[Aether Audio]

Dear Friends,

Grab a cup of coffee, a donut or two and your smokes if you’re given to such and settle in for a marathon.  I hope the webmaster doesn’t dump this for hogging up all of the drive space.  I apologize for the delay in my reponse but I've had a very difficult decision to make.  In light of Jerry’s decision to return the Timepieces, I am reluctantly forced to announce the dissolution of SP Technology Loudspeakers, Inc.  

PSYCH!!!  We’re a little stirred…but not shaken, and we intend to be around for some time to come.  It is upon this premise though, that we will be making some modifications to the “No Risk” deal.  If we don’t, we might not be around long after all.  Financially, this has virtually no effect, as we are building to stock anyway.  The issue has to do with having too many “demo” units that must be reduced in price when they are re-sold.  That kind of loss cannot be recouped.  We’re not about to pull any underhanded tricks either by repackaging used speakers and pawning them off as new.  

Seeing that the following essay is rather long, I will be posting our policy change separately so those of you that are not interested in wading through it all can get to the facts quickly.  And please do not take offense; I make no pretense of being the world’s authority on amplifier design or am I attempting to “grandstand.”  This is only offered to those of you that are interested in my views.

 To start, please bear with this lengthy dissertation but I would like to take some time to explain our motives.  It can be summed up in Jerry’s own words in his review, “Technically, the SP is superior in almost every category” and “I guess I like my speakers to lie to me a little.”  As anyone can see, we have what appears to be a bit of a dichotomy here.  Don’t get me wrong, I find absolutely no fault with Jerry in this whatsoever.  He’s been a very gracious gentleman throughout the whole process and I thank him tremendously.  I also believe that he has  a very keen and refined sense of hearing.

Never the less, the situation does point out a failing in foresight on our part and even a bit of naivety.  We come from an engineering perspective wherein accurate reproduction of the original source is paramount above all else.  Having known within ourselves that what we had achieved with the Timepiece was truly revolutionary, it was our belief that such performance would be the deciding factor in virtually everyone’s decision to purchase.  In defense of this oversight, I must say that up until now, that was the case with all of the other sales we’ve had.  Virtually every other customer has commented that the Timepieces were the best loudspeakers (accurate and realistic reproduction being the key) that they had ever heard, particularly at its size and price point.  We’ve had many in the past that have heard them and not purchased but their professed reason was due simply to a lack of funds and proper associated equipment.  This hobby ain’t cheap!

Jerry’s case is special for us though, only because this is our first encounter with his type of preference in sound reproduction.  I anticipate that he is far from alone in his views.  Now - I am not about to engage in the practice of “tube bashing,” so please don’t take it that way.  I do feel though, the need to point out what is to me obvious in his case from a purely technical standpoint.  Having extensive background myself in amplifier technology, I can say without reservation that, for tube technology to match the performance levels of the “better engineered while still affordable” solid-state designs, the manufacturing costs must be several times those of the equivalently powered solid-state.

The Tube vs. Solid-State Wars:

The fact is, that when properly implemented (still very difficult and somewhat rare), solid-state amplification will reproduce the original source more accurately in a majority of performance areas than tube at a given power vs. price point.  Tube technology IS NOT at all inherently inferior – just different.  It can achieve extremely high performance levels but because of the very high cost of doing so, it is seldom attempted.  Both technologies have certain strengths and weaknesses at frequency extremes (solid-state is good down to DC – tubes excel at U.H.F.)  For the audio frequencies of our concern, both can be engineered nigh unto perfection if cost is not a factor.  

The major limiting factors in tube design are: the requirements of the output transformer that a solid-state amp does not require, the complexity of series/paralleling multiple costly output tubes to achieve equivalently high output power, the need for quality components that are rated to operate at high voltages and temperatures (very expensive) and the practical inability to apply direct coupling methods between amplifier stages (a significant source of distortion).  

In my past work I have been directly responsible for transformer testing and design.  You would not believe how much distortion these devices produce – even before they begin to saturate, let alone when they are forced into mild saturation conditions.  It is a common belief that the more musically pleasing, even-ordered harmonic distortions that tube amplifiers are claimed to produce, are due to the tubes own characteristics.  This is only partially true.  If they are operated in Class B mode (necessary for high power) the crossover notch distortion that occurs at the zero crossing point is of a symmetrical nature.  This will produce odd-ordered harmonics just as in a solid-state design.  

Rather, even-ordered harmonic distortion is the by-product of a non-linearity in one polarity of the source signal and is far more often associated with output transformer saturation due to plate current flow and the resultant hysteresis driven “flux walking” of the core material.  "Flux Walking" is a term used in engineering that refers to an offset of the core material that reults from a type of "memory" characteristic it exhibits.  With the repeated cycling of the core through its B-H loop or "hysteresis cycle," a residual magnetization offset occurs that will gradually "creep" towards one end or the other of its linear range.  This will continue to occur until the core reaches some point of equilibrium and come to rest.  That point then will not be centered in the linear range of its operation and hence, an offset that leads to asymetrical transfer characteristics.  

It is interesting to note that a loudspeaker driver will produce the same effect (frequency “doubling” distortion) due to “flux walking” induced by high drive currents that forces the voice-coil to operate at a point offset from its un-driven rest position.  This too is a result of magnetic field or “flux” asymmetry and is a consequence of inferior (cheap) magnetic structure geometry and/or inferior magnetic materials.

Manufacturers of electric guitar amplifiers intended for use by musicians often employ a neat little trick that takes advantage of this.  They will often design an output transformer that is intentionally underrated; their cores being operated near the non-linear knee of their saturation curve, in order to generate that “warm” tube sound (sorry guys, I guess I ratted you out – tough beans).  The only drawback is that the transformer will eventually get too hot and burn up due to core losses - after extended use.  I’ve fixed a bunch of these on the side myself for an extra buck from time to time.  I’m sure they sell more replacement amps that way too.

