If your going to keep the SX 1250 I would definitely have
someone go through the unit and do a complete check out. No doubt some of the caps have dried out, only good for about 20 years or so. It is worth the effort to keep in good shape. |
I intend to do that. Unfortunately I live in Missoula, MT where there is no electronic shop I would trust to touch my MP3 player, much less a decades old receiver. I'll need to get it to Spokane. |
You might want to check out this fellow audiogon member. Specializes in great vintage gear. Was going to have him update my Luxman 1070 receiver. But ended up selling it to
a local audiophile who just had to have it. But I did speak with him prior to that. He does know what he is doing and has good feedback to back it up. Link below.
http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?miscrcvr&1141413458 |
After 30 years of using my pair of original Time Windows ( Phillips woofers with the butyl surrounds) as my main speakers I have relegated them as my surround speakers. I purchased a pair of Infinity Beta 50's as my main speakers and after listening to them for 2 weeks now I can say that the Time Windows still hold their own compared to the Infinitys. Back in the 70's I worked for a HiFi dealer in Connecticut( Fred Locke Stereo) that was the exclusive dealer for this product and had to have a pair when they were first produced. The tops of the cabinets are pretty much shot ( my wife insisted in putting plants on them!) but they sound every bit as good as the day I took them home 30 years ago. |
Ditto on that. I've had my Time Windows for 20+ years and they are still an EXCELLENT sounding speaker that I just do not get tired of. |
I'm getting a little off subject, but, this digging out old equipment has stirred me. This weekend I dug up my old Dynaco SCA 35. It originally played a set of ADC 404 Speakers and an original AR Turntable with some sort of cheap Shure. I plugged my new AR Turntalble with Shure V15 MR, hooked up a pair of Mission 70s and Wonderful! But, it would not adequately play either set of my Time Windows. I'm not sure why. |
Help! I bought my Time Windows in 1979 and they are the greatest thing ever. I had them rebuilt in around 1985. Some time ago my son left the amp up super high and when turned on next time adios speaker. I since found out they are not rebuilding anymore. Any suggestions? |
I have reconnected my Time Windows after three or four months of listening to the Dynaudio Audience 42s. I find the overall performance of the Time Window to be as enjoyable as ever. I have actually rasied the speakers on solid stands roughly 18 inches above floor level. I am surprised how phenomenal the sound is. I like them better now than ever. The soundstaging and imaging are excellent. The Dynaudios are now being used in the computer system, driven surprisingly well by the Sonic Impact T Amp. I now have the best of both worlds with both speakers running in separate systems. |
The best I ever got my Time Windows to sound was in a previous house I owned. The dimensions of the rectangular room were in the exact Fibonacci ratio. They were placed three feet from the back wall, which was covered with Sonex, about two and a half feet from the side walls and six feet apart. They stood on Tippy Toes on a cement floor with about 15 pounds of weight on top of each. Listening was from about 8 feet back. My turn table was near the back of the room sitting on 12 cement blocks. In this set up they just disappeared.
The Keith O. Johnson Reference Recordings that I was into back then were stunning.
It was great! |
I have a much more confined listening space but I also believe I am now getting the best possible performance out of my Time Windows. I have owned mine since 1982 and only now am I beginning to hear even more soundstaging and imaging capabilities than I did when they were closer to the floor. I do wish I had a listening environment like the one described above by rolando. In the meanwhile, I cannot complain. These speakers continue to amaze, and you cannot ask any more of any speaker than that. |
Oh Yeah. Once, when I first got my Time Windows back in 1980 or so, I also built a set of 14" stands forthem because I read a reviewer somewhere or other suggesting that it would "raise" the sound stage. It indeed did just that, making it about equal top to bottom as from side to side. One thing I have never tried is both raising them and spiking them down solidly at the same time. I can only imagine how this would effect things.
