timewindow 1A's

soundfreak1

Any input? Picking up a pair for my daughter's system. Opinions on these would be helpfull.they seem to be fairly well respected.

mhardy6647

What do you want to know? The original timewindows and the 1As are excellent loudspeakers from my perspective. They're remarkably sensitive & easy to drive, too.

I don't know about the 1As, but the original series are extremely difficult to get into for any refurbishment (if one were inclined to update XO capacitors, e.g.).

Make sure all four drivers are working.

PS I own one of the world's ugliest pairs of the original series timewindows -- but they were cheap and they sound very good. I really should restore them (or at least pretty them up a little) some day.

JPete

I have some original TimeWindows. No chance they will be going anywhere, ever. They would still be in my main 2 channel rig if I didn't get into the SDA sound so much.

One of my buddies has the 1As and loves them, although I've never listened to his to see if there is much difference. Bet they are uglier than yours, mhardy...

As mentioned, make sure all of the drivers work before buying. Trying to get into those **** for upgrade or repair would be a traumatizing experience.

soundfreak1

These have what looks like a 1/4 inch speaker jack. Are they same as a headphone jack? I will have to change them to 5 ways but for the interim could I use an adapter to 1/4" for testing purposes?

soundfreak1

soundfreak1

Never mind the inputs ARE bananas. Pays to look closer.

JPete

How much are you getting them for? Doesn't really matter... If they work, buy them!

soundfreak1

50.00

mhardy6647

Yes those are banana jacks, and bone stock.
(i.e., same as my original series timewindows)

JPete wrote: »

I have some original TimeWindows. No chance they will be going anywhere, ever. They would still be in my main 2 channel rig if I didn't get into the SDA sound so much.

One of my buddies has the 1As and loves them, although I've never listened to his to see if there is much difference. Bet they are uglier than yours, mhardy...

As mentioned, make sure all of the drivers work before buying. Trying to get into those **** for upgrade or repair would be a traumatizing experience.

You'd lose that bet -- I hope! :-/

timewindow by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

One of my pair, as acquired, had its foam sock in place and in fairly good condition -- but one of our kittehs thoughtfully began the pre-refurbishment demo for me by shredding it one day (long ago) ;-)

mhardy6647

I'd buy 'em all day long for 50 smackers a pair if they're not utterly basket cases (FWIW)!

soundfreak1

Here are some picts and a brochure i found on the net.

mhardy6647

They look beautiful to me (FWIW)!
They really are quite wonderful & rather remarkable loudspeakers, and they were not inexpensive when new.
Their construction values seem a little -- rudimentary -- the encosure's basically part Sonotube (cardboard)! but it's a clever and successful design, as far as I am concerned.

The later tws got kind of Byzantine in their configuration and array of drivers -- I prefer the earliest and simplest versions, but I'm a 'less is more' guy.

soundfreak1

They sound very good, deep bass (not too boomie) and I like the tweets) they sure won't replace my RTA'S but nice sound. They image like crazy. Not fatiguing. Gonna put them in my daughter's room, as I ended up selling her speakers (piss ed her off) so these will make up for it I hope.

mhardy6647

boomie :-)
I like that.

soundfreak1

Naaa I like THUMP! more than boom! LOL I get lots of THUMP!

StevieB

You got a real good deal Stan and your daughter should love them.

soundfreak1

They need socks redone, that would make them perfect or close at least.

mhardy6647

soundfreak1 wrote: »

Naaa I like THUMP! more than boom! LOL I get lots of THUMP!

Naw, I don't like it either (per se); but I like the imaginative spelling! Sort of Scottish looking (boomie).

Good bass reproduction requires, IMO, both boom and thwack. The thwack is what keeps it from sounding "slow" (as some folks like to say); i.e., muddy & ponderous.