My only intention in pointing all of this out is to help you see the importance of that transformer.  In order to avoid such distortions AND extend bandwidth to frequencies below 10 Hz (very important for amplifier damping factor and speaker cone control) an enormously large and expensive transformer is required for high power tube amplification.  We’re talking about huge amounts of silicon steel (to maintain core linearity and avoid saturation on peaks) and large gauge copper windings (to minimize IR losses and maintain as low of a source impedance as possible).

The fact is that most tube amplifier manufacturers choose NOT to completely avoid core saturation.  It makes the amp sound “sweeter” or “warmer” if used judiciously.  Heck, Aphex Systems was built on this very concept.  Way back in the mid 70’s their founder (forgot his name) mis-wired a tube amp he was building at home and derived this wonderful “sound” that imparted all those qualities to the music he played through them.  A brain fart later and he was converting that “mistake” into a solid-state equivalent, rack mount gizmo and selling it to recording engineers for use in “sweetening” their tracks – and it worked great!  They loved what the Aphex Aural Exciter did to make their recordings sound warmer, fuller, airier, etc.  And the thing works it’s magic by using all solid-state electronics – go figure tube lovers!!!  Hence – Aphex Systems was born.  Linda Rondstadt was one of the first artists to use it on her vocals.  She really does sing real good anyway though.  Check ‘em out if you don’t believe me www.aphex.com.

Sooo…if you want accuracy and realism, go solid-state – top notch, that is.  If you want to re-engineer your recordings - go tube.  And I think that all of you that choose the tube route have chosen a path that is just as legitimate as the rest of us.  Music is supposed to be enjoyable and the audio hobbyist should have fun – period.  There is no right or wrong, whatever makes you happy is right for you and I applaud your decision.  The market is big enough for all of us to buy and sell what we enjoy.  Just don’t try to convince me that the available tube amps are more accurate than most good solid-state.  

STOP!  I know all about T.I.M., complex H.F. inter-modulation products, slew induced distortion, excessive negative feedback, etc, etc, etc. -- probably more than many of you (not bragging – just fact).  The fact is, if tubes produced less distortion you wouldn’t buy them.  And please don’t ask me to engineer a speaker that necessarily sounds good with them.  Our speakers might… but that still depends totally on the amp.  To be honest, I don’t know how the other guys do it.  The variables are too complex and trying to shift speaker distortion modes around to find a pleasing combination too much like magic.  That’s far more art than science and I’m no DaVincci.  

To end this chapter, the upshot is that with the need for a huge transformer and many rare and expensive tubes along with the other issues mentioned, you don’t see any high-powered, ultra low distortion tube amps  – they are way too expensive in comparison to equivalently powered solid-state designs.  Just try finding one that will drive a 1-ohm load for any length of time.  Besides, they sell far more of them with the distortion than they would without.  Anybody remember the C----- S----- 7’s?  It was a nice looking, high-powered (350W/Ch.?) tube amp…and it sucked (IMHO)!  C----- permitted way too much distortion in that dog.  Sorry C----- owners, but I’ve heard the thing and it was a sad joke.  $11,000.00+ for a sexy, screaming bitch.  My ears still ache from it.  I guess that’s cheaper (in the long run) than marrying one though.  

Remember friends, all this doesn’t mean that tubes are inherently inferior.  It just means that we’re stuck with having to live with lower powered ones and their inherent, but pleasant distortion.  Even Jerry’s 200 Watt/channel ARC isn’t a large amp by today’s standards.  And he’ll be the first to admit that he doesn’t care much about specs and distortion measurements.  And why should he?  He knows what he likes and that is all that’s necessary for anyone to make a decision on.  We’re not supposed to be listening to theory and design concepts with our systems.  It’s about the music.  Some of us like ours plain so we can savor all of the natural flavor, and others like it hot and spicy.  Who’s right?

The only thing is…

THE TIMEPIECE NEEDS A VERY LOW DISTORTION, HIGH POWERED AMP!!!

That’s just the way it is and I make no excuses.  So for all you accuracy lovin’, realism seekers out there that crave a holographic soundstage, killer dynamics, tight “in your chest” mid-bass and deep bass that you can feel moving the air around you…we got the ticket for you.  Y-e-a-h, bay-bay!  And the price of admission is a goin’ up.  We ain’t catering to those fickle tube jockeys no more.  Only the gods and their shamen have a clue about what will make them fella’s happy.  I tried but I just can’t lay my grubby little fingers on any good pixie dust to sprinkle my speakers with.  

So for you meat and ‘taters guys, here’s the deal:  If you got the amp – we got the speaker and we’re still willing to stick our necks out to prove it.  No sissy amps allowed though.  300Watts per channel minimum into 8-ohms, solid-state or forget it.  You’ll have to convince me you’re in the club as well.  Don’t think you can fool me either.  I can smell a bottle-head a mile away now ‘cause I’ve picked up the scent real good.  Once bitten, twice shy (just kidding Jerry, you’re cool).

All joking aside, we can’t be everything to everybody and there’s no sense trying.  I realize that Jerry’s observation about the lack of “air’ from the Timepiece was in comparison to the Dyne’s being auditioned on the same amp.  This means that the tube issue is not the only cause of his observations.  What it does do is reveal his preferences in sound reproduction in general.  The fact that he prefers the tube “sound” is nothing more than an indicator and only ONE easily identifiable manifestation of his underlying preferences.  

