[Audio Architect]

I become impatient with seeing no additions to this forum except to the Religion topic, so I will ask a question related to the original intent of this forum, that is to discuss SP Technology speakers. A while ago someone indicated that they had ordered the Continuums. Please respond with the status of that order. I am very curious to read user impressions of this model as well as the Timepiece.

[Double Ugly]

I am very curious to read user impressions of this model as well as the Timepiece.

AA-

I have a pair of Timepieces and will be writing a review.  Time is something I have little of at present, though, and I'm not certain when I'll get it done.  Suffice to say, however, that I will either keep the Timepieces or upgrade to the Continuums.

Either way, an SP Tech product will be in my home.

DU

[Horsehead]

I might be the one you are thinking of.  I should have a pair of Continuums here in about 2 weeks or so.  Bob had some unexpected delays they were certainly reasonable in my book.  Bob's been terrific so far and my expectations for the Continuums are very high after several conversations with him.  I too woud like to see some more discussions of SP Technology loudspeakers.  Maybe Bob could chime in here and explain some differences between the Timepieces and the Continuums.

Double Ugly- I look forward to reading your impressions on the Timepieces.

[infiniti driver]

I will say this, The timepieces have absolutly no "bass problems" that is for sure. I suspect (not having heard them) that Bob will "voice" the Continuums exceeding close to the timepieces. Advantage will be:

More power handling
Larger image
More sensitivity
More maximum output potential.

I say that they will be very close in nature due to the fact that his reference voicing is based on the timepiece accuracy.

This is conjecture at best as I really have not spoken to Bob in depth about how the two products relate but being a designer myself, you can rest assured that he has it under control.

The only things I can see that could be potential areas that would be addressed would be extra bracing, because a larger enclosure is more prone to resonances, especially in the 200 to 600hZ region and that he will "unleash" the waveguide some to accomidate the extra sensitivity of the dual woofer design. Another potential issue would be resonance spread. When using two identical woofers in an enclosure, much care must be given that any artifacts displayed in the design of the woofers are spread out enough to not become audible. Case in point would be acoustic suspention designs (which this is not) will give rise to the natural curve of the driver making it harder to control in tandum. Also the impedance curve will change quite a bit in paralleling drivers both acoustically and electrically. I feel confident that Bob has researched these areas to their fullest in order to provide the best, this combination of parts can be. I also will repeat, the above is only my experience in design and I have not heard the Continuums.

I really look forward to the impressions both from DU and yourself Horsehead.

I am willing to bet that they are certainly worth the added cost over the timepieces. Bobs impressions of a direct comparison would be nice to hear.

[Horsehead]

Thanks for the response ID.  I will also let you know on the passive/active linestage debate after the Continuums arrive.  I will be listening to them several ways.

1- Wadia 861SE direct to Pass X350
2- Wadia 861SE to Placette Audio RVC Passive Attenuator to Pass X350
3- Wadia 861SE to Aesthetix Calypso Tube Active Linestage to Pass X350

Right now through my VMPS RM40 (standard caps), I am prefering the sound with the Placette in the system.  I do not have the Calypso Linestage yet, so I have not been able to compare the two.

Can you or Bob perhaps discuss some setup considerations with SP Technology speakers?   Best placement, toe-in, distance from front wall, distance to listening position, etc.  I would imagine due to their design some issues might be more important than others.

[infiniti driver]

On the timepiece speakers, the rear escape passage for the transmission line does not emitt sound like a port does. Huge blasts of air does not come out of it and even with my ear nearby, it does not behave as a port (because it is not an actual port) so this means that putting them closer to a wall does not inhibit the performace as one would expect. Corner placement will result in two rises in the response curve, below 40hZ and a slight lift at 300 is also measurable but not unkind to the ears. Although not as critical as many other loudspeakers I have used, the best set-up to date for flat powerband response at various distances is about 30 inches from the side walls toe'd in about 10 degrees (very slight) and about 14 inches from the back wall. Finding a place that is symentrical in the room is the key...a place on along a wall which gives the simalar picture of acoustics from left to right. I have used them on "the long wall" for the most part but when used on the short wall, one must be careful of all the extra bottom from the rear wall being bunched up and standing. This is true of ANY loudspeaker and room. Listening down the length of a room is never as preferable as using the longer wall and getting 2/3 back in the room. 1/3 back also works very well since they are designed to be used in near field. (that is what the switch on the back helps for).

Very versatile in positioning and setting up. They sound very nice in several positions but finding the proper set-up is definitly a matter of experimentation. Just try to balance them with the room and don't put one in a corner and the other one out in the middle of the floor. Good common sense will prevail here.

[Aether Audio]

Thanks for posting AA, Horsehead, ID and all!

I'm glad the religious discussion thread is seeing activity but I agree with you.  Audio is the primary reason we're all here.  I think I've created a monster.  I'll try to bring about a little balance here as well as try to answer your's and horseheads question.