While I am (sort of) on the subject, now feels like a good time to mention that the speed of sound is frequency-independent. I.e., bass is not, and can not be, any faster nor slower than... anything else! :- ) It's the thwack part (the leading transient edge of the waveform), I think, that makes bass seem... well... snappy.

soundfreak1

Sounds good to me! I hate PONDEROUS bass I like saying it (ponderous) but I hate hearing it.LOL and i'll go with thwack as well!!!!

JPete

What a sweet deal. If she decides she doesn't like them, I'd gladly pay $75 to take them away for you.

I always liked mine best about 2 ft off the back wall with a little bit of toe in. The imaging and soundstage is superb and they can fill a big room very well.

JPete

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Yes those are banana jacks, and bone stock.
(i.e., same as my original series timewindows)


You'd lose that bet -- I hope! :-/

timewindow by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

One of my pair, as acquired, had its foam sock in place and in fairly good condition -- but one of our kittehs thoughtfully began the pre-refurbishment demo for me by shredding it one day (long ago) ;-)

Yes... I definitely lost that bet, but not by much. Naked TWs look pretty damn good

soundfreak1

Jpete that's a nice bass in your pict. Fla resident?

soundfreak1

mhardy6647 wrote: »

soundfreak1 wrote: »

Naaa I like THUMP! more than boom! LOL I get lots of THUMP!

Naw, I don't like it either (per se); but I like the imaginative spelling! Sort of Scottish looking (boomie).

Good bass reproduction requires, IMO, both boom and thwack. The thwack is what keeps it from sounding "slow" (as some folks like to say); i.e., muddy & ponderous.

While I am (sort of) on the subject, now feels like a good time to mention that the speed of sound is frequency-independent. I.e., bass is not, and can not be, any faster nor slower than... anything else! :- ) It's the thwack part (the leading transient edge of the waveform), I think, that makes bass seem... well... snappy.

This is why I biamp! The JBL / L123A'S give me the "thawack" you speak of, at over 200w to just 800hrz and down being sent the the 12" JBL'S from a adcom 555 mkii and the krell at 800 htz and up to the RTA'S it really makes the bass a delight. Drums and bass guitar have a presents that is amazing and still surprises me every time I fire it up!

JPete

soundfreak1 wrote: »

Jpete that's a nice bass in your pict. Fla resident?

Thanks. I'm in Tennessee. They take bass from FL to stock the lakes though, so good guess.. Probably is a FL strain largemouth.

soundfreak1

JPete wrote: »

soundfreak1 wrote: »

Jpete that's a nice bass in your pict. Fla resident?

Thanks. I'm in Tennessee. They take bass from FL to stock the lakes though, so good guess.. Probably is a FL strain largemouth.

So that's where all our bass have gone. Huh. LOL

JPete

@soundfreak1 That's certainly how it looks. If you want any of them back, I can send a dozen 4 or 5 pounders in trade for those TWs some day..

Seems we have the same Monster brand power conditioner. Got mine 2nd hand for a steal that I couldn't pass up even after reading so many Monster product horror stories. Has been good, but developed a low level buzz over the past few months.

Any issues with yours?

soundfreak1

Not so far have had it for 5 years used as well.

leftwinger57

Mark I brought up DCM Time Frame series years ago and how good they were for what they look like and fairly low c/l prices. Then I remember saying DCMs upper tier series was the Time Windows which I believe had 1s, 1a, 3 and the whole point of this are the very rare 7s. Story goes only 200 pairs were ever made. Ages ago I saw a pair on sale on the Canuck Audio Mart and going for $1600. So how can you say such great things about the lower tiered 1s and 1a and basically poo poo the vaunted 7s, which I think you did. Oh, btw those naked 1s w/ scratched tops still look better than a grill off set of Dahlquist D-10s

davestl

These always had great imaging. I just wish I had found a pair before our house filled up like it has.

davestl

These always had great imaging. I just wish I had found a pair before our house filled up like it has.

FTGV

Have not heard them in years but I quite liked TW's back the day.Not the last word in resolution,they sound a bit on the soft side but highly musical.I also like thir little brother the QED.