Stereophile | January 2017 Issue

[Mike Lavigne]

Well in hindsight asking you for specific data is like asking a vegetarian about what is the best steak!

So no, you don't need to show any numbers. If you want however to assert anything that has any weight then you need to show something that is beyond your personal bias to like your own system. That's fair, right? As otherwise everyone would declare their system the same and we would have a useless term just the same.


Your prejudice against my posts is unfortunate. I never said anything about measured coherence. I specifically said in another post that measurements could be quite faulty in that they don't approximate what we hear. Listening data therefore is king for most of the hearing range.

Here, listening means just that: listening. Nothing more. No using your eyes. No using your prior prejudices of what kind of speaker is seamless. No knowing you are hearing your system versus another. You make a soup of all of this and then claim you are relying on your ears.

There are measurements that can be instructive but they need to be performed by the speaker manufacturer. I looked at the web page for speakers. Man, there is more data on a roll of toilet paper there than for your speakers! There is nothing there whatsoever. I couldn't even find the manual, any spec sheets, or nothing.

There is plenty of questionable statements though:

"The Evolution Acoustics MMSeven is the ultimate full range loudspeaker. From the deepest notes of a pipe organ to the highest notes of a Harmon muted trumpet, no other loudspeaker, regardless of price, reproduces music quite like the Evolution Acoustics MMSeven."


Wonderful. I would rush out and buy one if they can demonstrate this. Did they do a side-by-side comparison with a magico? Martin Logan? Wilson? Whose ears were judging these against their own?

They provide a quote that says all rooms have standing waves

"Dr. Dan Russell of Kettering University Applied Physics Department states; “All rooms (a cavity volume enclosed by boundaries) have resonant frequencies at which the acoustic response to a source can be extremely large."

And follow up with this:

"Understanding these issues, it is no wonder, it is such a challenge to get great, good, or even acceptable, bass in your listening room. Evolution Acoustics incorporates adjustability in the lower frequencies to help alleviate these challenges. The MMSeven allows you to tune the bass specifically for your room. Not only does the MMSeven reduce the effects the room may impart on your sound, but you also have the ability to adjust the loudspeaker for personal taste. Some people prefer a warmer more romantic sound, while others prefer a cooler or more clinical one. With a simple turn of a dial, you can select the type of sound you prefer."

Unless you have a parametric EQ with resolution down to 1 Hz, you cannot tame those standing waves. Global levels and wide bandwidth EQ is not at all the right tool here. It can only be used for what they say in the last sentence to some extent with how much bass you have. But it has nothing to do with fixing standing waves.

And then there is this:

"In audio, the word “neutral” is used too often to describe the “ideal” sound, Frankly, it is not the type of sound we were looking for. One needs to look at the definition of the word to understand why we feel the way we do:

neu-tral [noo-truh l ] – adjective
gray; without hue; of zero chroma; achromatic.

Music is all about color. At Evolution Acoustics we feel our loudspeakers are not neutral as the above defines. Rather they are rich in color as are the notes that emanate from the actual instruments that create them. Our goal was to create a “natural” or “true” copy of the archetype."

So there is clear data that says the speaker sound is colored. How on earth does that match any implied meaning of "Seamless?"

Bottom line is that there is no foundation to what you say in this regard about your system. It is just bragging right. No way can you hide behind anything with merit to justify it.

that there is 100%, grade A, genuine.......Pure Amir.

Have a Happy New Year!!!!

 

[microstrip]

The lack of interest in learning something is astonishing at times.


You are stating data that is not in dispute. No one said the term is not commonly used. The issue is what it means. As it is, without any specific meaning, anyone can do as Mike has done and declare his system seamless. And with no specific meaning, there is nothing that can a) be learned from that b) how to replicate the same c) know if what is stated is true at all.

Multiple people have said what is seamless to them and they are all different and the use of the term there is heavily disputed.

If this is good enough for you then you must be latching on the fact that the term can be used with reckless abandon and no one can prove you wrong. It is a great benefit in that manner but also a recipe for not learning how make your system better or evaluate technology in a reliable manner.