Maybe I’m wrong, but I deduce from this that people that prefer tubes are, in general, highly mercurial yet paradoxically determined in their preferences.  Why else would someone be willing to trade all of the advantages and superior performance offered by the Timepiece (as Jerry himself, has confessed to) in order to satisfy that one rather minor and “ethereal” criteria?  That’s OK though and I applaud his right to do so.  It’s just that we need more assurance that an individual has a greater likelihood of being satisfied with our products before we ship dozens of speakers around the country, only to have a significant number end up returning for such highly subjective reasons.

We still take the position that performance can be analyzed and verified scientifically, at least to a first approximation.  IMHO, every effort must be made to optimize all measurable performance variables before subjective optimization of a product is undertaken.  If a product excels in all measurable areas FIRST, then by default, its performance will be observed to be superior to the majority of unbiased reviewers as compared to other products that fall short in a number of those same areas.  Notice I said the MAJORITY of reviewers – not all.  That majority constitutes the folks that our products are being marketed to.

So Where’s the “Air”?

In Jerry’s review, his main concern was the lack of “air” being reproduced by the Timepiece’s.  What is this quality and why didn’t they deliver?  While I’m sure that there are many that will take issue with the following, I am persuaded that our explanation is more correct than not.

We can all safely assume that this quality of sound reproduction resides in the realm of the tweeter’s operating range.  I will admit that there may be a slight difference in the two different tweeters that has an effect on this quality, but I do not believe that is the major cause.  If it were a simple matter of accuracy, then the Timepiece can hardly be faulted.  One only needs to here the delicate harmonics of a gently brushed cymbal being faithfully reproduced by them to realize the natural and life-like reproduction they provide.  Yet, no “air”?

Once again, I default to the amplifier.  In order to explain, a brief review of amplifier behavior is once again in order.

If one examines the published distortion specs of any amplifier, they will find that harmonic and/or intermodulation distortion is specified in percent of “total rated output.”  This means that the distortion levels are measured as a percentage of the total signal being reproduced by the amplifier when it is being driven to its maximum output power just before the onset of clipping distortion (i.e. hitting its full power limit).

What may not be obvious from this is that ANY decent amplifier will produce the best (lowest) measurements under these conditions.  The reason for this is that distortion and noise are usually of a “static” nature.  “Static” meaning that the levels of these by-products does not change much, regardless of the output power being delivered, until the amplifier reaches its power limit and begins to “clip” the signal.  Then, of course, the distortion levels skyrocket beyond that point.  As a side note, the static levels will usually increase slightly in a tube design as you increase output power.  This is in contrast to a solid-state design, which typically does not (or very little).  The cause of this effect in the tube design is primarily due to the output transformer and will be discussed in length in the following text.

Now at this juncture, I refer back to the previous discussion regarding tube amplifier distortion.  Upon inspection, anyone can see that of those manufacturers that do publish distortion specs, the tube units generally display slightly higher distortion levels than equivalently powered solid-state.  We have already discussed that, to a certain extent, such distortion is intentional.  At the very least, it is an unavoidable consequence of tube design.  In either case, it is the source of the beloved tube sound.

The issue here is that as output power is lowered, the percent distortion specification increases.  This means as you decrease the amount of power being drawn from the amplifier, a higher total percentage of distortion (or ratio of distortion to signal) is being delivered to the speaker.  This is just as true in solid-state amplifiers as well.  When one couples a higher efficiency speaker to an amplifier of any kind, less total output power is required to achieve a satisfactory volume at the listening position as compared to a speaker of lesser efficiency.  Therefore, a more efficient speaker will reproduce more distortion from the amplifier as a total percentage of sound being heard by the listener.  If this speaker is also a relatively accurate design (as in Jerry’s Dynaudio’s), then the amplifier’s own distortion products will not be masked by the speaker’s otherwise self generated (and less pleasing) distortion.

To sum up, the “warmth” and “AIR” that is the result of tube amplification will be reproduced more audibly from a more efficient speaker than from a speaker that is equivalent in every other way, but is less efficient – being driven by the same amp.  This is the very premise of the S.E.T. concept and why it works so well for its advocates.

As a side note, you may argue that the tube sound is still apparent to a certain degree, even when driving the amp harder, such as into a less efficient speaker as the Timepiece.  This is true, but the character of that sound (i.e. distortion) is slightly different.  Remember our discussion on output transformers?  In tube designs, as you leave the realm of static distortion by pushing the amp harder, transformer saturation distortion begins to “take over” or dominate the spectrum of distortion products being delivered to the speaker.  This type of distortion has a rather gradual onset and begins well before the amplifier begins to hard clip.  

The difference in sound quality is due to the inherent physical characteristics of the transformer.  Since it is nothing more than a bunch of turns of wire (both primary and secondary turns) wound on a ferrous core, it exhibits the properties of “self-inductance” as well as hysteresis induced distortion.  The self-inductance is in series with the current flow out of it.  Any student of electronics knows that an inductor resists or “impedes” any change in current attempting to pass through it.  This is a property of filter theory and basically means that as the frequency through an inductor increases, the current decreases.  

The upshot is that the transformer’s own self-inductance, along with the more complex core hysteresis issues (a very large factor) reduces the amount of higher frequency distortion products that it will generate or even pass on to the output, even if it is produced by the tubes upstream.  It will still generate and/or pass harmonic distortion, but those distortion products will be mostly dominated by lower (bass and midrange) frequency artifacts.  The output transformer simply cannot generate and/or pass any significant quantity of the higher frequency distortion (above 5 kHz.) harmonics when being driven hard.  

For those of sound recording/engineering background; the total effect is not unlike that of a downward expander - specifically acting on the higher frequency harmonics.  This effect can even be seen to a certain degree in the lab by doing a simple frequency response plot of a tube amp while being driven to full output, under rated load conditions.  It is common to see a slight roll-off of the higher frequencies starting around 5kHz.  4-ohm loading usually produces more roll-off than 8-ohm due to greater core saturation effects.