Maybe I'll build a new set of stands. I gave the original ones to a friend with an unruly 2 year old to keep him from kicking the grill foam off of his JBLs. |
Time Frame series? dcm-250 picked up cheap-ish and sound great but know little/any about them other than are best with subwoofer addition...awesome in theater mode....any info or insight as to what these are intended for |
If remember correctly the Time Frame 250 were the start of the TF series. Used primairly for 2 channel audio where space is a consideration. Had a pair of the TF 350 and liked those very much. Time Frames were mirror image speakers. Make sure the small DCM logos on the front of the speakers are to the inside when viewed from front for
proper imaging.
link below:
http://www.dcmspeakers.com/manuals/TF250.pdf |
This is all great bs. I am interested(since I have the original DCM's) in how to get the best from them. My current situation is about 2 feet from the back walls. My understanding is that 3 feet are proper. Let's get some life into this situation. Are you guys dead out there? Controversy is great(I'm the "When is digital going to get the soul of music guy.)! BTW, I am a horn guy. I bought Ferrari's Classe amp. The Nuforce amp is so superior, it's unbelievable. |
I 1st heard the TimeWindows a few years ago at a friends house. he had timeframes also, and all sorts of other stuff, mostly 50's & 60's era. the windows stood out as special amoung all the huge jbls, and jbl 100's and bozaks and lord knows what else he played for me. he was driving them with macintosh mono blocks and a marantz model 7 pre.
same friend got me a pair of kef 105.2's which I still love, but when he offered to sell me his timewindows 2 years back I was very very excited. then he sold me his model 7, and hooked me up with an old audionics of oregon ba150 tube amp. the windows sound fantastic with this gear. the kefs present a completely different sound. more refined maybe, amazing highs and detail. but the windows sound like no other speakers, and when the 105.2's just don't have the punch to rock it, the time windows do just that, and then some. |
Yep, those original Time Widows are truly classics. I remember Peter Aczel stating in his review(@1977) that although other speakers could do certain things better, the Time Windows just gave that "breath of life" that those other speakers didn't have. I kept mine for about 10 years, sold them to buy the new(at the time) Vandersteen 2B's and although I thoroughly enjoyed the Vandersteens, I missed from time to time those beloved Time Windows. |
I have Time Frame 350's hooked up to a mid level surround sound (Sony) in the garage. I was wondering about replacing the center channel with DCM16C, but I've heard really mixed messages abiut the new DCM stuff. This will not be for the good system upstairs. Any thoughts out there? |
Slowhand, look in EBAY under Time Windows, theres a bloke selling them in Australia. Hes plagerised your review. Nearly word for word. |
Wasn't slowhand, was my initial review of the Time Windows that members are posting to here. No worries it is a public domain review. He must have like what I wrote on these. But other sellers have used this review before. About six times by my count this review has been used to help sell time windows. Oh well at least it gets the word out on these very great speakers. |
Yes, I also have a response buried waaay back there somewhere over a year or so ago....what a thread! You're review was certainly spot on.
I still haven't replaced my cat-torn grill material but I intend to.
I'm still amazed at the performance of these speakers after 27 years. I also had a pair of the TW-7s but foolishly let them go a couple of years ago. They were also great speakers and I wish I'd tried a few simple tweeks on them. For instance, they should have had some acoustic damping material inside to eliminate any trace of standing waves, and the bass port could have been reduced to tighten/quicken the bass a bit.
Has anyone heard these speakers (originals) stacked...That is, two pair stacked on top of each other either biwired of jumpered? They really did sound great that way; a much bigger and more relaxed presentation. When used that way the upper speakers should be upside down to provide better focus and imaging. A friend managed a high end show in Carmel, CA, at the time and we used to enjoy the hell out of trying such things. Anyone remember Audio Components of Carmel and Keith Yates? Keith is now designing state-of-the-art rooms and theaters in the Sacremento area. (Keithyatesaudio.com)
Used alone, a single pair benefits from being elevated a bit. I recall someone doing a study and coming up with them sounding best exactly 9 inches above the floor. I took that as gospel and built two stands from solid black walnut slabs exactly 9 inches high and shaped exactly like the TW endplates. They were difficult to fashion (using a chain saw, 5" sanding disk on the end of an electric drill, and a pad sander) but well worth it. The most difficult part was getting the tops and bottoms perfectly parallel. The TWs do sound very good perched on those and it also seems to help to keep a little weight on the speakers to couple the array to the floor. Bronze statues do the trick for me.
Those speakers still are sounding great in my downstairs system. They are very close to the back wall in this configuration, but for some reason they sound superb that way....plenty of bass! Lack of deep bass was considered this speaker's greatest weakness way back when.
