Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 14651 times.

Tbadder1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #20 on: 5 Dec 2005, 04:20 pm »
right or wrong

audiojerry

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1355
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #21 on: 5 Dec 2005, 06:09 pm »
bhobba wrote:
Quote
in the final analysis we can judge the sound for ourselves - which generally means for guys like me some kind of blind listening test.

With SP speakers, I guarantee you will have no problem recognizing them in a blind test. Like them or not, they have the most distinctive and impactful sound of any speaker I've heard.

Aether Audio

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 775
    • http://www.aetheraudio.com
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #22 on: 5 Dec 2005, 07:50 pm »
WOW!

Didn't know there'd be this much interest.  Dan, I'm with you - I love these kinds of discussions.

But, I'd like to inject something with regards to science.  I agree, it is inexact.  When my boys were litlle they'd ask me what this or that was, and/or why (they usually chose a pretty obscure topic :banghead: ).  I would answer them, "well...tell me what anything is and I'll tell you what everything is."

In all our efforts, we really can't define anything or resolve it down to its fundamental nature.  In the end science tells us that all matter is essentially energy.  What's energy?  The ability to do work on matter!  It's nothing but a vicious loop.  What the hell is anything - everything?  Tell me one and I'll tell yo the rest.

What is life?  Animate matter?  Created? Evolved? Both? Neither?  Evolution is on the run these days though.  "Irreducable Complexity"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

is the greatest challange it has ever faced.  Does that prove there's a God.  Not to the person that has made up his mind otherwise.  God by His nature is experienced.  Science can neither create nor exinguish experience.  If it attempts to define the undefineable, it comes up blank.  If God was succinctly defineable, He wouldn't be God - hence science draws a blank.  One's interpretation of  the information provided by science may lead them to dismiss the existance of God, not the findings of science itself.  Interpretation of information is a byproduct of experince and is therefore unique to each individual. Scientists frequently argue over the meaning of data, why shouldn't everybody else?

Does science define experience? No.  Does it explain it.  Maybe...to some degree.  It better or we're all really in trouble.  In the end though it's nothing more than a looking glass - a tool.  If at some primal level all existence and matter possess some form of the infinite, then science will forever be chasing behind.  Several hundred years of scientific investigation seems to be showing that to be the case, as you've clearly pointed out.

Has Newton been replaced?  Depends on what your expecting of him.  He still gets our DISH Network satellites in orbit and probes to Titan, but he can't take us to the neighboring galaxy.  For that we turn to Einstein.  But even he ain't much use - even with his wormholes.  But he has helped us to understand our limits so that we at least realize how much deeper science has to dig.

Science is nothing more than a place to stand to get a better view.  It can never tell us what lies beyond the horizon of that view...but I would submit that a better view is better than total blindness.

Our speakers are designed on the principles of nature that science has so far been able to discover - to the best of our ability.  According to the reviews, nature knows what it's doing.  In the end, if anything defines our experience - it is nature.  Rather than dismissing science for its failure to succinctly define nature, I prefer to use it like a guiding light in helping me to follow after. :D

-Bob

-Bob

Tbadder1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #23 on: 5 Dec 2005, 11:42 pm »
Actually I'm a huge believer in Science.  Anything that admits it is wrong at times, is humble enough to understand it can only approximate truth (unlike religion) is okay in my book.  But as a teacher I have to play devil's advocate, and the numbers don't make speakers and notes don't make music--people do.  In both cases I think it is our ears that are the most sophisticated measuring device.  And next measurement tool in line?  The human spirit, the artistic compunction.  It is the combination of Art and Science that best serves humnaity in general and audiophilia specifically.  Intelligent design?  Lets leave that to the Inquistion and the faux science of alchemy.  That's just an expression of the closedmindedness of hateful people who would seek to control us and our speakers (pun very much intented). :o

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #24 on: 6 Dec 2005, 03:57 am »
Hmmmmmmm.  Interesting stuff but I believe we may be getting beyond the purposes of this forum.  I will endeavor to give my perspectives but if the moderators want to jump in and ask us to shift in somewhere else - that is fine by me.

Quote from: Tbadder1
But Bill facts change all the time.  Facts are the one thing we can't depend on.

