[Aether Audio]

and I mean that sincerely.

You've been a gentleman and a scholar right from the start.  For all you folks out there, I think you can trust Jerry's opinions when it comes to sound as much as anybody's.  Even though he didn't opt to keep our speakers I want to publicly thank him - he's a good listener and a great guy.  And for all you other manufacturers out there, you can trust he'll deal straight with you and treat your equipment with tender, loving care.  It was an honor for us to do business with him.

If everybody here showed the same gracefulness and candor, it would make AC the best forum - bar none (which it probably is anyway).

Happy hunting Jerry and may this hobby bring many years of enjoyment!

God bless,
 -Bob

[Aether Audio]

JLM

Look what you went and started.  Now I spend all my spare time answering everbody's questions here. So...THANKS!  This has done more for us than any amount of traditional advertising would have purchased.

I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.

The Timepieces may not be as unatainable as you might think.  From what I hear, there's a bunch of activity over a new Carver pro switching amp. 300Watts per, sweet sounding and very reasonably priced.  I'm telling you guys, you really need to check out these new switching amps.  They're just going to keep getting better and better!

Besides, plenty of people are getting/have gotten by on less power with them.  Your listening (proximity and volume) preferences are paramount in determining the amp size needed. The New "No Risk" deal is only our way of guaranteeing that a given customer will be absolutely "blown away" by them in just about any situation.  The upshot is that you are quite correct, in your particular situation there would be little need for 300 watts/Ch.  

The main issue is that we ain't rich and can't afford to waste money right now.  As I'm sure we all know, there's undoubtedly a number of "less than scrupulous" audiophiles out there that would love nothing more than to have a free set of speakers to play with for a month - never intending to purchase.  The 300 watt rule can't completely protect us from that but it should go a long way in reducing the risk.  By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with Jerry's decision to return them.  That event was nothing more than a wake up call causing us to look at a much broader range of issues.  The original No Risk deal was never really thought through like it should have been. Sorry folks but I'm just an engineer, never wore a marketing hat before.

As far as the Continuum's are concerned, you hit the nail right on the head.  In fact, when you take into consideration the 4-ohm rating, you gain another 3dB of voltage sensitivity.  Since a properly designed amplifier for use in audio is considered a "voltage source," its output power should double as the load impedance is halved - to a point.  A theoretically perfect voltage source would maintain its programmed (from its input signal) output voltage regardless of the load impedance.  In the real world there's a limit to this but a really good amp would double its output power when going from 8-oms to 4-ohms.  I know there are some out there that do this.

The upshot is that with the Continuum's 4-ohm rating AND their 3dB higher sensitivity, a good amp (doubles its power into 4-ohms) with a 75 watt/Ch rating into 8-ohms, will give you the exact same performance and headroom as the Timepieces on a 300 watt/Ch amp!  So, there's the tradeoff.  You can buy the Timepiece at a lower price but then you need and spend more on a bigger amp OR you can pay more for the Continuum and get by with a smaller/cheaper amp.  

The Timepiece is a good deal if you have less than 300 watts per and don't ever listen at rock concert levels and/or too far back from them (greater than 3 meters).  They're also a good deal if you can lay hold of one of the newer and less expensive switching amps.  The Continuum is a good deal if you already have a smaller amp that you're happy with and just want the performance that our products offer.  We tried to cover the bases but I think everybody sort of got off on a tangent when the 300 Watt flag went up.  Sorry, my fault. I should've had all this worked out from the get-go.

Oh yeah, you can use the Timepiece semi-near field (between 4 and 6 feet). Mid field is a more appropriate term though.  That's exactly what they were designed for - in the studio.  The end result is that the vast majority of the sound you hear will be that of the recording only.  The reflections from your room will be greatly attenuated compared to the direct sound from the speakers.  Such listening places you inside what is termed the "critical distance" where the room's effects are mostly "swamped out" by the speakers.  Recording Engineers do this all the time for obvious reasons but you may not like the effect at home.

I hope this answers all your questions and I want to thank you again for making this circle possible (along with the great folks from AC)!

Take care,
 -Bob

[Double Ugly]

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.  

I understand Bob has changed the trial period a bit, but I'm having trouble understanding what the big deal is.

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.

If you have at least 100 wpc (or tube amps), you still get a 30-day trial period plus free 1-way shipping.  Three questions:
1- Is 100 wpc a "surprisingly high figure"?
2- How many here don't have amps capable of at least 100 wpc/8 ohm?
3- What speaker manufacturer offers a better trail period?