As I recall from the original DCM owner's manual (which I still have), DCM's recommendation was to keep them a minimum of 36" from rear and side walls, which I did religiously. But now I think they sound much better with more rear wall reinforcement of the bass. Back when they were anchoring my main system I didn't do all that much experimenting with positions because of decor considerations, but I usually kept them 36" out measured from the speakers' backs to the rear wall. I had them as close as 24", but I'm wondering why I didn't try them closer than that. I suppose I thought they'd lose imaging and I'd be excommunicated from any pretense of residence in audiophiledom or something.
I was in contact with Steve Eberbach a few years back and he was still involved in audio research at the time. He was working with some very talented people on some revolutionary concepts in the whole transducer/psycho-acoustic relationship, but he was obviously still very proud of his Time Windows....and for very good reason!
Tom E. |
I just read the Ebay ad. This Aussie copied your review verbatim, even the mis-spelled words, LOL. |
Islandbird and I must have read the same comment, regarding Time Windows, at about the same time, that 9" inches would raise and improve one's image greatly. At about the same time the same comment also appeared in Playboy in a John Holmes interview. Must be in the numbers.
Anyhow, I immediately constructed, although not out of solid black walnut, speaker stands that raised the Time Windows exactly 9" off of the floor with great results. For years I also was neurotic about keeping the speakers exactly the prescribed 36" from the back wall of my room.
However, now I am forced to place them much closer to the wall in their current room with the same results, improved base and I must admit, only slightly dimished depth of image. The conclusion I have come to after all of these years is simply that these speakers image better under similiar conditions than most other speakers and certainly in in their price range.
The day that I bought mine I went to the Audio shop knowing that I was going to buy either Time Windows or Dahlquists. It didn't take very long in the listening room to make my solid choice, and it was the imaging that made it. It is still the quality that makes new listener's jaws drop.
I live in the university area of town and have many neighbors who are students. When any of them come into my house they are invariably amazed to hear music, "sound like that". I am also happy with my role reversal status. I am the only long term elderly resident of the neighborhood who has students ask them to,"turn the music down and please keep it a little more quiet". |
I can't help but think that the current owners of DCM have thier head up their butts. Since I posted this review there has been over 14,000 hits on this post and over 120 posts to this review. These are strong numbers on a dedicted site such as Audiogon.
Clearly with these numbers in mind, it warrants DCM to once gain offer the Time Windows from this period of time.There new Time Windows are sad commentary to the originals that were produced.
It is very apparent by this thread and posts that the market continues to exist for the original Time Windows.
Although DCM produces speakers in the already crowded market of HT. Their home audio is not on par. For a company has to grow its revenues by 10% per year to remain viable, I do not see that in the HT speaker field that is already over populated with HT speakers.
If anyone from DCM reads this thread, here is a perfect way to reintroduce a classic you already own, with an existing market built in. I know what I would be doing if I was sitting in the DCM Presidents chair. Its a no brainer. |
Amen! I'd be camped in line to buy a pair along with my five kids, who grew up with TWs, all of whom lavish me with gifts in hopes that they will be the "choosen one" who's name appeaars in the will along side of the Time Windows. |
Islandbird, I really appreciate your comments on DCM's distance from the back wall. I apologize for my previous comments-they were meant to extract information, such as yours. This thread has gotten those most comments on Audiogon that I've ever seen(I've only gotten about 6,000 on mine.). I agree with Ferrari's last comments(I'm actually a horn-guy, but off-axis response of the DCM's allows me to listen to music.). To help people to get the best from the original Time-Windows, I have them on maplewood, with some isonodes under them, a little further than 2 feet from the back wall(one is a corner-one has an opening). I tried those stands that elevated them about 9-inches. I hope you don't care about the bass. Actually, those stands weren't rigid, at all. |
Maybe I should e-mail DCM about this, but just moving my original DCM's less than an inch, brought about a hugh difference in the sound. I was thinking that since this has gotten the most response on Audiogon, that someone can give some pertinent information on speaker placement. I currently have my speakers a little more than two feet from the back walls(one near a corner, one near an opening). The speakers are on mapleboards(Mapleshade)with Isonodes under them. Hit me with information, please! |
