Notes on the Timepiece 2.1

Bica · « **on:** 12 Feb 2006, 04:36 pm »

Truthful-sounding.
No added excitement in the mid-high range, hence a tasteful sound.
Remains detailed and interesting at very low volumes--a pleasant surprise and not at all usual for an 85-dB speaker.
Low bass on track one of Blade Runner gets reproduced accurately and convincingly; not even all large speaker systems can do that.
The Quad ESL57 I've been using for the best part of the past two years appears to sound more "transparent" in comparison, and feels more intimate.
But the Timepiece's presentation of the music is just more authentic.
Unless an electrostatic subwoofer is available for the ESL57, and goes down to 30 Hz (-3 dB), hard to go back to the Quad after the Timepiece.

More later.

reefrus · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Feb 2006, 05:35 pm »

Quote from: bica

Unless an eletrostatic subwoofer is available for the ESL57, and goes down to 30 Hz (-3 dB), hard to go back to the Quad after the Timepiece.

Hi Bica,
My beloved SoundLab A-1s have been sitting on the side line for a very long time since the Revelation's have been in action.

Welcome on board! I'll stop by to visit you when I go back to Taiwan next trip.

Carlman · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 Feb 2006, 10:54 pm »

Cool... I hope to hear Bob's speakers in the next month or so.. whenever he can send them. I'm hoping to compare them to some Salk's or possiblly something else... but will at least be compared to what I'm using currenlty, modified Usher x-718's.

I wish there were a dealer in NC that had these...

Bica · « **Reply #3 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 12:21 am »

Quote from: reefrus

My beloved SoundLab A-1s have been sitting on the side line for a very long time since the Revelation's have been in action.
Welcome on board! I'll stop by to visit you when I go back to Taiwan next trip.

Steve, you're absolutely welcome and hopefully my new show room will be ready by the time you visit Taipei.

The A-1 must be a good speaker. I had the chance to listen to a pair of A-3 at a friend's place whilst in the Bay area. Very very nice indeed. My friend told me that SoundLab places an equalization circuit right at the speaker input, which eats power and might have degraded the sound. Moving the equalization to before the power amp is his next step. I look forward to hearing the result.

Bica · « **Reply #4 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 12:39 am »

I've heard several other speakers spec'ed to go down to 30 Hz, even 20 Hz, @-3 dB, in different environments. In only few occasions were they able to deliver the kind of low bass performance from the Timepieces. The latter have, so far, consistently delivered superb low bass performance in the two completely different environments I've heard them.

Why? Other than frequency response, what other measurements can really tell the whole story of low bass reproduction?

Bob?

Bica · « **Reply #5 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 12:39 am »

[duplicate posting removed]

reefrus · « **Reply #6 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 01:24 am »

Quote from: bica

I've heard several other speakers spec'ed to go down to 30 Hz, even 20 Hz, @-3 dB, in different environments. In only few occasions were they able to deliver the kind of low bass performance from the Timepieces. The latter have, so far, consistently delivered superb low bass performance in the two completely different environments I've heard them.

That's exactly how I felt when I discovered TP 2.0. In the last couple of years when I've had a chance to listen to other speakers from other companies ranging in price even as high as $120K, I've been amazed that the bass output was not even as good at the SP Revelations. This makes you wonder if it's pure engineering or just hype??

According to Bob, when they initially developed the Timepiece 2.0, the purpose was for the recording industry, and that's why it's so true to the source.

Aether Audio · « **Reply #7 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 03:29 am »

Quote

The Timepiece's presentation of the music is just more authentic.

...hard to go back to the Quad after the Timepiece.

Can somebody say WOW here? You're comparing the Timepieces to the Quad ESL 57's?!!! Not only is that a true electrostatic, but it's a classic and it's based on principles of operation that no other speaker in the world has duplicated. There's guys that would give up a testicle before letting go of their Quads. OK, I'll say it...WOW!

That's it, the price just went up to $10K/pair. (Just kidding.)