And you get free shipping both ways if you have an amplifier capable of 300 wpc or better, something I haven't seen from ANY manufacturer.  Like you, several here spent a pittance (relatively speaking) for Carver Pro ZR1600s and qualify.

While it may not be technically "free" depending on the amp involved, those who would imply the new restrictions somehow preclude all but a select few from receiving a more-than-generous trial period are simply wrong.  (Note:  You didn't necessarily do this Cens, but others have)  

Bob made a mistake and corrected it to ensure the continued viability of his company.  Why this rubs some the wrong way is lost on me.  If you have 100>300wpc but can't afford return shipping, don't order the speakers.

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.

Powerful amps need not be "huge", nor does their price.  

I purchased my Carver Pro ZR1600 (300wpc/8 ohms)  from Nathan @ 8th Nerve - fully modded - for under $1100 shipped.  The intro pricing has ended, but I can't imagine the price has increased to the point of being unattainable.

DU

[Aether Audio]

Cens

You're right, I made it sound as if "bigger is better."  I only meant that with regards to the Timepiece though.  I think a few folks took that a little too far and ended up taking offense.  It goes without needing to be said, there are a great many fabulous amps out there that don't come anywhere near 300 watts.  The truth is, the requirement is really a reflection of a fault (if you will) or shortcoming of the Timepiece due to its low efficiency.  

As I've said before, I apologize for my poor communication.  I think I have sufficiently covered my reasons for making the change to our offer  in the previous posts so I won't belabor the issue again.  Thanks bunches for your input.

Have a great day!
 -Bob

[Aether Audio]

byteme

I'll try one more time.  As to your comments about my views towards the Timepiece, you are right to a point.  I am willing to put them up against ANY speaker made - period.  Will they always win out - definitly not.  What they will do though is make a lot of people re-think their need to spend huge sums of money in order to get great performance.  

I think - no, I KNOW there's a lot of way over priced "junk" out there being pawned off as "the best."  I've been to CES and have heard a lot of crap I couldn't believe carried the price tags they did.  In fact, I think that whole issue has gone a long way in destroying high-end audio for the masses (if there ever was such a thing).

All I am saying is that if you put them up against products costing two or three times their price, and in many cases just about any price, they'll knock a whole lot of products off their high horses - in the opinion of A LOT of people.

Now, with regards to your cable comment.  Let's tip-toe through the tulips of thought and follow in the steps of Einstien, Tesla and a few other "know it alls" - and perform a little "thought experiment."

Starting with a perfect system - perfect meaning that from the recording on through to the power amplifier, the waveforms that are the analogous representation of the original performance are preserved with perfection and without any alteration.  They are then transformed to air motion by the perfect speaker into the exact acoustic "envelope" that was present at the performance.  A perfect Star Trek "holo-deck" recreation of the original, if you will.

Now, the only thing that is changed in this experiment is the speaker wire and the listeners.  In test "A" the speaker wire is a room temperature super-conductor that exhibits no inductance or capacitance at any frequency from DC out to gamma rays.  Its insulators exhibit zero dielectric absorption or dissipation factor also.  Let's also assume that we have developed warp drive such that our technology has moved on into manipulating sub-space and being able to predict zero-point quantum fluctuations.  

At this level of technology we have been able to completely analyze and measure every variable of physical matter such that we can create exact duplicates of an item from sub-atomic particles in our replicators.  At this level we can completely define the characteristics of a speaker cable and control every variable to our own whims.

In test "B" we develop a speaker cable that exhibits relatively good characteristics by present day standards, but cannot compare to our super-conducting version in test "A."

Now, we parade a 1000 listners through our holo-deck, first they listen to a recording on speaker cable "A."  Then they listen again to the same recording on cable "B."  I submit that if a difference is heard at all, the MAJORITY OF LISTENERS WILL PREFER CABLE "A!!!"  That's all I meant in my original post and if you still choose to resist, I give up!

Its been my experience that there are some people that go looking for offenses where none is intended.  They thrive on contention in a vain attempt to derive validation and acknowledgement.  Bad attention is better than no attention at all - I guess.  Well, this is all the attention this subject is going to get from me.  If someone's not being diplomatic and amicable here, I'm willing to let the community decide for themselves who that is.  By the way, does the moniker "byteme" have a special meaning or did you just pull it out of your speaker cable?