I disagree.  Facts remain the same - it is how we interpret them that changes.  For example if at say 10.00 am toady Brisbane time I let a rock go and it fell to earth that is a fact.  If I say that all rocks let go will fall to earth, while not a fact because it is a statement about all instances of rocks being let go even those that may occur in the future, then such is really a conjecture - not a fact.  But most people would still accept such as a fact.  When I say it falls to earth because massive objects curve space-time that is a theory - not a fact.  So facts remain the same - theories codifying those facts change.

Quote from: Tbadder1
Science is that mode of knowledge that says to us, everything you learned yesterday is untrue today.

To me science is that mode of knowledge where we follow the process of test, hypothesize, test, hypothesize over and over.  The hypothesis are sometimes called theories - it is those that change as we discover new facts - the facts to not change - theories do.

Quote from: Tbadder1
If science actually found the real truth, the iltimate fact, it would ceased to exist.

Every scientific theory - every single one - is based on assumptions that the theory does not explain.  Although what those assumptions are sometimes not that appreciated - see
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html
Bob on his site has also made reference to another one 'To his thinking, it was as though their education in acoustics had not been built upon a fundamental understanding of Natural Law and the "least action principles" of the CREATED UNIVERSE.'  It is a fact that every fundamental physical theory we currently know is expressible in terms of a principle of least action.  In fact something else even more amazing occurs - in the language of mathematical physics those PLA's are expressible in terms of the scalar curvature of some kind of geometric space - why that is a deep mystery.

Quote from: Tbadder1
Ask yourself, how much of science in the 1800s is true in the 2100s--not very much I'd say.  Even Netwon has taken quite a hit.  Will the facts of the 31st century be close to the 21st century?  No way.

Scientific theories are not facts.

Quote from: Tbadder1
Measurements are about context, the machines we measure with, as if we could build a machine that's accurate enough to measure correctly. When did we start measuring jitter? What other unmeasurable things are we missing now that we'll discover down the road. And I don't think "it's the only thing we've got" argument works at all. Because the one fact is that people enjoy music and create music, and that no one can argue. How senseless is it to say Mozart is better than Cage? Art doesn't improve, it's just different. Some people will say, "well stereo equipment has definitely improved over the last 100 years." Others will say "stereo has improved since the late 50s", and still others will say "surround sound is a step beakward in recreating music." Some will actually say that mono is better than stereo. These people are committed and serious, not some weirdos. Progress isn't assured, just difference. the violins of the 1600s are far superior to the violins of the 20th century. Now if anyone , including me can follow this argument, then measuring stuff clearly doesn't work--except in one way, the human way, with the ear. Machines don't hear music they register it, and that's not the same thing. The best speakers ever made, the best instruments ever made, have been voiced by a human with a particular notion of what great music is. That's why when someone like myself reviews a piece of equipment, and compares it to similar equipment, is saying very little indeed. How else do you explain vintage gear? I hear McIntosh and old Dahlquists, and Infinity Kappas, and I just wince in pain. While some other person who loves music as much as me has his endorphins ping ponging around his brain. I know I tried to say too much in too few words, but let me try to sum it up in two quotes that deeply affected my philosophy: Walt Whitman "Do I contradict myself, yes I contradict myself, I am multitudes" and Chief Seattle "the world is unknowable, and so we create story." Whatever comes of this discussion, Bob Smith has created an amazing story.

I can not make fun of the above because I believe it is true.

Thanks
Bill

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #25 on: 6 Dec 2005, 04:27 am »
Quote from: SP Pres
In all our efforts, we really can't define anything or resolve it down to its fundamental nature. In the end science tells us that all matter is essentially energy. What's energy? The ability to do work on matter!

Not quite Bob.  That is its definition in introductory mechanics courses.  What it really is was sorted out by Noether in 1915:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
It is the conserved quantity associated with time symmetry in the lagrangeian from the principle of least action you talk about on your site.  Why all the fundamental theories of physics are expressible on terms of the PLA is a deep mystery.  If you are interested in exploring it further I highly recommend a book by the great physicist Lev Landau simply called Mechanics -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0750628960/qid=1133842570/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5077662-2644062?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
If physicists could weep, they would weep over this book. The book is devastingly brief whilst deriving, in its few pages, all the great results of classical mechanics.' and 'The reason for the brevity is that, as pointed out by previous reviewers, Landau derives mechanics from symmetry.'

