennies and get the biggest baddest pro audio PA amp you can lay your hands on. They gladly soaked up 800 watts from my QSC amp and even lit the clip LEDS on big transients. Yikes! We had the volume trims on the QSC cranked and the preamp was nearing the end of its travel and although it was good 'n loud I was not ready to cover my ears or anything. The Odyssey coped very well, but you don't get the luxury of input LED readouts or anything to know how hard its being hit. Apparently that whole "high current" thingy, I dunno what that's all about. In any case, think gargantuan muscle amps for these things if you like it loud.

Any idea what SPL levels these were at (peak and average)?

[nathanm]

Didn't measure it, but my guess is somewheres around 85-90db w\100db peaks.  That's just a rough guess.  It may have been louder than that though since we did not have the usual bass buildup that commonly causes one to turn it down.  It was very free of distortion or strain though, which is very cool.  The Blue Man Group discs showcased this well.

Horsehead - Even if I may be exaggerating the lack of bass one thing which I am not exaggerating is the lack of soundstage.  I mean...imaging? Floating center image?  Instrument "placement"?  There was none of that where these were placed.  And this has nothing to do with the speakers themselves necessarily - I think it's a question of speaker size vs. distance.  The Dynaudios and Mackies were smaller and tended to "disappear" into the room better, but in my personal opinion I would never put ANY speakers as close together as Jerry had them.  There's nothing wrong with it, that's the way he likes it.  It's simply the difference between the way two listeners have their setup.   The bigger the speaker the further away one must sit from it for optimal sound if you ask me.

[satfrat]

The bigger the speaker the further away one must sit from it for optimum sound if you ask me.

 Boy, this statement is SO wrong for the Odyssey Lorelei. If anything, it's just the opposite. I had these loudspeakers 8' apart with a 45° toe-in and was sitting 11' away, thought it sounded pretty good. Well Klaus told me to move up to 5' away and straighten them babies out with very little toe-in, allow the Lorelei's to wrap themselves around you. I did this and boy was he right. You'd swear to God there was a center channel speaker there, and with hardly any toe-in. I'm sorry to get off track here but I just had to comment on that statement. Regards, Robin

[rosconey]

my rick craig 3.5 ways sound much better with no toe in-8 ft away and sounds come from behind and the sides-alot of people ask if the reciever is in multi channel, when its in 2 channel

[audiojerry]

Even if I may be exaggerating the lack of bass one thing which I am not exaggerating is the lack of soundstage. I mean...imaging? Floating center image? Instrument "placement"? There was none of that where these were placed.

While I agree with much of what Nathan has said, I completely disagree on this point. To support my view, Nathan commented on how well the sonics held up when listening off axis. I believe excellent off-axis performance is the result of good design, which by extension, will also result in excellent image and soundstage.

I learned some other things thanks to Nathan's visit. His pro-audio Mackie speakers offer accurate, full range, and fairly nice sounding amplified speakers at a great price in the neighborhood of $700, and you eliminate the need for an amp. I've heard plenty of "high-end" audiophile systems that were not as enjoyalbe to listen to.  

I must also confess that I liked a lot of Nathan's music, and some of it was Metal! It was complex, sophisticated, and musical. One track even included a violin. I have a feeling, though, that Nathan only brought over the real tame stuff. His personally produced audition CD was very impressively engineered, along with the artwork.

[nathanm]

I don't think off-axis response enters into it when they are that close.  If anything it may make it worse.  It was simply that the speakers were only 5 feet apart that there was no imaging to my ears.  Actually I think if the speakers had a narrow, beamy dispersion pattern and they were placed that close together the imaging would be improved because there would be less acoustic crosstalk between the two.