Have a nice day

[byteme]

I had and have no intention of getting into a frivolous discussion about cables.  That and my previous example involving the automobile were simply intended to point out what I read in your original post.  

Quite simply that was:  

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.

 Which says to me that is something measures good then to most people it will sound good.  And I went on further to say that in my experience that may or may not always be true.  There are subjective and other factors that come into things that definately play.  There are also cases where gear measures poorly but actually sounds quite good.  Which again you seem to be ignoring:

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.

Again, what I read in this statement above is: if something measures well, it by default will sound good too.  And if it measures better than other things and costs less then again by default it is a better "value".  Bringing cables into it was just another way to put a face on what I'm hearing from your posts.

As for this:

Now, with regards to your cable comment. Let's tip-toe through the tulips of thought and follow in the steps of Einstien, Tesla and a few other "know it alls" - and perform a little "thought experiment."

 Did you read what I wrote?  First, as I said, it wasn't my comment it was yours - I just took it out of the speaker realm and into cables - it should be portable right?  Since it's fact?  Second, if your intent was to come off as an arrogant know it all, I think you've succeeded admirably.

Finally:

Its been my experience that there are some people that go looking for offenses where none is intended. They thrive on contention in a vain attempt to derive validation and acknowledgement. Bad attention is better than no attention at all - I guess. Well, this is all the attention this subject is going to get from me. If someone's not being diplomatic and amicable here, I'm willing to let the community decide for themselves who that is. By the way, does the moniker "byteme" have a special meaning or did you just pull it out of your speaker cable?

If you knew me at all from anything I've ever posted or through any number of other avenues you'd quickly know this statement describes me not at all.  And, well done!  Way to take this from what I was under the impression was a fairly civilized conversation to going to thinly veiled accusations of personal character and attacks!  Maybe you are at the intellectual level of Tesla and Einstein if you can make such fantasic character assumptions from a single three paragraph exchange!  

Best wishes with your company and products.  It's fair to say that you won't have to be bothered with my presence in your circle again.

[audiojerry]

Thank you for the kind words, Bob.

I've said this before, but I want to re-iterate that SP Tech could not have provided better customer care to me. Bob took the time to answer all my questions thoroughly, and provided me with every assurance that a customer would want prior to ordering. Great care was taken in packaging and shipping the product to me, and follow through after the sale was all I could have hoped for.

As far as the dispute that developed between Bob and Byteme, I have met Brian (Byteme) and talked extensively with Bob, and I consider both to be classy gentleman, and I have great respect both. I guess that a rift can sometimes develop rather quickly between individuals that under different circumstances things might turn out differently. In this situation, I believe Brian is making the correct decision by choosing not to participate in SP Tech's forum. Brian certainly has the right to express his views, but in the case of SP Tech, my views are quite different from his.  

I still encourage anyone considering a speaker upgrade within the parameters that SP Tech defines to definitely give them a serious audition.

[doug s.]

bob,

my question about amps and your speakers is this - how is your perceived power requirement (tube or solid state) affected by the use of subwoofers, actively crossed over at, say, 60hz w/24db/octave x-over?  so no power above 60hz to the sp-tech speakers?

thanks,

doug s.

[Aether Audio]

nathanm

I want to take this opportunity to apologize to you.  Not for anything I've said but for some of the opinions I was starting to form.  At first, you came off as a little abraisive with a tinge of mockery - I thought.  You made some references to our mission statement ideals and seemed a little critical of our products and website too.  I realize now that's just your way of having fun and didn't mean anything personal by it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "touchy-feely" guy with thin-skin to begin with.  In recent years I've worked in a crew of 15 union steel workers.  A guy can't be too thin-skinned and survive in that environment very long, I'll tell you.  Its just that when a person starts out that way on a forum and you've never met, its hard to get a handle on where they're coming from.  i'm glad I waited and kept my big mouth shut.

I also want to thank you publicly for your fair and honest views.  You ended up giving us a fair shake and that's all anyone can ask for.  As far as your opinion about the value of our speakers go, I can see your point - they are somewhat expensive.  As I'm sure you know, after a certain level is reached in performance, it starts to become a point of diminishing returns as far as cost vs. performance is concerned.  I wish I could lower the cost more because that's a big part of what we believe in.  High-end SHOULDN'T cost so much.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to hear the Timepieces under better circumstances.  The bigger amp thing really does make a big difference. The dynamic range is something you just have to hear to appreciate. And you're right about their needing a bigger space.  You might even re-evaluate your opinion about their value if you had that chance.