Well, it is well known that one should not teach what he does not understand. You fail to understand how the the high end develops and its users communicate - in fact you enjoy exploiting its normal and accepted weaknesses in language, ignoring the great global achievements. It is known that no one can be forced to learn - fortunately WBF is not George Orwell's "1984". Most of us are here to have a good time and use what we learn to build and appreciate our systems. Perhaps most have read the Revel speakers brochures, and know what is meant in general by "seamless" - the same think the majority (surely not all) here thinks about it.

Have a nice Happy New Year!

 

[NorthStar]

I do not know where that definition comes from but it is inherently conflicting as it covers with three different parameters: frequency, time and space. That does not mean that those are entirely independent physical parameters but they affect our perceptions differently. Also, I don't care for the term "smooth" since it doesn't say anything about uniformity itself but, rather, that any variation is not jagged or abrupt.

1. Frequency: Is the frequency response uniform and continuous? There is subjective variation in the in-room FR of the Beolab. I had been aware of this when I heard the prototypes in Struer. At that time, Geoff Martin and I fiddled with the FR using variations on the order of a dB here and there and we had minor disagreements about preference. He tells me that some of my preferences were incorporated into the current target curve but, it is clear to me, that when the facility for the user to tweak this, it can be fixed.
2. Time: Does all the sound appear to arrive at the listener's ear simultaneously? This is a tough nut because the sound of music is constantly changing and evanescent. Some sound are meant to arrive sooner/later, so the test is whether everything arrives when it should. One can test this, trivially, with mono pink noise or mono voice but, although the B&O's pass this test, it is clear from the measured transient response that the drivers do not all respond exactly at the same time. But is this significant? I think not because................
3. Space: Is the soundstage stable and gapless and are the individual voices/instruments localizable? Here I think the B&O is a champ. Using conventional recordings, the B&O's soundstage is as stable and convincing as I have heard and, using various test recordings with individual voices/instruments at varying positions, it is also convincing. Since each of these voices/instruments encompasses many frequencies distributed to both speakers, this says that timing between the speakers and across the FR is sufficiently uniform that they can interact without corrupting the phase-dependent interaction. It also suggests that that the radiation control of the B&O keeps room interaction from being a significant issue.

So, that's a (fixable) No, a Maybe and a Yes and why I think that "seamless" has many meanings.
Also, my experience with good, discrete multichannel reproduction makes me particularly persnickety with reference to 3. Space.

I too think that "seamless" has many definitions in our audio/music hobby.

The definition I used is from an article in a scientific journal of Geneva. Just kidding...it's my own choosing of words from my own thinking brain; so don't worry too much if it sounds a little "inherently conflicting" to you. :b ...Today with high speed internet and computers the world of intercommunication has lead to where we're @...hacking by the most expert sophisticated minds on the planet...including the Russians. Everything can be changed, everyone can be blamed, ...everywhere and every time. Forgive my humor on the last day before the last of 2016. This is going to be a weekend to remember... We can say that 2016 wasn't so 'seamless' with all the world's problems, all the celebrities, actors/actresses and musicians/singers who passed away. 2016 was a very tumultuous year on many levels...not so coherent, not disciplined, not organized, not responsible, not overall very nice.

Back to seamless sound. ...Flowing with consistency...the music gels well with its surroundings...smoothly continuous or uniform in quality.
We can say a million words, but @ the end it's our own ears and interpretation (aural perception) in our own space that is our each and own definition of "seamless".
...And no matter if it's a full range electrostatic panel, or a well implemented horn system in their respective attuned room.
...Same with a full pledge DSP calibrated sound system in its acoustically treated space. ...Like the Beolab 90 for example. * Needs a Take 2.

Thanks Kal for your reply, for the three audio laws: space, time and frequency response, and for everything else you do and review.
_____

Bonus: https://books.google.ca/books?id=aa...=what is seamless from a sound system&f=false
_____

Last, in one word equaling another for simplicity: Seamless ? Coherence

 

[Rodney Gold]

At the level that most of us forumites are , we dont really get hugely better sound , we get different sound ..it's ALL coloured.. never heard 2 different systems sound the same..

Both the words and those that wrote them are really what determines the credibility and intent .. not the strictest definitions and data.

I enjoy reading users comment , even if they are sometimes cringeworthily OTT , florid or vague.. I can kinda get the vibe of what the user experienced..in my minds eye.

We are all talking the same language but with different accents....