In my experience there's always a point at which you move the speakers further and further apart and then there's a phantom sound source which appears and belies what your eyes are seeing. You'd swear there was a center speaker.  With the Timepieces that close this did not happen for me, it was more like glorified mono.  The sound was very much tied to the speaker baffles.  But indeed the Dynaudios were better in the same position, because I think their baffle size was smaller.  Still, it wasn't a placement that I myself would choose.  Again, it's just a personal preference; I prefer a much wider sound field. I like to not actually see the speakers in my direct, straight ahead field of view, but rather nearing the borders of peripheral vision.

The Mackies are about $750 each, so about $1500 for a pair.  Although the Timepieces are probably superior performers I personally don't think they are anywhere near $3000 better IMHO. ($2800 + $1600 estimate for amp=$4400 - $1500 = $2900)

[lonewolfny42]

I must also confess that I liked a lot of Nathan's music, and some of it was Metal!

Hey Jerry , Was it the Pat Boone, "In a Metal Mood" cd ?..........

[infiniti driver]

Let me look at nathans review from context as well as the overall judgement.

One, Nathan had some very strong comments with these speakers.

Of them, here they are:


These things are MUCH bigger than I imagined. They oughtta photograph these things next to a soda can or something. But big is good, I don't think I've ever seen a speaker I thought was too big! I like the lack of a grill. Nice not to have those ugly plastic doohickeys mucking up the face.



The Timepieces had superb transient attack and overall very clean, clear and tight sounding. close together.
Edit>>

 off-axis response was great. The sound didn't suffer at all when moving your head, getting out of the chair, or walking around.

To me this is an extremely important attribute for a speaker, regardless of the reality of actually doing any of those things when concentrating on a particular album.

The Timepieces are extraordinarily inefficient and you better budget for either a multi-kilobuck hifi SS amp, or save your pennies and get the biggest baddest pro audio PA amp you can lay your hands on. They gladly soaked up 800 watts from my QSC amp and even lit the clip LEDS on big transients. Yikes! We had the volume trims on the QSC cranked and the preamp was nearing the end of its travel and although it was good 'n loud I was not ready to cover my ears or anything. The Odyssey coped very well, but you don't get the luxury of input LED readouts or anything to know how hard its being hit. Apparently that whole "high current" thingy, I dunno what that's all about. In any case, think gargantuan muscle amps for these things if you like it loud.

I would've loved to take them home with me and try them in my usual speaker locations.





Most of the tracks I brought along did not sound as good as what I was used to in the frequency ranges I enjoy. They were able to produce bass on certain orchestral tracks, but you really had to have the volume up and still there wasn't the overhang I like - like when a guy pounds an orchestral bass drum it should sound like the sound is being poured into your room like molten lava. With the Timepieces it was just a quick bloop of thunder and then nothing. Hmph.

(Perhaps the loudspeaker is tracking the signal rather than the room)

This Strauss disc Jerry played had lots of explosive sound effects on it and when those went off it looked like the woofers were about to fly out, but it was kind of a thin explosion, no lower frequency thud.


(Perhaps the loudspeaker is tracking the signal rather than the room)


 
In comment, I find it very astounding that you would feel the huge difference in performace except for the fact that it does take many days with a listening space for that space to settle in to your likes or needs. Perhaps it was inadaquate for your listening tastes, no less, I did pluck (out of context, I know I am guilty) some attributes that still keep the reviewers on simalar ground.


Also, the power situation. We all know the difference in volume between 1 watt and 2 watts, and the difference between 800 watts and 1600 watts to be the same difference exactly, sans loudspeaker compression or distortion or amplifier distortion or lack of Drawing current available. Perhaps his room may not be the best...but given the above comments in such room, I still fell the review positive...and remember, the beaming that Nathan spoke of was not a charachter of the SP's or he would not have said this statement at all:



off-axis response was great. The sound didn't suffer at all when moving your head, getting out of the chair, or walking around.


All in all, I stand by their ability to be an ACCURATE loudspeaker and then the room may need the work( to satisfy personal tastes)...as stated in my review.

Nathan, thank you for your insight.