Mine are now in my downstairs system about 8 feet apart and only about 8-9 inches from the back wall (measured from back of cabinet). They are still up on the walnut stands but those are also up on a quasi raised hearth that's about 14 inches above the carpeted floor. No idea why the previous owner had this configuration built to appear like a fireplace, but I think he must have had a TV in the recess and speakers to the sides out on the raised hearth. Whatever, it sounds damn good with much more bass than I hear from my upstairs system with Talon Firebirds driven by Pass X350.5! The TWs are driven by an old Threshold CAS-1 amp, which I bought at about the same time as the speakers. The imaging isn't superb being that close to the rear wall, but it sure does sound superbly musical. Even FM radio sounds right down there. Bass was never a strong suit of the original TW (which supposedly is why the TW3 was introduced), but I have plenty with them now. It's not the tightest bass, but it doesn't lag and really helps make the room seem much bigger than its 20X28X9' It's just one of those freaks of synergy. A system of my old also-rans never fails to amaze me and anyone else who hears it. My son lusts after those speakers! (over my dead body) |
Islandbird, I appreciate your response. I was hoping to move the discussion into the present realm. I know there is some benefit into elevating the DCM's, as those unstable stands that we had proved. I agree that imaging in the sweet spot is not that great, but with all the responses on this site about DCM's, I'm sure that many knowledgeable people can give information-even though it might come from their memory. You'de be suprised how much their input could provide! I would guess that my speakers are at least 10 feet apart with dissimiar backings(one's a corner, one's an open doorway). I might be able to move them closer together and get a more uniform backing? |
I've got TimeWindow 3's & 7's and they're irreplaceable. It's amazing how you can tweak their sound just by moving them 1/2" forward or back. It should also be noted that the imaging of these speakers can be fine-tuned by simply rotating each speaker by a degree or two (slight toe-in or toe-out). These speakers need to be spiked and, in the case of the smaller TWs, placed on short stands. Shot-filled Lovan Jazz or similar stands may work, though a cheaper solution may be to try cinder or concrete blocks under the speakers. Stable and acoustically inert, concrete is actually a great material in audio. If a concrete block improves performance, it may be wrapped in carpet or heavy cloth to match the room's decor. I would still use spikes or hard cones under the speakers for proper drainage of cabinet vibrations.
BTW - On the topic of DCM re-introducing the TimeWindow, DCM had some very expensive cabinet making machinery and tools that were used to make the uniquely shaped TimeWindows & TimeFrames. When Mitek bought them out, I believe they SOLD ALL OF IT, solidifying Mitek's objective of running DCM as a value-based manufacturer. I've read some good things about the new TimeFrames; it'd be interesting to hear them. |
I am using concrete locks sandwiched above and below a pair of Tannoy Mercury M2s. Those Tannoys are just the right height. They make great stands. They have no other use than to support the Time Windows. |
I mistakenly kept a subtitle on previous post. The Time Windows are in perfect position for me. The Tannoys make great stands. They are still useful. Have no complaints about concrete slabs. |
I probably should e-mail DCM about this, as they are answering now, but if I remember correctly, they recommend 3-feet from the back wall. Any ideas here(I'm currently about 2 feet from the back wall, but with 2-inch maple under them{Mapleshade} and maybe some isonodes{Bright Star Audio} under the maple.)? My sound is a little dark, but the tracking force of my cartridge is a little higher than originally set(although with the correct parameters). Argonaut, the toe-in,out point is well taken, as it seems like one of my speakers is not correct in this area. |
I've just recently finished a custom center speaker based off the DCM CX17 to match the TimeWindow Sevens. Steve Eberbach worked with me on the design. It uses the same diamond coated tweeter that the Seven uses and the new crossover incorporates the same "time delay" and tweeter dampening circuits. I have a set of 1a's, 3's and 7's. Like Argonaut said "they're irreplaceable", unless Steve comes up with something bigger and better. "Dreps Chrone Maze" |
This is just slightly off subject. I'm really a horn(not horny) guy, but I live with someone who needs to hear off-axis. The DCM Time Windows excell at this. Does anyone have a recommendations in this area? Maybe later DCM's. I find the normal sweet spot of the original Time Windows a little lacking. |
Try some Time Window 3s. They can be a little more easily fine tuned and are a little more versitile with regards to dispersion. |