And then Steve's got his $20K Soundlabs essentially in "mothballs" in favor of his Revelations? People, are you getting a clue here? I know our stuff isn't for everybody, but at this point I'm begining to wonder why we aren't back ordered for at least a year. Much more in the way of these kinds of testimonials and I'm definitely going to have to go to the bank! Then I'm going to have to hire a business manager because an ignorant boob like me can't handle that level of management.

Quote

Other than frequency response, what other measurements can really tell the whole story of low bass reproduction?

Distortion... Linear, Non-Linear and Time. The first two are basically T.H.D and Intermodulation distortion artifacts and the third is excess phase-shift/group-delay. In all three cases, less is more (better). The first two are very power/dynamics dependent and usually get worse as you pump up the volume. The third is a by-product of design. Moving to our Continuum based products, you benefit from reduced levels of the first two. To improve the third, you have to move up to the Revelation. In all models, frequency response extension is actually the smallest factor governing performance.

-Bob

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 03:37 am »

Bob....

Quote

I know our stuff isn't for everybody, but at this point I'm begining to wonder why we aren't back ordered for at least a year.

[/list:u]

Chris[/list:u]

Carlman · « **Reply #9 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 03:40 am »

I agree with Chris... How about a demo tour, Bob?

Maybe something in a nice studio finish?

Nothing says lovin' like a Valentine's speaker tour!

Bica · « **Reply #10 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 03:59 am »

Quote from: Carlman

I agree with Chris... How about a demo tour, Bob?
Maybe something in a nice studio finish?

Not the studio finish, please!

Bica · « **Reply #11 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 01:45 pm »

Experimented with amp rolling and bi-amping.

Differences between the NuForce Ref. 9, Ref. 9 SE and Ref. 8 were clearly, and easily, told on the Timepieces. More so than on the ESL57--likely because of the Timepiece's complete spectrum coverage, at least a full octave more at the low end.

The Timepieces sound at home with no toe-in. This is also a trait of the NuForce amp, or a trait for components with exceptional phase coherence in my experiences. I feel more at ease with the speakers looking straight ahead, instead of at me.

I am completely happy with the synergy between the Modwright and the NuForce. That is, until the arrival of the VSE RTP3D, and the six-month after-arriving $10k NuForce P-10.

More later.

Bill Baker · « **Reply #12 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 01:56 pm »

Quote

The Timepieces sound at home with no toe-in.

While I don't have my Timepieces here yet. I would say some experimentation would be in order. With the wide dispersion of the Waveguide, you may not need any toe in at all. Every room will react differently with any given combination of components.

With the Bellas (same Waveguide cabinet "design" but not same cabinet construction), I found a little toe in worked nicely in some applications. Either way, you will find a very nice spacious soundstage while still having that pinpoint image almost like having a center channel. Best of 3 worlds!!

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 06:51 pm »

Except for room aesthetics considerations, I don't understend why everyone doesn't orient speakers, especially ones that have smooth off-axis response, to have their axes cross in front of the central listening position, to widen the "sweet spot". This would seem to me to apply particularly to all the SP Tech speakers and others with properly implemented waveguides, since the roll-off to the sides occurs right down to the low end of the HF driver's operating range.

The idea is that as you move to the right from center, for example, and move closer to the right speaker, you are moving further off the right speaker's axis and closer to the left speaker's axis.

If the left speaker is slightly louder than the right speaker when the listener is slightly right of center, this can somewhat compensate for the arrival time from the right speaker being earlier than that from the left speaker and produce a more-or-less centered image.

This can result in a sweet spot 3 seats wide instead of one.

The central seating position is not compromised, either, if the off axis response is sufficiently accurate at the angle chosen.

In practice, many speakers sound and measure a little better at 5 - 10º off axis, anyway.

The degree of toe-in can be adjusted with a mono signal.

Bica · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 03:53 am »

Quote from: Russell Dawkins

...The idea is that as you move to the right from center, for example, and move closer to the right speaker, you are moving further off the right speaker's axis and closer to the left speaker's axis.

If the left speaker is slightly louder than the right speaker when the listener is slightly right of center, this can somewhat compensate for the arrival time from the right speaker being earlier than that from the left speaker and produce a more-or-less centered image.

This can result in a sweet spot 3 seats wide instead of one.
...