So… that’s why a tube amp may sound a little “bloated” in the bass and still retain its midrange “warmth” when being pushed.  The one thing it won’t do well is deliver the “AIR” at the higher end of the frequency spectrum when under larger output demand.  AND THAT’S WHY THE TIMEPIECE DOESN’T REPRODUCE THE “AIR” FOR JERRY!!!  He has to push his ARC harder on the Timepiece’s because they’re less efficient and “POOF” – no “air.”  I hope this all makes sense and I apologize for the lengthiness – it is somewhat complicated.  

Just remember, we’re living in an age where men have already been to the moon and space flight is becoming commonplace.  NATURAL LAW orders the universe. The same physical laws that govern everything else also govern audio performance.  It can be analyzed scientifically and it is not magic.  It is also not ROCKET SCIENCE!!!


God bless!
 -Bob

[Aether Audio]

The “New No Risk Deal”:

300Watts/Channel minimum into 8-ohms SOLID-STATE only!
If you have that kind of juice then you are our type of customer.  You go to the top of the list and qualify for the full 30-day audition AND round trip shipping.

100 Watts/Channel minimum into 8-ohms - - tube or solid-state.
If you have a tube amp of any size or 100W/Ch. or more (but less than 300W/Ch.) of solid-state amplification, then you qualify for the 30-day audition and one-way shipping.  If you do decide to return the product, then YOU pay return shipping.  If there are not enough demo units available at the time of your request then your name will be put on a waiting list.  Please be advised: All 300W/Ch. customers take precedence.

Less than 100Watts/Channel into 8-ohms.
No deal available and no return unless defective.  We still pay shipping to you but if you’re not satisfied with the performance then sell them to a friend with a bigger amp (or get your own).  We tried to warn you.

The FACTS:
The Timepiece 2.0 is rated at 85dB @1 watt @ 1 meter.  Maximum long-term music power is 125watts.  With two speakers driven at 1 meter the maximum long-term Sound Pressure Level (SPL) is 109 dB.  At a 3 meter listening position, a stereo pair can produce (long term) a 99.4 dB SPL.  That’s pretty darn loud for the average listener!  At that power level, a 300Watt/Channel amp will still provide 3.8dB/Ch. of power headroom for transients.  That’s not much headroom for music coming from today’s digital sources but most will never listen that loud anyway.  As you reduce average power you will have more in reserve for transients.  

Also, this does not take into consideration that most amplifiers will provide a peak power rating (short-term) that is at least 1.4 times that of its average power rating. This will provide another 1.5 dB of headroom causing a 300Watt/Ch. amp to produce 425 Watts/Ch. at peak power.  If one reduces the average SPL from the stereo Timepiece 2.0’s to a still rather loud 95dB (94.7) at the 3 meter listening position; that will leave a healthy 10dB of headroom available from the same 300Watt/Ch. amp.  You may find it interesting that at this relatively loud SPL of 94.7 dB @ 3meters, the amplifier will be coasting along at a moderate 42.3 Watts/Ch RMS... meaning that neither it nor the Timepiece pair will be operating at stressful levels.  So…300Watts should do reasonably well and that’s why we’ve chosen that level for our “New No Risk Deal.”  I hope this helps to explain our position and your options.

-Bob

[Jason1]

If you feel amps make that much of difference in the performance of your speakers, why dont you make a fully active version?

[nathanm]

That was my feeling as well.  Obviously these guys have very strong design ideas, and to me it would make sense to make this a fully self contained system not subject to the whims of the individual's amps.  That would make it easier to 'guarantee' a certain level of performance and eliminate the worry of the speaker being driven by unknown amps.  

Personally, for MY $2800 bucks I would find the Timepiece to be a much better value if it had its own amp included, but hey to each their own.

[byteme]

Strong design ideas yes, but

It’s just that we need more assurance that an individual has a greater likelihood of being satisfied with our products before we ship dozens of speakers around the country, only to have a significant number end up returning for such highly subjective reasons.

There are, what, over 700 speaker manufacturers out there?  And you guys come out blazin' saying that you're the be all end all

Good business decision to reel in the free trial.  Black eye when it comes to Goodwill and PR in my mind.  I mean, everyone wants something different from their equipment - synergy is the key right?  I didn't buy Merlin or Thiel because I DON'T WANT the most deathly accurate speakers available.  I want to hear music.  And this statement

If a product excels in all measurable areas FIRST, then by default, its performance will be observed to be superior to the majority of unbiased reviewers as compared to other products that fall short in a number of those same areas. Notice I said the MAJORITY of reviewers – not all. That majority constitutes the folks that our products are being marketed to.

apparently applies if the listener happens to meet your criteria for being able to hear correctly and have the "right" gear.  Or, if the majority of the unbiased reviewers are you.

I'm feeling glad I passed on getting these in house from Jerry to hear with my gear...

I think the other guys are right, shoulda built in your own amps too and made them active.  It'll be interesting to see a show of hands for how many around here (or as a total percentage of "audiophiles") actually have 300 watts.  My hand isn't going up - I've "only" got a Stratos Extreme...

[Cens]

"It'll be interesting to see a show of hands for how many around here (or as a total percentage of "audiophiles") actually have 300 watts."

Probably not too many hands will go up.  I have a SS amp rated at 225 wpc into 8 ohms that will drive any speaker I can imagine owning.   I also have a digital amp that notionally makes 300 wpc into 8 ohms, but it seems to be disqualified because it is not SS.

Hope I'm wrong about this (sincerely), but I have a hard time seeing a speaker company survive in the niche SP Tech appears to have carved out for itself.

Regards,

Chris

[Rocket]

Hi,

I was just reading the initial post and thinking how many potential customers actually have a 300 watt amp.

Not many in my opinion.