Quote from: SP Pres
What the hell is anything - everything? Tell me one and I'll tell yo the rest.

I will leave that up to those interested in philosophy

Quote from: SP Pres
What is life? Animate matter? Created? Evolved? Both? Neither? Evolution is on the run these days though. "Irreducable Complexity"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Deep questions to be sure.

Quote from: SP Pres
Has Newton been replaced? Depends on what your expecting of him. He still gets our DISH Network satellites in orbit and probes to Titan,

But curiously for the GPS satelite network GR is required.

Quote from: SP Pres
Science is nothing more than a place to stand to get a better view. It can never tell us what lies beyond the horizon of that view...but I would submit that a better view is better than total blindness.

I would agree with that.

Quote from: SP Pres
Our speakers are designed on the principles of nature that science has so far been able to discover - to the best of our ability. According to the reviews, nature knows what it's doing. In the end, if anything defines our experience - it is nature. Rather than dismissing science for its failure to succinctly define nature, I prefer to use it like a guiding light in helping me to follow after.
 
Well said Bob

Thanks
Bill

Tbadder1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #26 on: 6 Dec 2005, 04:52 am »
Yeah lets get back to the topic!  HEY EVERYONE GREAT SPEAKERS!!!!

P.S.  Bob and Bill.  I really appreciate and respect what you have to say.  You are both obviously more knowledgable about pragmatic science than I am.  I'm a philosopher by degree.  The semantc of "theory" has always intrigued me.  And they way many have misconstrued it, meaning "oh, it's only true, not ultimately provable," so they can put forth their own agendas.

But, I got my eyes on a pair of Sierra monoblocks, 500 watts per.  That oughta make them Continuums purr!

lonewolfny42

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 16918
  • Speakers....What Speakers ?
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #27 on: 6 Dec 2005, 05:04 am »
Quote from: Tbadder1


But, I got my eyes on a pair of Sierra monoblocks, 500 watts per.  That oughta make them Continuums purr!
Ahhh...now your talking... :rock:  :lol:
    Which reminds me of this
thread......(oh, you don't need that much power... :lol:....but you sure can use it... 8) ).[/list:u]

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #28 on: 6 Dec 2005, 07:34 am »
Quote from: lonewolfny42
Which reminds me of this thread......(oh, you don't need that much power... :lol:....but you sure can use it... 8) ).[/list]

Hi Lonewolfny

Yea that was an interesting thread for sure.  And while I said I would give an 8W Charlize a go on the Timepieces its 85db efficiency does give me pause.  Many people find it fine on speakers with 85db sensitivity - but even I would prefer an amp of at least 30w for them (giving about 100db max per speaker).  The continuums are 6db more sensitive for a standard 8ohm watt so I would be more confident about 8W with them (which also equates to about 100db max).  But hey even I agree it would be fun to wind up the wick on SP speakers because they will take it without distress.  I will be powering mine initially from an XR55 then look about for a better solution - which horror of horrors may be some bad ass megawatt job - I will almost certainly wince at the cost though.  I would probably still give the 8W Chalize a go because it is so cheap - but I would not be confident.  Actually the one that looks a goer for me is the new NuForce integrated.  If it sounds better than the XR55 I can see myself getting one.  While it is only 50w continuous I like that it is supposed to go a lot higher on peaks which is where I think you really need the power.  Time will tell.

BTW Lonewolfny I have been reading a lot of your posts lately - great stuff - love em.