First off, Infinity Driver is pretty much correct in all that he's stated.  Everyone got all wound up about the lower efficiency/higher power needs of the Timepiece.  My main motivation for designing it was to pack the most performance possible in the smallest package possible.  I saw to it that the only major tradoff due to smaller size was efficiency.  That's just the laws of physics at work.  I believe its a fantastic compromise for the person that wants the convenience of portability and lower cost.  The reduced cost of the TP2's wouldn't be as much of an advantage if it weren't for the advent of lower cost/higher power amps coming out these days.

On to the Continuum A.D.'s.  They are an obvious evolutionary step (see, I believe in evolution too ) up from the Timepiece.  The major advantage for most of you is the increased efficiency.  You get 3dB more absolute power (watts) efficiancy but you also get another 3dB of voltage sensitivity due to their 4-ohm rating.  If your amp acts more like a true voltage source, you'll get twice the power out of it into 4-ohms as it's rated for into 8-ohms.  That means an amp that is rated at 75 watts into 8-ohms will put out exactly twice that. or 150 watts into 4-ohms.  In that event, the Continuum will reproduce the same SPL with that 75 watt (150 into 4-ohms) amp as the Timepiece will on the 300 watt/ch into 8-ohm amp we require for the "No Risk" deal.  Obvuiously, for that reason alone it should appeal to more audiophiles than the Timepiece does.  It will almost never be needed (unless you're using them outdoors as a PA system), but they will play 3dB louder than the Timepice due to the fact that they handle twice the average power.  We will not be held responsible for any hearing damage, by the way!

Since the Continuum has twice the cone area of the Timepiece in the woofer section, the woofer's only have to travel 1/4th the distance back and forth to reproduce the same SPL.  This provides the benefit of reduced distortion throughout the bass and lower midrange frequencies.  Since the woofer has such a long, linear excursion to begin with, harmonic distortion is quite low in the Timepiece as well as in the Continuum.  The form of distortion that is reduced due to less cone travel in the Continuum is mostly intermodulation byproducts with respect to that of the Timepiece.  Such distortion is the result to some degree in any design that requires the woofer to operate into the midrange and is directly related to cone excursion.  It is also the most objectionable.

Vertical dispersion is narrower in the Continuum due to the  D'Appolitto alignment.  This is a real plus if you sit further back (+10 feet) and/or you're using them in a high-end HT application.  Even if neither of these issues apply, the reduced floor/ceiling reflections will provide a more transparent "window" into the recording.  The only drawback in this is if you do sit closer, the need to sit at the optimal height (tweeter level) is more critical.  Regardless, the Continuum is far more forgiving in this respect than many designs using conventional tweeters and/or some ribbons.

As far as placement is concerned, what works for the Timepiece is pretty much the same for the Continuum.  I won't go into this here as I think that's been covered fairly well already.  In most ways, the Continuum is more like the Timepiece than not.

I hope this answers everybody's questions.  I won't comment on the "sound" myself.  I'd rather leave that to those of you that decide to "take the plunge" and give them a try.  I will say that I'd rather have the Continuum's for myself, though.

Thanks for your questions.  If I can answer any others, feel free to post and I'll do the best I can.  

GOD bless everyone and have a good night!

-Bob

[infiniti driver]

Hey bob, I got a stupid question (from lil ole me? stupid? ) yepper, pretty stupid.

Suppose, just suppose someone has a set of timepieces. Would it be remotely feasable to constuct a module using the exact woofer only to add to the timepieces to make something kinda like the continuum? this is what I picture:

A module that can be stacked on top the timepieces to make them an "upgrade" and that same very module serve duty as an outboard sub (in pairs mind you) for those who want to go two modules and two timepieces...for either dual subs and timepieces or stacking on the timepieces to make something close to a continuum AD?

I am thinking this way...

I know you said a "sub" is in the works for HT purposes but I simply dislike a single sub with a purple passion. Even if the signal (as in HT) were Mono, I still demand a pair of low frequency drivers. I also require my two channel listening to be stereo all the way down and I poo-poo the notion of those who state.."bass is omni directional" At 22hZ, I can easily tell which speaker left or right I send that signal to. Sine wave no doubt.

So with this in mind...here are the questions.

Can an enclosure be added to the timepieces in this manner with no problems from the lack of sharing the same enclosure space?

My experiment with stacking a set of timepieces is truly awesome on the bottom. I can actually do 20hZ very loud this way from the stack...so much energy from one place coming at you!

Would this be something you would consider in the future?

I like the idea of 4 timepieces minus one waveguide each and look how huge the enclosures would be.

Lastly, how is the sub project going and can you give us any insight as to what it will be ..etc...


Thanks for listening to this stupidity...at least it is not total ignorance...

[reefrus]

I'm too,very intriguing by this new line of speakers,both timepieces and continuum.I've spent last two days reading all the infos through their web-site.Very very interesting.

[infiniti driver]

If you are in the SE US, send me a PM if you want to...if you can get to the gulf shores area, I will be happy for you to do a few hours of listening to the timepieces.