My aksa is 109 watts per channel.  Plenty of watts for my speakers.

regards

rocket

[zybar]

Kind of curious why 300 watts?

There are plenty of amps out there that could be used as arc welders yet don't put out 300 watts/8ohms.

I was more put off by the tone of Bob's e-mail.  

Anyway, guess with my 100 watt tube amps I won't be trying the Timepieces any time soon.

GW

[Horsehead]

I will have 700 w/ch available when I try out the Continuums with their 4 ohm load   No excuses here  

[Sa-dono]

Congrats on the new Circle Bob! I have a couple questions I was hoping you could answer.

1) Do you have any idea why the Timepiece needed further distance (and sounded better as such) in Jerry's room?

2) What frequency range does the treble settings effect. The Timepiece looks fairly flat in the highs, except a peak around 10 kHz, and up to where the highs taper off...based on the specs provided. Also, are these specs based on the flat setting?

In Jerry’s review, his main concern was the lack of "air" being reproduced by the Timepiece’s. What is this quality and why didn’t they deliver? While I’m sure that there are many that will take issue with the following, I am persuaded that our explanation is more correct than not.

We can all safely assume that this quality of sound reproduction resides in the realm of the tweeter’s operating range. I will admit that there may be a slight difference in the two different tweeters that has an effect on this quality, but I do not believe that is the major cause. If it were a simple matter of accuracy, then the Timepiece can hardly be faulted. One only needs to here the delicate harmonics of a gently brushed cymbal being faithfully reproduced by them to realize the natural and life-like reproduction they provide. Yet, no "air"?

Lastly, I think the issue of air has been taken a little too far. Jerry did not say that the Timepiece has no air. He only said that the Dynaudio was "airier" in comparison. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Jerry heard this using his AR, his Odyssey Audio Extreme Monoblocks (SS), and Nathan's QSC amp.

If Jerry confirms this, we can pretty much deduce that this is a result of the different tweeters and their implementations, and not anything to do with the amplification. As to the "simple matter of accuracy," it seems clear that the Timepiece is tapered off in the highs, which may be extremely important in this regard.

I also do not believe that Jerry's "main concern was the lack of 'air' being reproduced by the Timepiece’s", as much as with preferring just a slight more color to the sound. This can be seen here:

The Timepiece does all these things better than my Dynaudio Special 25's, and they sell for over $2000 less. So, would you be surprised to hear that I am going to stick with my Special 25's? My Danes don't play as loudly, don't go as deep in the bass, don't image as well, etc, etc, etc. So why would I favor them? Believe me it was not an easy decision, but several factors help to explain it. I have grown very accustomed to the sound of my Dyn's. Compared to the Timepiece my Dyn's are colored, but they are colored in a way that is pleasing to me. By comparison, they are mellow, sweet, airy, and creamy smooth. The leading edges are softer, and seem to be more in synch with with why I prefer tube amplification.

I must agree with others that going with an active design may be for the best. My reasonings are two-fold. One, very few people have amps that produce 300 watts at 8 ohms. Secondly, very few amps that meet this requirement offer a high level of sonics, IMO.

Your speakers are still very much of interest to me, and I would appreciate any answers you can provide. Thanks for any answers you can provide, and congrats again on the Circle!

[Audio Architect]

I totally disagree with all you experts who think Bob should incorporate an amplifier into his speakers. Sure that would give hime better control of the output, but it would definitely increase the cost. I don't know about the rest of you but I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and do not have the luxury of buying an entire system at one time. Even purchasing an amplifier and speakers of good quality simultaniously is not possibe. Now I am not looking for sympathy, but I am sure that their are many others in this hobby who are in the same boat. By incorporating an amplifier into the speakers Bob would loose many potential customers. I have been following threads pertaining to SP Technology since they were introduced to the Circles and I do not think Bob designed his speakers specifically for the audiophile market, but rather for the recording studio and other professional markets, were total acuracy is king. These people allready have powerhouse amps. If the rest of you do any reading you allready know that their are many high powered digital swithching amps entering the market with more on the way. These products will become more numerous and continue to get better. Incorporating an amplifier into or along with the speaker will prevent a potential customer from taking advantage of the evolution that will definitely occur with these products.

[Cens]

I do not think Bob designed his speakers specifically for the audiophile market, but rather for the recording studio and other professional markets, were total acuracy is king.

Perhaps, but your point has less validity when SP Tech is now marketing its speakers on a site for audiophiles and the trial offer amp restrictions are seemingly targeted at non-commercial purchasers.  If SP Tech is particularly keen on matching a specific type of amp with its speakers, I don't see why it couldn't design an active version with an amp of its choosing (resources willing, of course).  Other brands seem capable of selling both active and passive versions of the same speaker (eg, ATC).  

Regards,

Chris

[Aether Audio]

...or at least you'd thinks so based on some of the above responses.

Far from it!!!  It seems I've stepped on some toes and I thought I was being as diplomatic as possible - I guess not.  Once again, I apologize to those of you who seemed to have taken offense, that was never my intent.  I will try to answer your questions as politely as possible while keeping my fingers crossed that I don't dig myself a deeper ditch.  Do me a favor though.  It will help you to understand if you try to think in purely technological terms.  This not because I'm implying that you're deficient in any way - I am.  That's how my mind works and that's the only way I know how to communicate my thoughts.  I see audio performance from a purely scientific perspective even though, to many of you, it is not.

Jason1, natanm, byteme, etc:

If you feel amps make that much of difference in the performance of your speakers, why dont you make a fully active version?

Gee, maybe you guys have a point.  Since I've built the best speaker in the world I'll go right ahead and build the best amps too.  After that I think I'll try my hand at finding a cure for cancer!