Thanks
Bill

lonewolfny42

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 16918
  • Speakers....What Speakers ?
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #29 on: 6 Dec 2005, 07:58 am »
Thanks Bill ! :beer:
    Its not so much that "I" crave wattage, its just that higher wattage sounds so much better with my Timepieces. If you've check my equipement list, you will see many different amps. They all run my speakers...at a certain level, but to get the best from them, I need wattage. I think Dan will find this out...I hope he gets to try a few different amps and relays what he hears.[/list:u]
      Now my speakers were one of the first models produced, so I can't say if the newer models are easier to drive. I see you will order a pair...great...I think they will amaze you...and when you "turn up the wick"...watch out.... :lol: .[/list:u]
        Chris[/list:u]

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #30 on: 6 Dec 2005, 11:51 am »
Quote from: Tbadder1
I'm a philosopher by degree.  The semantc of "theory" has always intrigued me.  And they way many have misconstrued it, meaning "oh, it's only true, not ultimately provable," so they can put forth their own agendas.!

Although a bit off the topic of audio if you are interested in pursuing this take a peek at Victor Stenger who is both a professor of physics and philosophy.  The combination gives an interesting perspective:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
Note I do not necessarily agree with all his views.

Thanks
Bill

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #31 on: 7 Dec 2005, 01:01 am »
Quote from: audiojerry
bhobba wrote:
Quote
in the final analysis we can judge the sound for ourselves - which generally means for guys like me some kind of blind listening test.

With SP speakers, I guarantee you will have no problem recognizing them in a blind test. Like them or not, they have the most distinctive and impactful sound of any speaker I've heard.

I generally have no problem with claims made about the sound of speakers - they are the largest determining factor in a systems sound IMHO.  Although to be consistent one should also subject them to a blind test my comments refer to amplifiers, sources, and cables.  Some claim amplifiers basically all sound the same - I do not agree with this but those that claim it can back it up by blind tests.  For example see the following about the Panny XR55:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=602135

Now I do not agree with this - but to me it does prove the sound differences are subtle and requires care to demonstrate.  By care I mean you need to have it in a system you know well and carry out careful A/B tests.  After you believe you have a handle on the differences then you do a blind test to confirm it.  If I can not pick it blind then guess what - the amp or whatever is returned.

I found the following by Dr Geddes very interesting:
http://www.gedlee.com/audio.htm

It is interesting that he showed off his speakers at the RMAF with a $250.00 amp.  I can not recall coming across any comments that the amp was a problem.

Thanks
Bill

Bill Baker

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 4887
  • Purity Audio Design -Custom Design and Manufacturi
    • Musica Bella Audio
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #32 on: 7 Dec 2005, 01:38 am »
Bill, these comments are not directly aimed at you but your quote allows the conversation to move forward

Quote
Now I do not agree with this - but to me it does prove the sound differences are subtle and requires care to demonstrate
.

 I also do not believe this at all. However I will say that many solid state designs [can] sound similar. This of course does not hold true for tubes. I think many will agree that tube amps usually have their own unique signature. It is not very often that any two tube amps, of similar design, will sound the same. The differences in tube amps is not as subtle as SS designs. There are just to many variables involved.

 I have been hearing over the past year that tubes will fad away once again. While I agree tubes are still a small market in the large sceme of things, I have seen no signs of this coming true. At least not from my standpoint.

 For those who want to try and keep up with the "latest and greatest" technology in solid state and digital switching amps, have at it. I am very comfortable remaining in yesteryear with my tubes.

 Please don't get me wrong here. I do appreciate and enjoy all the different designs now available in the audio world but I prefer to cater to the tube world. It's simply personal preferences. That's all.

audiojerry

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1355
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #33 on: 7 Dec 2005, 02:01 am »
Quote
I am very comfortable remaining in yesteryear with my tubes.

Me Too!!![/quote]

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #34 on: 7 Dec 2005, 10:00 am »
Hi Bill

Quote from: Response Audio
Bill, these comments are not directly aimed at you but your quote allows the conversation to move forward

Great idea.

Quote from: Response Audio
However I will say that many solid state designs [can] sound similar. This of course does not hold true for tubes.

Bill I must bow to your superior experience.  I have not done much comparing between amps in my time and have never seriously compared a valve amp.  Unfortunately they have always been outside my price range.

Quote from: Response Audio
However I will say that many solid state designs [can] sound similar.

This has been my experience as well.  But I have great respect for people like Leo Simpson and Hugh Dean who quite readily can detect differences.

Quote from: Response Audio
I have been hearing over the past year that tubes will fad away once again. While I agree tubes are still a small market in the large scheme of things, I have seen no signs of this coming true. At least not from my standpoint.