Very good information, Russell. I didn't pay too much attention to the sweet spot width whilst positioning the Timepieces. I'll experiment with it later tonight.

In my listening room and with my system, I found toeing in the Timepieces made the center stage imaging (vocals, for example) a bit large for my taste. The presentation also became more in-your-face. This is the reason I settled with no toe-in for now.

Bica · « **Reply #15 on:** 3 Mar 2006, 01:00 am »

Now that the Timepieces were well run-in, I moved them to my living room this weekend. The room is approximately 4.5 meters (14 feet) wide and 13 meters in depth. The back of the room is actually our dinning area and kitchen, and I placed the Timepieces at around 6 meters from the listener side's wall, with each only 50 cms from the side wall. They were toed-in this time, facing directly at the listener.

The Timepieces throw out a huge soundstage behind them, without any hint of truncation. However vocals and instruments remain focused and of the right size, unlike on some line-source towers, where things often got enlarged.

So far, the one thing I especially like about the Timepiece is that on good classical music recordings, its timbre and ambience information remind me of what I heard at a concert hall or opera house. On many systems with exceptional 3-D capabilities, I often felt that the presentation was too "hi-fi" (sort of like a spectacular show, if you know what I mean). Not so on the Timepiece.

Is the Revelation MR-1, with its MTM configuration (which I don't personally favor), really better than the Timepiece? That's something I need to find out.

DSK · « **Reply #16 on:** 3 Mar 2006, 04:35 am »

Quote from: Bica

...They were toed-in this time, facing directly at the listener. ...

Bica, did you try Russell's suggestion of crossing their axes in front of the central listener location? If so, how did it compare at the central position and from the listening positions to the side of this?

Bica · « **Reply #17 on:** 3 Mar 2006, 07:11 am »

Quote from: DSK

Bica, did you try Russell's suggestion of crossing their axes in front of the central listener location? If so, how did it compare at the central position and from the listening positions to the side of this?

Not yet...

It's a sofa for 1.5 persons (yes, one and a half

) that is currently sitting on the sweet spot. I'll move my 4-person long sofa over to the listening position, and then will do experiments following Russell's suggestion. There should be no doubt that the sweet spot will be much wider--all I need to find out is whether the sonic performance will remain as great along the wider sweet spot.

(Listening) Time is so precious--especially when your system is making such good sound--that it might take a while before I report back on the findings.

DSK · « **Reply #18 on:** 4 Mar 2006, 01:02 am »

Quote from: Bica

Not yet...

It's a sofa for 1.5 persons (yes, one and a half ) that is currently sitting on the sweet spot. I'll move my 4-person long sofa over to the listening position, and then will do experiments following Russell's suggestion. There should be no doubt that the sweet spot will be much wider--all I need to find out is whether the sonic performance will remain as great along the wider sweet spot.

(Listening) Time is so precious--especially when your system is making such good sound--that it might take a while before I report back on the findings.

Yes, I understand completely. However, you could do a 'quick test' by simply kneeling beside the listener seat to evaluate the sweetspot width ...and of course, sitting in the current seat to evaluate any changes at the central position. Saves dragging couches around.

Bica · « **Reply #19 on:** 4 Mar 2006, 02:55 pm »

Roger that DSK. I actually got a stool.

I toed in the Timepieces further to make their axes cross in front of the central listener's position.

Sitting in the center--the soundstage and imaging became a bit unnatural. Something was not quite right. Moving to the left or right from the central seat, the imaging/soundstaging didn't really remain unaffected, either.

I also experimented with no toe-in and about only 10 degrees of toe-in. With no toe-in, the soundstage extended beyond the two speakers' outer sides--occasionally, with my eyes open, I would feel as if certain instruments' sound was projecting directly from the speaker's position; More careful listening (or closing my eyes) confirmed that the instruments were actually imaged beyond the speaker's outer side and a bit to the back, placing the speaker right between the instruments and me--hence the aforementioned perception.

A 10-degree toe-in narrowed the soundstage a bit, thus no such illusions.

Imaging is slightly different with no toe-in and slight toe-in--I am still trying to decide which sounds more natual, or suits me the best. More later.