C'mon, I'm just a techno-dork that has spent most of his life fooling around with speakers to one degree or another and figured out a few things along the way.  Even a pig will get lucky and root up a morel once in a while.  I'm lucky to be able to start a speaker company and if it wasn't for the support of my family and associates, I wouldn't even be able to do that.  I can fart around in the lab all day and come up with all sorts of neat gizmos - once.  Making dozens of them such that they're pretty much identical from one to the next is on a whole other level!  There's no way I could manage this from a time and resources standpoint.  If I did, it would still have to be outsourced to some other amp manufacturer and then we'd just be putting our name on it.  That's how many if not most of the other guys do it too.

Even if I thought it was a good idea (which I don't), the liability issues are astronomical.  You're talking about plugging 120Volt juice into the back of a speaker.  Amps are known to blow up and sometimes even catch fire.  If you put an amp or two of the size and voltage rails we're talking here, can you imagine the potential consequences?  Sparks and fire inside a wooden box - not a good idea - at least from a safety/business standpoint.

Then there's the technical issue.  Speaker vibrations being transfered to an amplifier creating a feedback loop, microphonics being generated and amplified - Yuk, Yuk, Yuk.  Directly including the response of the speaker in a negative feedback loop looks good on paper for the purpose of increasing driver control, but in practice they seldom deliver.  Too many variables to try and control and too catastrophic when it fails.  It works OK on smaller monitors that require smaller amps but that is done mostly for convenience.  Engineers like to tote their monitors around from studio to studio without the hassle of dragging an amp aroud too.  It works pretty good for that but paradoxically, a lot of those guys aren't fixated on performance.  Music is a business to them so it's often more a matter of "plug and chug."

byteme:

There are, what, over 700 speaker manufacturers out there? And you guys come out blazin' saying that you're the be all end all.

Excuse me, I don't ever remember suggesting such a thing.  I really don't feel as though that I should have to either.  I will defer and refer you to what others are saying though.

Steve Murphy
www.proaudioreview.com/par/august03/SP_Technology.shtml

Bill Roberts
www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/archives/

Bruce Bartlett
www.4sptech.com/reviews/bartlett's.pdf

Also, just in case you're interested, I would like to take this time to announce that the Timepiece2.0 has been selected as one of the "Reviewer's Pick" products of the year in the Project Studio Catagory by Pro Audio Review magazine.  It is being showcased in the December 2003 issue. We haven't placed a single ad with them either - not yet, that is.

nathanm may find it interesting that Steve Murphy's former reference monitor was the same Mackie model as his.  Steve has since replaced it with the Timepiece.  You will find the Timepiece listed in the "Review Setup" section of his ongoing equipment reviews.

byteme:

And this statement apparently applies if the listener happens to meet your criteria for being able to hear correctly and have the "right" gear. Or, if the majority of the unbiased reviewers are you.

I got the feeling you didn't get my point.  We're talking purely statistics and science here.  The same concept applies to home appraisals or cars listed in the Kelly Blue Book.  A general value of worth can be afixed to any material object.  Such value is established by comparison to other similar objects.  That old beater of yours in the driveway may have sentimental value to you but on the open market, its value is determined by a set of quantifiable (i.e. measurable) characteristics.  When a given set of such characteristics are shown to be superior across the board in one product to that of another, the consensus is that the superior performance and/or features translates to higher perceived value by a majority of reviewers.  This is fact - not my opinion.

Everybody:

Give me a break here.  You all seem incensed at the thought that your amps aren't "big enough."  If bigger always translates to better in your mind then ya'all have some bigger issues than I can address.   Do you guys have monster trucks with those giant tires on them out in the driveway too?

The only reason we made the change in the deal is because the Timepiece NEEDS a bigger amp to deliver its potential.  I'm sure most of you dated a girl like that once.

It's a function of gain/bandwidth.  To get flat down to 30Hz in a box that size I had to trade "gain' or efficiency, hence the 85dB sensitivity rating.  Besides, we're still paying for shipping to you.  You act like I just blew you off.  If you have over 100 watts/ch you still get the 30-day free trial.  All we're asking is that you split the risk with us.  How many companies even do that?  You'd be paying for shipment round trip otherwise.

Sa-dono:

Thanks!

The distance question is a good one.  Technically, near field listening should all but eliminate room effects.  I think it has to do with a lack of back wall reflections.  Based on 'live end - dead end" theory, the brain likes to hear DIFFUSE (not slap echos) sound reflections coming from behind the listener in order to produce the sense of space.  Jerry's room combined with his near field listening preference gives a "dead end - dead end" effect.  So much of what we end up hearing is due to room interactions - often the total sound reaching the ear is on the order of 70 to 80% reflections from the room.  I think we are conditioned to expect this and when its absent we think something's wrong.  As you sit further back from any speaker, the total percentage of room reflections with respect to perceived volume reaching your ears increases.  Since the Timepiece is more directional than many other speakers horizontally (especially compared to Jerry's Dynaudio's), it would require sitting back further to increase the amount of room reflections reaching the listener.  This is my best educated guess.

The Timepiece's -3dB down point at the high end is actually 18.5kHz.  If you look at the spectrum of music there's almost nothing out there at 20kHz in the way of sustained and continous waveforms.  What little energy there is at that frequency and beyond (which cannot be recorded on standard CD's anyway) would exist as the rising edge of a transient signal, such as in the first 50 microseconds of a transient's waveform.  We're talking the very initial strike of a cymbal, a snare rim shot or the sound of a gun being fired. Any volume reduction by the system at that end of the spectrum would be perceived as a "softening" of the percussive attack.  The Timepieces have been claimed by others to be, if anything, the exact opposite of that - providing very sharp and detailed transient response.  So...I don't believe frequency response is an issue here.  I could be wrong though, its just my opinion.  Oh yeah, the measurements shown on our website are taken with the switch set to flat - they're old too.  Came from the prototype - needs to be updated. Sorry, been busy.

cens:

Your switcher IS solid-state and qualifies for the round trip deal.  My area of expertise in the past was with switching power supply and amplifier technology - we're talking 40,000 watts worth.  I was prejudiced once in favor of my linear Macro-Reference.  The project engineer at Crown challanged me to listen to the their new K2 (switcher) on the Timepiece.  He bet I would like it just as much as the MR.  I thought "no-way."  I was wrong - it sounded fantastic!  And that experience of over 4 years ago was just a forshaddowing of things to come.

