[ooheadsoo]

I bought Bob's Presence AV-2 kit.  I'm still putting it together, actually...taking my sweet time    Just been too busy wrapping up my schooling.

I hope to have it finished in two weeks with any luck.

If I like what I hear, I'll probably save up some dough whenever I get around to securing a real job and pick up something in the MR line.

[lonewolfny42]

I bought Bob's Presence AV-2 kit.  I'm still putting it together, actually...taking my sweet time    Just been too busy wrapping up my schooling.

I hope to have it finished in two weeks with any luck.

If I like what I hear, I'll probably save up some dough whenever I get around to securing a real job and pick up something in the MR line.

Great....good luck with it !!! I've not heard one, so I'll watch for your comments....thanks !!

[Aether Audio]

Daemon,

Welcome to our circle!  Sorry I've been a bit scarce lately - a big project owns most of my time these days.  In fact, as a heads up to the rest of the other guys...that's going to be the case from here on out for some time.  I'm hoping DU will be able to fill in for me here on the circle, to do what he can to answer your questions.  He knows our stuff as well as just about anybody on the planet.

Any opinion on the Contimuum vs the Timepiece and the Contimuum's higher bass floor on paper?...

The answer is relatively simple.  In order to "tune" a driver/box combination to get the lowest possible response, a certain box volume is needed.  If you use two of the same drivers in a box, then you need twice the box volume of a single driver to get the same -3dB point (F3).

The Continuum A.D. box IS NOT twice the volume of the Timepiece 2.1 - yet it has two drivers instead of one.  Something's gotta give...and that happens to be that the F3 is raised in frequency as a consequence.  You do get twice the power handling at frequencies above its F3 compared to the Timepiece though - and all the other advantages the MTM design offers.  The Continuum would have been just too big if we had made the volume twice that of the Timepiece - so that's why the higher F3.

Besides, we decided if you wanted the full bass extension two of those drivers could provide, we figured a full floor stander was called for.  Hence, the Continuum 2.5 and its F3 at 25Hz.

Hope this helps!
-Bob

[Double Ugly]

Daemon - Additional Answers from Bob

1,  Are either of the drivers in the timepiece suspended by that nasty foam stuff that disintegrates fairly rapidly and expensively in the Australian climate (like it does in my poor old ARs; I have a couple of boxes of dead Teledyne AR drivers)?

"No.  It's butyl rubber - won't disintegrate."
 

2.  Why do the specs for the contimuum (I think that's what the d'appolito looking model is called), give it a lesser bass response than the timepiece?

Answered above.

3.  If you don't take the Cardas option, what do they have for binding posts?

"'Cliff'" brand, gold plated posts with red & black plastic nuts.  Not expensive but well constructed."

4.  How is the wave guide thingy different from the bit of horn loading so many other manufaturers use when they put their tweeters in a dimple (not suggesting that it isn't different, just that I don't get it)?

"Similar... but has much more loading at the low end of the tweeter's operating range.  Sort of complicated and somewhat proprietary."[/list:u]

[Daemon]

Thank you Mr Ugly, Bob, Bica, Wolf, and everyone else. If nothing else SPT owners are more than usually helpful and responsive.

I don't mind if the opinion comes from a biased company related viewpoint, but I really would love a subjective comparison of the sound of the Timepiece and the Continuum. It's pretty hard to know what you'd be giving up and gaining in choosing one over the other.

P.S. wife is not happy that they won't vibrate her bones and that they'd be too heavy to cuddle, but if it stops her from cavorting around the room to the end of the speaker wire run with them, it's all good.

[Double Ugly]

Thank you Mr Ugly,

You're welcome.

I don't mind if the opinion comes from a biased company related viewpoint, but I really would love a subjective comparison of the sound of the Timepiece and the Continuum. It's pretty hard to know what you'd be giving up and gaining in choosing one over the other.

I've only heard the first generation of each, and according to Bob, the differences/improvements of the Continuum over the Timepieces are much more pronounced now due to the upgraded tweeter and crossover.  That said, I’ll give it a shot.

At a minimum, you will experience even less distortion in the midrange and bass due to the signal being shared by two drivers.  All else being equal (i.e. assuming they're covering the same frequencies), doubling the cone area reduces the excursion requirement at any given frequency by 6db.  This 6dB reduction equals a 75% reduction in cone excursion.

Those are just numbers, but it’s something you need to experience first-hand to truly appreciate what it means to the listener…even when compared to the Timepieces, which are themselves a highly optimized design.  

Additionally, you gain the almost perfectly symmetrical vertical dispersion characteristics provided by a properly optimized MTM design (most aren’t).  The Timepieces are good, but the Continuums (and of course, the Revelations) are even better.