Also, I'm not going to say the Metallica recording is at fault but we've played some Ozzy that just really kicked butt.  It was the loudest and clearest I've ever heard in a home environment.  We almost fried the woofers on that one.  Not slamming metal but I'm sure you're as aware as anyone that loads of compression is used on HM recordings (as well as most other pop music).  It makes those little jam boxes scream witout self destructing.

To sum up, there's no doubt that we have some philosophical differences but I bet we'd get along pretty good if we ever got a chance to meet.  I'll bet we'd have some real good debates too.  I'm sure I have a few years on you but I got around town my fair share once upon a time.  Just another acid casualty of the 70's some would tell you.

Again, I want to thank you for your input.  You've added some insight as well as color to what would have been a little dryer and otherwise less interesting exchange of ideas.

Take care,
 -Bob

[Rob Babcock]

On the topic of Metallica, I think their early music is incredible, but the sound is underwhelming.  I have the Gold Remasters of Master and Ride, and while they sound better than the standard versions they still don't sound all that great.  Too bad, as they're among my very favorite albums of all time.

Now the Slayer South of Heaven remaster; that's another story!  That one sounds fantastic.

[nathanm]

Crikey, just a tinge!?  Man, I gotta try harder next time!

You made some references to our mission statement ideals and seemed a little critical of our products and website too.

Well, you have lots of material to work with -- a guy can't help himself!  If it makes you feel any better I think that the Athens website that one guy comes in pimpin' once a month blows yours out of the water in sheer annoyance factor and usability issues.  I mean, there's no competition!  Put that one and the AVS forum together and even blind people will be clutching their eyes in pain!

I dunno what you're apologizing to me for though.  No need.  But thanks anyway!

Oh yeah, there's no doubt I would've preferred the speakers in my own room, or perhaps even in a different area of Jerry's room spread out bigger-like.  But I was discouraged by how much power they sucked up without blowing my ass through the back wall.  The speakers alone are about at the upper limit of my budget and the thought of having to pile a gargantuan SS amp on top of that bill just made me pass on the idea of buying them for myself.  Like I told Jerry, I had never even SEEN some of those LEDs light up during playback in my own system.  I mean, the QSC clipped!  Never seen that before!  Ha!  But I am used to my 96db efficent speakers so...

[doug s.]

hey bob, i am still awaiting info about amp requirements when using active x-over & subs.  (see my post yust before yer last post...)

thanks,

doug s.

[audiojerry]

Like I told Jerry, I had never even SEEN some of those LEDs light up during playback in my own system.  I mean, the QSC clipped! Never seen that before! Ha!

I think this underscores what I've been saying about my room all along. My room is too acoustically inert. It literally gobbles up energy, and can bring even powerful amps to their knees. I think it was my room far more than the Timepiece that caused Nathan's QSC to clip, while we both sat there underwhelmed listening at what should have been blasting spl's.

In support of this theory, I've got 2 Earthquake subs, and 2 Bag End subs temporarily in my home theater in the same room. That's about 1300 watts.  They should be able to shake the foundation, but are only ho-hum at best in this room.    

Frank (you know who), NO WAY is this tendency towards anechoic a desirable acoustic goal!

[Aether Audio]

John Casler

Thanks for the info!  I'm going to have to check into this one further.  I skimmed over the link and it looks like an ideal combo.  

Anybody out there tried these little beauties?  I think they would be a perfect match for the engineer or audiophile on the run.  From what I've seen and heard, Bryston gear is pretty top shelf for the money.  We're looking for Bryston users and comments out there. Any takers?

 -Bob

[Aether Audio]

doug s.

Sorry for the delay, I've been trying to answer everybodys questions or respond to their posts in order.  Thanks for asking.  Actually the qustion isn't so tuff but the answer is sort of.

The heart of the issue has to do with our definition of "power."  Watts deliverd follows Ohms law of P=IXE or power (in watts) is the product of Current (I) times Voltage (E).  If you keep the output voltage constant, as you lower the load resistance (speaker impedance) the current goes up.  That then means the power goes up too.  The opposite is true then as well.  If the speaker impedance goes up then the current goes down and the power delivered goes down also.