 

[spiritofmusic]

I don't know a single owner of a high end system, who is happy overall w their sound, who doesn't consider it presenting a seamless sound
But no doubt we would in many instances have different interpretations of what this all means
In my case my Zus are in effect single high efficiency drivers w only supertweeters and subs for augmentation at extremes of the audible range w no crossover
I consider the sound produced to be seamless in that it appears more of a whole compared to many (not all) multi driver/lowish efficiency/complex crossover alternatives, allowing more density of tone continuous over the frequency spectrum to be presented
Bonzo would say my sound is one of the least seamless ones he's heard, we're obviously not hearing things the same way and our terms of reference are v different
So what this all means for people's perception of this character of sound is that it's pretty subjective and not much value

 

[andromedaaudio]

Quick message from London there is a pair not at kj West one not selfridges but at harrods.
Now that is a great location
Sound is Upper mid fy. Imo Bass is not tight and The stereo Image was nothing Special a bit flat but they werent far of the Back Wall.
Furthermore IT Sounds digital , no i AM used to better i ll add pics later
Seems to me People there associatie modern looking with great Sound. As b and o and the devialet eggshaped speaker were prominent in display

 

[morricab]

I don't know a single owner of a high end system, who is happy overall w their sound, who doesn't consider it presenting a seamless sound
But no doubt we would in many instances have different interpretations of what this all means
In my case my Zus are in effect single high efficiency drivers w only supertweeters and subs for augmentation at extremes of the audible range w no crossover
I consider the sound produced to be seamless in that it appears more of a whole compared to many (not all) multi driver/lowish efficiency/complex crossover alternatives, allowing more density of tone continuous over the frequency spectrum to be presented
Bonzo would say my sound is one of the least seamless ones he's heard, we're obviously not hearing things the same way and our terms of reference are v different
So what this all means for people's perception of this character of sound is that it's pretty subjective and not much value

Whether or not your system sounds seamless or not depends on that super tweeter not being recognizable for its contribution to the upper frequencies and the sub being blended well enough that you don't realize a sub is being used. If your system fails sometimes in this then it is not seamless. If you get some noticeable bass bloat or zing in the highs on occasion that makes you realize the broadbander is augmented then it is not seamless.

 

[Steve williams]

Whether or not your system sounds seamless or not depends on that super tweeter not being recognizable for its contribution to the upper frequencies and the sub being blended well enough that you don't realize a sub is being used. If your system fails sometimes in this then it is not seamless. If you get some noticeable bass bloat or zing in the highs on occasion that makes you realize the broadbander is augmented then it is not seamless.

+1

 

[spiritofmusic]

Brad, the Zu full range drivers cover 40Hz-11kHz, and seem absolutely invisible to my ears
The Radian super tweeters also never draw attention IMHO
The on board Zu/Lundahls/Hypex subs from 40Hz down to under 20 did take a long time to dial into my previous challenging room acoustic, but judicious use of GIKs helped a lot there
Early results in my new, more neutral and forgiving space, are highly promising w sub bass response present but not drawing attention to itself

 

[Gregadd]

Well if I can revive the porn anology. "I know pornography when I can see it." Certainly the court was unable or disinclined to provide a hard fast definotion of pornograpy. Appealing to purienter interest is not sufficient. Thus each community was left to define it's own standards. Pornograpy in Alabama may not be porn in NY city. Fair enough ,but it leaves the producer of the material in a dilemma. He may find his material in a community he never intended. Indeed often he may not learn his maerial is pornographic until the jury returns a criminal conviction. Hardly ideal. I could go on.
As Juliet said a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
All speakers aspire to be full range drivers.
Apply a signal to the driver and they will try to reproduce it. We then try to limit it. to the range they handle best. We phase them out gradually. Inevitably they are either audible or inaudible where they are not supposed to ,to varying degrees of disconsonance

The phenomenon exists no matters what we call it. It matters little whether you are a hobbyist, reviewer or engineer. If we review this thread there are so many definitions as to render the term seamless illusory. This is what happened to the term manic depressive. When it was changed to bipolar.
Just like a doctor an engineer is to be more precise and consistent. Other engineers will know exactly what he is talking about. Hobbyists and reviewers have a greater license in describing what they hear.