I agree with Audio Architect.  A paradigm shift has already begun in amplifier technology.  I know because I've been in on the ground floor of its beginnings.  High power, lower cost switching amps of excellent sonic quality may one day make all linear designs obsolete.  They can sound spectacular and they are definitely more affordable.  As the new high definition recording formats take hold, the need to reproduce the full 120dB dynamic range of human hearing will increase as well.  That technology will (already does) deliver the goods and the days of being force-fed compressed music will be over forever.  And over that hill, SP Technology Loudspeakers will be sitting there, patiently smiling.

 -Bob

[audiojerry]

I for one, am appreciative of how deeply Bob has delved into the topic, and of his thorough explanations, even though some of it was over my head  

I'd like to clarify a couple of things.
I did not feel the Timepiece lacked air.
I believe the Timepiece is an exceptional speaker.  
The Timepiece reproduced transients and percussion better than any speaker I've heard in my system.
In my system I don't think I provided the ideal setup for the Timepiece
If you have the right room and amplification, I believe the Timepiece is a must-to-audition speaker if you are in the market. It does things that no other speaker I've heard can do.
I tried the Timepiece with a 100wpc digital Sony, and the Sony drove it quite nicely, imo.
FYI, return shipping Wisconsin to Indiana was 40 bucks, which Bob is refunding to me. I don't think the cost of return shipping should discourage someone who is seriously in the market for new speakers.

[JLM]

As the guy who introduced SP Technology to Audiocircle I'm amazed how far things have already come.  I saw the SP speakers as pinnacles to be acheived and with this thread more so than ever in that they seem less abtainable than ever when I add the cost of a huge amp.  

Thanks Bob for developing this wonderful product and making it available.  Thanks too for explaining your life views and the rather low efficiency rating/need for so much power.  Can you suggest amps that you've found work well?

Would the continuum reduce your guidelines by 3 dBW?

Bob, I'm still somewhat confused.  Are the timepieces recommended for nearfield use (like 6 feet apart and 7 feet from the listener)?

Seems to me we're seeing an overreaction to amplifier size.  What how the variable of how loud some like to listen versus others?  Move closer or dial back the average SPL and the amplifier size can change by easily 10 dB (and a corresponding wattage factor of 10).  My serious listening is done 7 feet away at an average of 80 dB in a 1,800 cu. ft. room.  I don't consider these conditions rather typical among the audiophiles I know.  In this case room gain roughly equals distance losses compared to the 1 meter standard.  Therefore the Timepieces would be using 0.4 wpc + peaks.  At 80 dB average, I'd "design" with 25 dB peaks, which in my room size and listening position would require 100 wpc in the Timepieces.

I believe that the main issue jerry was trying to express is based on recording technics that have overhyped reality via miking, mixing, and adding special effects to make "hot" recordings.  So the compensate we need "underhyped" speakers, not fully accurate speakers like these.

[Cens]

Give me a break here.  You all seem incensed at the thought that your amps aren't "big enough."  If bigger always translates to better in your mind then ya'all have some bigger issues than I can address.

Umm, you're the one who equated bigger with better, at least as far as your speakers go.  Most of us have amps with less than 300 watts -- that's why we were commenting on the surprisingly high figure for your free trial period.  As you alluded to at some point, how much power you need really depends on the speaker you're driving.  If you like those big, mind-numbingly expensive Avantgarde horns, 300wpc might be a bit silly.

Thanks for clarifying the digital amp question.  I knew they were SS for all intents and purposes, but wasn't sure how you were classifying them.  

Regards,

Chris

[nathanm]

In my system I don't think I provided the ideal setup for the Timepiece.

It all boils down to this; the speakers didn't lend themselves to ONE person's "intimate nearfield" setup.  Simple.  Put those suckers out in a big area and I am sure they will kick much ass.  But that is not what Jerry is into.  If you listen to his music it is close up and intimate; sultry jazz singers and such.  If you like to be hugged by brushed snare at 5 feet the Timepiece isn't for you.  His other speakers were smaller and suited this placement better.

I honestly think this has little to do with amps and everything to do with suitibility to the listener's preference.  Jerry has said before he has settled on small monitors as 'doing it' for him.  The Timepieces are too large for that, they need more room to breathe.  I agree with Jerry's description of their attributes but for me I knew we were only hearing a fraction of what they are capable of.  It was kind of a bull in a china shop thing.  Or a bull in a log cabin...  I myself was simultaneously impressed and disappointed with them.  For example, all my music sounded more crisp and detailed than what I have, but at the same time it was absolutely devoid of the proper growl and punch.  I played Metallica's cover of "Crash Course In Brain Surgery" a recording which I feel is THE high point for metal production value and it was awful.  A real bummer.  But like I said, that's Jerry's room, not the speaker as well as my personal preferences.

If more people try these things I'm sure the reviews will be more positive.  I just think for being a basic box (albeit nicely constructed) with power-sucking passive XO the thing is mighty expensive.  Personally if I was shopping in that price range I would audition the HR824s and the Genelec monitors - active designs with outboard amps. (that way your rack will burst into a ball of flame, not your speakers! *whew* )

Even if I thought it was a good idea (which I don't), the liability issues are astronomical. You're talking about plugging 120Volt juice into the back of a speaker. Amps are known to blow up and sometimes even catch fire. If you put an amp or two of the size and voltage rails we're talking here, can you imagine the potential consequences? Sparks and fire inside a wooden box - not a good idea - at least from a safety/business standpoint.