I don't want to over complicate the answer but the issue is the Timepiece's impedance.  Their rating is 8-ohms but that's based on the woofer.  The tweeter is much more efficient than the woofer in this design so I've had to "pad" it down with a resistor network.  Above about 500 Hz the impedance goes up to about 12-ohms.  This means we aren't really delivering a lot of power to the tweeter.  In fact, a large percentage of what power is delivered is wasted as heat in the L-Pad network.  The tweeter is hardly stressed at all. That's why we can cross over so low and reproduce such a wide dynamic range.

The only thing is that in order to "push" the tweeter to its full capability in reproducing the large transients in wide dynamic range recordings, it needs the high voltage provided by amplifiers with a large 8-ohm rating.  Its not really a matter of "watts" per se. Since transient information is mostly composed of the higher frequencies, the woofer doesn't come into play here.  It sees mostly "average" power which does directly relate to RMS watts.  Since it can only handle 125 watts RMS, a huge amp isn't needed for it.

I realize that maybe I've somewhat overstressed this point in the past so I don't want to mislead you now.  It's just that if you ever heard the percussive impact that they are capable of when being pushed near their limit on highly dynamic recordings, you'd understand.  There's nothing like hearing a digitally recorded drum kit playing a solo and seeing the clip indicators flash every once in a while on a 750 watt/ch into 8-ohm amp.  Of course, the volume is ludicrous at that point, but just the thought that a speaker that size in a home can reproduce that much sound without a hint of stress is mind boggling!

The upshot to your question is this:  Using a crossover/amp/sub on the Timepiece WILL increase the volume that you'll be able to achieve and reduce the amp's requirements that drive the woofer section in them.  The only way to achieve this higher volume though is to use a bigger 8-ohm rated amp on the Timepiece.  The thing it won't do is give you much more dynamic range capability - if you keep the same amp on the TP2's.  If you were to use a bigger amp on them, you'd get almost the same greater dynamic range capability anyway, even if you didn't use the crossover/sub combination.  

If you read our Theory material on our site you'll see the fact that the woofer is not excursion limited at any frequency from 30Hz on up.  The result of this is that crossing over 60 Hz won't buy you more output volume from the woofer UNLESS you put a bigger amp on it.  Most woofers in just about any other designs ARE excursion limited in the frequency range above their box resonance frequency. Adding a sub to them will usually get you more output volume than before.

Depending on the sub, you could get down flat to 20Hz though.  That would be the main advantage I can see.  If you do this I would recommend a 4th order Linkwity-Riley type at 60Hz.  Not so much because I'm necessarily in love with the L-R but it will make setup easier and less prone to phase problems.

As you can see , the Timepieces are considerably different in a number of ways compared to your more "average' design. If you have any other questions or I've sufficiently confused you, just holler and I'll give it another shot.

Take care,
 -Bob

[Hantra]

Well. . . Having just read the thread, and read about these speakers, I can say without reservation that I am glad to have SP Technologies here at AC.  It's really good to see a company that has worked so hard, and done so much research.  Personally, I think there are too many "me too boxstuffers", and it's great to see new companies with real ideas, and science.  

So, aside from the fact that you beat up on my boy Byteme, I'm glad you're here.  

B

[ak645]

Hi Bob,

 What a cool thread.It's my belief that all audio,and particularly speaker building is an exercise in the art of compromise.The compromises you have made in the design of your speakers are almost  one hundred percent the polar opposite of what I'd look for in a speaker.I won't be buying a pair any time soon.Ah well different strokes etc.However your honesty and straight talk have given me an invaluable lesson in the art of speaker design.Thank you,and best of luck.

 Andy

[infiniti driver]

I have been into speaker design and building most of my life. In the beginning were guitar speakers and smaller horns (circa 72 or so) in 2.5 cu ft boxes and I enjoyed high sensitivity of these systems...running around 98dB 1W/1M. The next step was to "tame them" to something that had minimal masking of various instruments. This in turn lead to using more precision tweeter horns and better cabinet constuction, more precision crossovers and better driver matching. A set of those speakers (which can still be built today) was mighty impressive (simalar in design concept to the hammer dynamics super 12) and blew away a host of loudspeakers at audio salons to the point of building several dozen of them for friends and family and to make some cash for school. About this time...I started induldging in what speakerlab had to offer and leaning toward acoustic suspention designs so I could have bottom end power to below 30hZ but sacrificing sensitivity along the way. Padding down the horns to achieve an open sound but with the deep bass was what I was looking for. I then started experimenting with full range horns (Klipsch design) in 1975 to make the "ultimate loudspeakers" and found that the internal resonances to be a irritant thus masking the definition that I once enjoyed with the bass reflex design and simple two way crossover. As time went on, I modded the corner horns in many ways to increase definition but all of this at the cost of sensitivity. Silicone layering in the bass horn, reshaping the chambers to curved areas rather than right angles, going with a 16ohm driver, going to a fiberglass mid horn that could reach down to 300hZ and a driver that had a softer diaphram than phenolic to behave better through the range, and going with the venerable T-350 compression tweeter which could reach down to 3K without sounding overstressed...meanwhile being able to go as high as I can hear and beyond.

