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