Rolando, have you read the AVS forum on DCM's? There are some problems with the 3's. |
Mmakshak, What problems have you head of? Can you provide a link? I think what Rolando is referring to is that the big advantage the Threes have is that you can compensate for room irregularities with the user controls on the top rear of the speaker. You can adjust overall tweeter output along with separate control over high and midrange level on the ambient (outside face) side of the speaker. To give an example, if you have a wall on the left of your listening area and a door opening on the right, you can bump up the level on the ambient side of the right speaker to compensate. The inboard drivers stay the same as not to affect imaging. In normal a listening environment, all three dials would be straight up. |
I lived in Ann Arbor in the 80's, but couldn't afford these, so had to settle for Timeframe 500's, still giving me great pleasure 19 years later. I just got a pair of Timewindows for a song, but one is missing the serial # and the other the "DCM" logo. On the Timeframes, it's important to set them up with the logo medial. I have noticed that the port on both of the Timewindows is on the right, which makes me wonder if these are both "Right" speakers. Is this a correct assumpution, and if so, how important is it? I'm thinking that since bass is less directional, it may not be a big deal, but I'm not against continued searching for the dream speakers of my youth. Input is appreciated. |
No, I haven't read it, but I will. I have both the 3's and the originals, and I must say that I like the original Time Window's better. They are must more alive and natural. I have thought that it might simply be a function of the 2 way design being more seamless. |
Houser,
Exactly. I really prefer the sound of the original speakers, but the 3's do allow for some more flexibility which is what I thought the question was. I own both and have played with them a lot. |
I found a pair of original dcm time windows 15 years ago somebody threw out in the junk! i hooked them up they are perfect! the only thing i had to do was replace the foam! i will never part with these speakers they sound just as good when they came out of the factory ! i really am happy with these ! |
Pcurtin,
I might have mention before, in the TimeWindow series, only the 3's and the 7's are designed as rights and lefts. The difference is in the ambient side of the speaker. The 3's are adjustable and the 7's are fixed at 6 dB lower than the direct side. It would be safe to assume that you have a pair.
Rolando,
I think the thread on the AVS forum that Mmakshak is referring to deals with a problem with one TimeWindow Seven. It ended up being a bad or loose solder joint in the crossover and a blown fuse. The Three's are also a two-way design, only the Seven's were three-way.
Of all the speakers that Steve Eberbach design at DCM, he said the TimeWindow Three's and Seven's were his favorites. |
I picked up a second pair of original timewindows and they're absolutely mint except for this one area on the bottom edge of one of the speakers where the wood is splintering. How can they be repaired? |
If mine I would take to a quality cabinent shop and see what they recommend. More than likely there is some type of filler that can be used to stop the splintering. Also some of the guys at Home Depot or Lowes are good at coming up with ideas that are cost effective as well.
Good save on the Time Windows, enjoy them. |
Well, I hate to differ, but the TW 3s have an 8 inch woofer with folded transmission line, a 6.5 inch mid range and two 3/4 inch dome tweeters mounted coaxially. |
Rolando, are you disagreeing with my statement that the TimeWindow 3’s are a 2-way design? I wasn't sure. You are correct in the description of the speaker in your post, but the speaker is still a 2-way design. I also have a set and there is one review of the TW3's from Stereo Review –Feb 92 that mentioned that they were 3-way. I was under the same assumption also; Steve Eberbach was the one who told me they were a 2-way design. |
I just talk to Steve for a better explanation on the TW3’s. As stated before, they are a 2-way design as far as the crossover is concerned. Just a high and low pass filter, but they can act like a 3-way based on the position of the mid level adjustment. With it set to max, you are adding resistance to the 8" driver reducing the midrange output, and increasing the midrange to the 6.5". When it is set to min, the opposite happens. In this position it acts like a 3-way. The 6.5" and 8" are both in the same chamber. There is also a factor of how the back pressure affects each drive when the midrange is adjusted. How does he come up with these ideas? I hope this helps. |
So, do the mid-range and dome tweeters cross over at the same frequency? Is that the design? |
Yeah, that's a pretty interesting design concept. It must explain some of the comments I've read over the years that the "crossover is impossibly complex" in these speakers.
Thanks for the information. |
What do you guys think about DCM's Time Frame Evolution 200s? Are they the worthy succesors to the Time Windows as some have suggested? |