The audiophile market will always be small - but they generally want the best - which often means hand built or modified stuff.  You find a lot of valve designs like that.

Quote from: Response Audio
For those who want to try and keep up with the "latest and greatest" technology in solid state and digital switching amps, have at it. I am very comfortable remaining in yesteryear with my tubes.

It is always tempting to switch to the latest fad but those who have been around for a while are generally less easily swayed.  My concern about valves is purely one of cost/performance.  Generally valves cost more - I simply do not want to pay the price - especially here in Australia where we have the exchange rate and GST inflating prices.

Quote from: Response Audio
Please don't get me wrong here. I do appreciate and enjoy all the different designs now available in the audio world but I prefer to cater to the tube world. It's simply personal preferences. That's all.

Well said.

Thanks
Bill

Tbadder1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #35 on: 7 Dec 2005, 02:05 pm »
I always wonder what this line of discussion means?  I like all kinds of amps and own 1 digital, 1 solid state, and 2 tube amps.  I enjoy each and over the years have had roughly equal amounts and listened to equal amounts of ss and valves.  To my ears ss class A, zero feedback amps are clearly superior and offer the best balance.  That said, my 300B is awesome given te right set of circumstances (Jazz combos, acoustic material), same for digital amps I've listened to, if you restrict what you listen to (in this case hard driving rock) they have their place, but only ss class A zero feedback amps can do it all.  Now I will admit that tubes amps make us feel better, especially since we're so involved in them, swapping, biasing, etc.  These are the accoutrements of audiophilia (yes, the disease  :lol: ) and often mistaken for the experience of high fidelity.  And yes this is a friendly needle to our tube friends which of course includes moi! :lol:

Peace
Dan

Aether Audio

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 775
    • http://www.aetheraudio.com
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #36 on: 7 Dec 2005, 02:39 pm »
Dan,

Since you have both tube and switching amps, have you tried either on the Continuums?  Are they tube friendly?  Switcher friendly?  What do you hear with them?  Just curious.

-Bob

Bill Baker

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 4887
  • Purity Audio Design -Custom Design and Manufacturi
    • Musica Bella Audio
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #37 on: 7 Dec 2005, 02:54 pm »
Quote
I always wonder what this line of discussion means? I like all kinds of amps and own 1 digital, 1 solid state, and 2 tube amps.


 God bless you. This is what this hobby is all about. Not all of us are so anal as to be seeking the absolute perfect system. Afterall, it doesn't exist. For me, audio (the system) is what pleases you, not the critics. We all have different taste, listening habit and listening preferences.

Right now I am listeing to a very early DECCA Records pressing of Satchmo's "Louis Armstrong and his Orchestra" on a $500 table playing through less than $5k worth of tube electronics driving $22k speakers. Jeepers Creepers (pun intended) am I Lovin' it :mrgreen:  

 This takes me back to my original saying:

"Build your system for yourself, not the critics"

 Enjoy and happy listening.

audiojerry

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1355
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #38 on: 7 Dec 2005, 03:37 pm »
Quote
Now I will admit that tubes amps make us feel better, especially since we're so involved in them, swapping, biasing, etc. These are the accoutrements of audiophilia (yes, the disease  ) and often mistaken for the experience of high fidelity.

In my case, my affection for tube amps exists despite the annoyance, cost, and inconvenience of swapping, biasing, etc. These necessary tasks add nothing to my hifi experience, but I succumb to them because I succumb the allure of the listening experience derived from those sealed gas glass bottles.

Tbadder1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Review: SP Techology Continuum A.D. MKII
« Reply #39 on: 7 Dec 2005, 06:19 pm »
I really didn't mean my comments to be mean-spirited, only to point out this a crazy lovable pursuit made for lots of different kinds of people.  Heck, based on my amps I'm some schzoid, amp freak.  I'm like 4 different people.  :o  So becareful or I'll get my posse on you!

Bill, how could my switching amp work on the Continuums--it's only 11 watts per channel.  My 300B almost makes 8 watts per.  The push pull makes 70 watts per side but there's other reasons I can't hook it up.

I think damning the critics is a wonderful idea!