In short, the Continuums play louder, produce less distortion at any volume, and offer much higher resolution and detail, particularly in the upper bass and midrange.  All told, you’re treated to a more musical, more natural presentation…organic would be my word of choice.

And finally, if you want even more low end extension than the Timepieces, you can opt for the Continuum 2.5s (-3dB @ 25Hz).

Hope that helps.  

P.S. wife is not happy that they won't vibrate her bones and that they'd be too heavy to cuddle, but if it stops  ...

Properly set-up, I don't think your wife will miss a thing.  I submit the visceral dynamics of these speakers - either of them - will "vibrate her bones" to the extent that she won't feel the need to cuddle with them...and perhaps will cuddle with you instead.  

[bhobba]

Thank you Mr Ugly, Bob, Bica, Wolf, and everyone else. If nothing else SPT owners are more than usually helpful and responsive. I don't mind if the opinion comes from a biased company related viewpoint, but I really would love a subjective comparison of the sound of the Timepiece and the Continuum. It's pretty hard to know what you'd be giving up and gaining in choosing one over the other

Two woofers - less distortion - especially at higher volumes.  But unless you listen at those levels it may not result in much of an audible improvement (in fact I don't think it would - but Bob is the expert - not me).  As to what I would choose - to me it would be all or nothing - the Timepiece or the Revelation - but I listen at lowish volumes. If you are tempted to get the Continuum's I would go the whole hog and get the revelations whose bass is simply the best there is. I intend to upgrade eventually.  If you want a really 'cuddly' design with the benifits of MTM for midrange distortion etc think about the new Radience - it does not go as low however.  Regarding finsih have you thought about getting them in raw MDF for an even lower price and get a cabinet maker to finsh them exactly how you want?  Less GST and markup due ot the Australian dollar.

Thanks
Bill

[Double Ugly]

As to what I would choose - to me it would be all or nothing - the Timepiece or the Revelation - but I listen at lowish volumes.

Or you can follow my lead, and get both.  

If you are tempted to get the Continuum's I would go the whole hog and get the revelations whose bass is simply the best there is.

If the few extra thousand dollars isn't a concern, I agree.

Regarding finsih have you thought about getting them in raw MDF for an even lower price and get a cabinet maker to finsh them exactly how you want? Less GST and markup due ot the Australian dollar.

An option worth considering regardless of the speaker IMO, but an especially attractive alternative should you decide on Revelations.

[Daemon]

The few extra thousand dollars is definitely a concern, especially as they're US dollars.

Thanks for all the help people, you've given me alot to think about and I appreciate it plenty.

[Bill Baker]

If I like what I hear, I'll probably save up some dough whenever I get around to securing a real job and pick up something in the MR line.

 It doesn't matter what you think of the AV-2, you owe it to yourself to audition one of the models from the MR-line. These are completely different animals in comparison to the Essence line.

 I think you will like what you hear from the AV-2 providing you take th etime to assemble properly and use the proper techniques inside the cabinet. making the proper choices inside the speaker cabinet can be just as important as the speaker choosen to begin with.
 Then there is the x-over..........

 After all is said and done, you still have a speaker that is worlds apart from the SP MR line. As good as the Essence line can sound, they are simply different animals.

[ooheadsoo]

Hi Bill.  The main thing I want to evaluate is the effect of the waveguide, and I hope the AV-2 can give me a taste of that.

[Bill Baker]

The main thing I want to evaluate is the effect of the waveguide, and I hope the AV-2 can give me a taste of that.

 That you will get but even then, keep in mind the differences in the tweeters used between the two models.
 The Waveguide is very impressive. Many will think of it as more of a "horn" which in some ways, they are similar. The Waveguide is more than just a horn shaped carving into a piece of wood. Bob is simply a genius and the Waveguide was designed rather than just implemented.
 I have both versions of the Bellas here as well as a pair of Continuums and the design continues to impress me every day.
 Hurry up and get those speakers done so we can hear your thoughts

[ooheadsoo]

Btw, I'm surprised no one has picked up on your Bella AV-2 demo sale.  What a smoking deal!  I think I very well might have picked that up if the timing had been different.  This kit's taking me a while to get around to  

[Daemon]

One more question guys, and thanks for being so helpful to date (you should see what I go through to get opinions on Australian made speakers).

What are they like at low level. I would define low level as being able to converse with someone sitting next to me, in a normal voice, without straining to hear their reply over the music. Mid level as having to strain to make out their words, and high level as not being able to hear anything else but the speaker output.

Alot of speakers flatten out at low level, most drop their bass off first (I know, it's a frequency energy thing), and many stop soundstaging well or otherwise just go to shite. The more 'audiophile' a speaker is it seems, the more likely it is to die in the arse at low level (note the correct spelling for arse you americans you).

I listen at low to mid level alot, especially when I have a brain ache, so I'd like your impressions of the Timpiece and or Continuum at low level, and how it changes as the volume climbs.