Well, that's true but I would guess the vast majority of people reading this board own tons of equipment which has never been subject to any safety hazard type tests and have lived to tell the tale.  If anything's gonna catch fire I suspect Jerry's tube amp will be the culprit.  (kidding)

I am not trying to attack SP Pres at all - I just wanted to say that I was there and I realized we were listening to a great, albeit rather inefficient  speaker in a not so great placement, that's all.

[byteme]

I got the feeling you didn't get my point. We're talking purely statistics and science here. The same concept applies to home appraisals or cars listed in the Kelly Blue Book. A general value of worth can be afixed to any material object. Such value is established by comparison to other similar objects. That old beater of yours in the driveway may have sentimental value to you but on the open market, its value is determined by a set of quantifiable (i.e. measurable) characteristics. When a given set of such characteristics are shown to be superior across the board in one product to that of another, the consensus is that the superior performance and/or features translates to higher perceived value by a majority of reviewers. This is fact - not my opinion.

No, I got your point, I think mine was missed.  Great analogy to equate it to cars - because now it will be easier to clarify what I meant.  Yes, purely statistics and science.  However, how many times has something measured off the charts but sounded like shit?  Many.  In the end there is ALWAYS a subjective factor to this all.  Back to the car thing, a general value of worth is not the issue here at all.  It's the design goals.  In the beginning based on your free trial and some web site comments I read your claim to be that once you listen to your speaker, that's it, game over, there is no point going further because nothing comes close.  Now, you've qualified it to a certain demographic.  Just as if you'd gone out to design the ONE car for everyone (in your case right now, Two).  You assumed that everyone who test drove it would buy it.  "Come on down to the dealer, if you don't like it after a test drive we'll give you $100!!".  Well, maybe, just maybe, you designed an SUV, and tweaked the engine so that it was fast and kept the weight down a bit, stiffened the suspension and kept the center of gravity low.  But guess what, to me, it's still an SUV that handles like a panel truck and I'm not buying it.  Take my Honda S2000 for example.  Are there better cars out there than it?  Sure, however to me, it met all the criterea.  Price, HP, handling, makes me do this ==>  and since I don't have to worry about anyone but my dog or wife who cares that it's only got two seats.  To many it's too small, too harsh a ride, not fast enough, too fast, not practical.  To me, it's a perfect 10.

To go a differnt direction with this your statement could also be interpreted as saying that since it's "purely statistics and science here" that since cables don't measure differently than one another they all sound the same...

[Sa-dono]

Sa-dono:

Thanks!

The distance question is a good one. Technically, near field listening should all but eliminate room effects. I think it has to do with a lack of back wall reflections. Based on 'live end - dead end" theory, the brain likes to hear DIFFUSE (not slap echos) sound reflections coming from behind the listener in order to produce the sense of space. Jerry's room combined with his near field listening preference gives a "dead end - dead end" effect. So much of what we end up hearing is due to room interactions - often the total sound reaching the ear is on the order of 70 to 80% reflections from the room. I think we are conditioned to expect this and when its absent we think something's wrong. As you sit further back from any speaker, the total percentage of room reflections with respect to perceived volume reaching your ears increases. Since the Timepiece is more directional than many other speakers horizontally (especially compared to Jerry's Dynaudio's), it would require sitting back further to increase the amount of room reflections reaching the listener. This is my best educated guess.

The Timepiece's -3dB down point at the high end is actually 18.5kHz. If you look at the spectrum of music there's almost nothing out there at 20kHz in the way of sustained and continous waveforms. What little energy there is at that frequency and beyond (which cannot be recorded on standard CD's anyway) would exist as the rising edge of a transient signal, such as in the first 50 microseconds of a transient's waveform. We're talking the very initial strike of a cymbal, a snare rim shot or the sound of a gun being fired. Any volume reduction by the system at that end of the spectrum would be perceived as a "softening" of the percussive attack. The Timepieces have been claimed by others to be, if anything, the exact opposite of that - providing very sharp and detailed transient response. So...I don't believe frequency response is an issue here. I could be wrong though, its just my opinion. Oh yeah, the measurements shown on our website are taken with the switch set to flat - they're old too. Came from the prototype - needs to be updated. Sorry, been busy.

Thanks for the answers Bob! And no worries about the update. I was off by 0.5 kHz in my estimate..not too bad for an estimate based off an old measurement

Your reasonings for not building an active design do make sense. I was thinking of more of an active design with an external amp, or if internal, "digital" amps. Do you have any recommendations for amps that meet your requirement for 300 watts at 8 ohms, that provide an optimal synergy, in your opinion, with your speakers?

As far as the upper frequencies above where your speakers taper off, there are upsampling DACs and the high-res formats that do make use of these frequencies. Besides that, it has also been proven in studies that these upper frequencies do effect our hearing, most likely through their interaction with the lower-upper frequencies. I have no problem with the measurements of your speaker..although I would of course want to experiment with using a super tweeter with them. I just think this is one of the likely culprits for the lesser air that Jerry heard.

[John Casler]

Your reasonings for not building an active design do make sense. I was thinking of more of an active design with an external amp, or if internal, "digital" amps. Do you have any recommendations for amps that meet your requirement for 300 watts at 8 ohms, that provide an optimal synergy, in your opinion, with your speakers?

This might be the perfect answer:

http://www.bryston.ca/pp300cov.html

Seems to meet most of the requirements and can be bolted to the back of the speaker (as long as there is enough real estate) making it pretty much "self powered".