Then I heard the NS1000 Yamahas and at this moment, immediatly, I was hearing so much more music, being able to follow every instrument and every detail at all levels within and having bottom end into the pedals. At this junction, I had to "rethink" what loudspeaker knowledge I had aquired and realised what was important in faithful sound reproduction. Lack of resonance. Drivers used within a linear range. High quality cabinet construction, accurate hand wound crossovers, minimal phase delay, reasonable cabinet dimentions...and all the while trying to keep compromise to a minimum. Tought act to follow. Well close to impossible act to follow...after aquiring the Yamahas but nevertheless, I still struggled with the ideas and moved forward. Transmission line bottom end was the only way I was able to get the FQ and the enclosure size and the sensitivity to a compromisable equal for me. As for midrange, I feel it starts around 150hZ, not 3 to 600 as many 3 way systems employ. Then a tweeter...no not just a tweeter, the tweeters. I tried ribbons, horns, domes, cones, horn loaded ribbons and all I could ever get what I wanted out of the speakers was the Dynaudio domes which did all I needed for proper matching. They also go quite low. A transmission line loaded tweeter such as the T330D dynaudio can go flat to below 1000hZ. Well after years of struggle and finally building a 11 piece (4 piece/outbound dividing networks/6 amplifiers) system that personally cost me about 35K to build..I thought I had something pretty special. Now..if it cost me 35K to build this monstrosity, what should it retail for? Well no one would be able to afford it and if they did...there would be NO support for it later.

I kept listening to the NS1000's since they got most everything "right" most of the time. To date, they are very very fine loudspeakers. Then, once I saw the SP Timepiece 2.0's...all my loudspeaker knowledge just seemed to lock right in...perhaps this could be a great loudspeaker...and I want to see!

T-line loading bass. Reasonable enclosure size. Bottom end to 30hZ (actually useable in the new room to 23hZ) Horn loading via waveguide of the tweeter. Dome type construction. Low crossover frequency (no cones trying to sing and beam). What about that sensitivity?

Well look this way...85dB 1W/1M for one speaker EQUALS 88dB 1W/1M as a pair. I simply dont listen to one loudspeaker unit so I can live with 88dB sensitivity. Pair up another pair (4 SP TP2's) and have well over 90dB sensitivity!

Listening.

I never thought that the Yamahas had any "boxyness" ever at all until the SP TP 2.0 arrived. The forward midrange of the Yamahas..even so little as not to annoy..was readily apperent and the Yamaha tweeter has a sense of area that I never really noticed. The SP's DO dissappear and reveal all the instuments I am used to hearing and the dynamics are not compressed.

That is basically all a loudspeaker can be asked to do anyway. Do I miss the other ways I use to design back 30 years ago? No I don't. It is about music and lack of artifical excitement. As a mastering engineer, I need to hear the truth. If I make an adjustment of someones work..it must translate to be an IMPROVEMENT on all other loudspeakers and not an adjustment to compensate for the mastering speakers. The SP's in the regard of accuracy excell in all areas for accurate reproduction. I was looking at pictures from CES 2004. It looks like Bob has started something. Notice how many loudspeakers are now being shown with a simalar waveguide that Bob uses. I find it flattering but for 16K a pair, I also find it "typical" of this business.


edited for spelling errors by me (hope I caught them all hehe)

[audiojerry]

edited for spelling errors by me (hope I caught them all hehe)

Not quite....
constuction
simalar
induldging
suspention
diaphram
immediatly
aquired
realised
dimentions
Tought
aquiring
apperent
dissappear
instuments
artifical
excell
simalar
... but nice narrative anyway  

[infiniti driver]

So much of my spelling skills..... lol