Thanks again everybody (and comiserations LoneWolf, people on the other side of the world have thought about you and your loss: Your mother's time has sent a ripple around the globe).

[Russell Dawkins]

My response as a newcomer to TPs, just having had mine for 5 days, is that they're great at low levels.

I was playing (my) piano recording quietly the other day, just relishing the best reproduction of piano I think I've heard - certainly the best I've heard this recording and I've heard it a lot on many systems, not to speak of hours listening critically to it during the mixing and mastering process.

I went outside the backdoor, which is quite heavy solid wood for a smoke (so shoot me) and to relax for a minute. The music really was quite quiet - you could talk quietly in front of the speakers and be understood, yet when I was outside the closed door, I could hear those occasional piano notes jump out as they do in real life. It sounded like a real piano being played through 2 doors.

One of the reasons I went with TPs in the first place was their purported lack of dynamic compression, but I never thought I would notice it at such low levels. On dynamic music, though, I seem to.

I am reminded of just how dynamic the piano can be, especially if the life is not squeezed out of it by compression during post production.

I feel that my amp is not really fully up to the task of driving them with its 120/210 watts into 8/4 ohms (Musical Fidelity A3CR). In fact I would council that these speakers would be wasted if you were planning to use a typical solid state amp of those performance figures. There would be exceptions that seem to perform beyond their ratings, like, from all reports, Dan Banquer's LNPA 150.

At much higher levels, as high as I can cleanly go, they seem to sound basically exactly the same - no sense of strain. What a relief! As a result, I am able to play my system at basically the same levels as I could with the much more efficient Tannoy Ardens (94dB/W) that I replaced with these.

I am presuming this is because there is so little distortion from the speaker as I turn up the wick that I am able to use all the amp can give, whereas with the Tannoys the efficiency didn't help because my tolerance of distortion was the limiting factor in how loud I could turn it up. I now know this must have been well short of the amps ultimate output. This was completely unexpected and a serious bonus. That means I can take my time to choose an amp.

In choosing my amp, I am tempted to compromise ultimate quality in favour of big power, like 400-500 watts into 8 ohms.

************

They have one characteristic that reminds me of a story I heard about Quad 57s back in the 60s where some lady in Montreal returned hers to the store, saying they were "too realistic" and made unsuitable speakers for background music. They were too distracting and she kept on thinking someone had come in the house.

There's a bit of that with the TPs - hard not to pay attention to the music even when it's played very, very softly.

Reading between the lines of your email, Daemon, I'd say you wouldn't be disappointed

[Daemon]

Thanks Russell,

Very heartening that. I appreciate the time you took to give me a detailed answer. One of the reasons my Piano' collection is so scant, is that the instrument usually sounds so flat, harsh and grating on a typical loudspeaker, compared to an average concert piano (say, an old steinway) in the same room with me.

Thanks again

[Bill Baker]

I have to agree with Russell on this one. A few weeks back I had someone come in to discuss advertising. I had the Continuums playing when they arrived and turned them down so we could speak. I did not turn them down all the way rather enough so that we could talk without distraction.

 Note that these people were not audiophiles in any sense of the word.

 About ten minutes into our "meeting", I noticed one of them kept turning his head and looking around. I originally thought he was just checking out the place and the gear. After the third time, I asked him if something was wrong. His words were "Not at all, I just can't believe how real Louis (Louis Armstrong) sounds with the stereo down that low. Can you crank it up a bit".

 This was a brand new 200g vinyl pressing so there was absolutely no noise. After they left, I turn it back down again and continued to listen to the Continuums at these very low levels. Other than that absolute dynamic SLAM, I did not feel anythng was lost.

 The amp was my 70 watt Reference Jolida 801.

[Double Ugly]

Hi Daemon,

One of the reasons my Piano' collection is so scant, is that the instrument usually sounds so flat, harsh and grating on a typical loudspeaker, compared to an average concert piano (say, an old steinway) in the same room with me.

If I may take the topic astray for a moment, I suggest you consider Paul Cantelon's Point No Point.  Not only is it perhaps the best piano recording I've ever heard, but it was produced and engineered by the one and only Russell Dawkins.

See my post here for a bit more info, but I kid you not...you'll be hard-pressed to find a better recording of the piano anywhere.  If you do, please let me know and I'll buy it.  Till then, Point No Point is my piano reference.

[Daemon]

I'll take you up on that Mr Ugly, but not until I get rid of these old AR speakers, thank you for the suggestion.

[Bill Baker]

HI Jim,
 I just spent a few moments auditioning some of the tracks from this recording. While I obviously cannot tell much about the quality of the recording from my "eMachines" speakers, I can say this recording will be in my posession by next week. I can't wait to hear it on a decent system!!!
 Thanks for the heads up.