"

 

[bonzo75]

I don't know a single owner of a high end system, who is happy overall w their sound, who doesn't consider it presenting a seamless sound
But no doubt we would in many instances have different interpretations of what this all means
In my case my Zus are in effect single high efficiency drivers w only supertweeters and subs for augmentation at extremes of the audible range w no crossover
I consider the sound produced to be seamless in that it appears more of a whole compared to many (not all) multi driver/lowish efficiency/complex crossover alternatives, allowing more density of tone continuous over the frequency spectrum to be presented
Bonzo would say my sound is one of the least seamless ones he's heard, we're obviously not hearing things the same way and our terms of reference are v different
So what this all means for people's perception of this character of sound is that it's pretty subjective and not much value

I have never commented on the seamlessness of your system. I don't think it's the most or the least, and I never thought of it in terms of that attribute. For example, small horns which use class D for bass clearly have a lack of seamlessness.

 

[bonzo75]

Quick message from London there is a pair not at kj West one not selfridges but at harrods.
Now that is a great location
Sound is Upper mid fy. Imo Bass is not tight and The stereo Image was nothing Special a bit flat but they werent far of the Back Wall.
Furthermore IT Sounds digital , no i AM used to better i ll add pics later
Seems to me People there associatie modern looking with great Sound. As b and o and the devialet eggshaped speaker were prominent in display

Harrods and Selfridges are both non audiophile stores, where people with money shop for audio that is convenient and can fit into furniture. The pair in Selfridges probably got sold. I agree with all of your sound description

 

[KostasP.]

Seemingly Seamless

No intent to enter into the WBF politics. No axes to grind with anyone, although I often detect that this is not the case amongst certain members. There is no monopoly on virtues ( knowledge, truth and impeccable behaviour ). A man who speaks about virtues is NOT necessarily a virtuous man! This applies to all of us.

We should all endeavour to «be as we seem and seem as we are». Quintessential knowledge about our life-giving hobby should be unselfishly shared amongst us all. As a relatively neophytic member of this forum, I have witnessed, appreciated and benefited from such knowledge ( Amir and Mike L. are such persons ), although often and by all, on certain topics, knowledge and opinion seem to blend seamlessly!

As for seamlessness\coherence\cohesion pertained to our systems, simplistic, pre-conceived and theoretical conjecture only exposes our own human flaws, perhaps more than the flaws of our systems, for, seamlessness is but one by-product of the complex function of our system’s interaction with itself and with the listening room. We cannot and should not isolate individual components and rely on measurements, as a norm conducted by manufacturers under ideal \ contrived parameters to «embelish» the specifications of their products ( speakers measured in anechoic chambers, on-axis, etc ).

It may just be that a non-linear, non-coherent multi-driver speaker, with problematic issues to solve at the cross-over points of the various drivers, and other resonance-related issues, can have these «measurable» issues mitigated and ameliorated to a large extend by appropriately selecting ancillary components and a listening room optimised for such speakers, as a result of acknowledging that speaker’s intrinsic persona. It is all about synergy....as the cliche often reminds us.

This rationale, as a principle, applies equally to other types of speakers and components with their own intrinsic idiosyncracies and, although you cannot turn a crow into a nightingale, we are afterall talking about high-end components of a given calibre and performance. But, there is no thornless rose! No flawless speaker; no blemish-free human being.

To an extend, the «audio yeast» that we have accumulated over the years predetermines the type of sound that we create. Personally, having auditioned very expensive speakers, whose cabinets constitute by far the largest component of their cost ( from Brodmann JB 205s, German Physics, dc10 Kabukis and many others ), but having a pre-disposition to electrostatics, I have found that good panels ( CLXs in my case ) render music in a manner that is more compatible with the way that I perceive music to be propagated, reproduced and presented. The music just unforcefully unfolding in all its resolution, transparency and naturalness across the sound space\stage. The way of the CLXs! Nothing forcefully propelled, augmented, adultarated.

My systen is the result of my own «audio yeast» as a player, recordist with some mixing experience, audiophile and musicophile. Knowing fully well the limitations of recording and record-making, I make the necessary allowances and I do not unfairly and sadistically blame my system. This thread, welcomed as any thread is in the name of polyphony, became somewhat myopic in its obsessive insistence on seamlessness \ coherence and almost fell apart at the seams with its vague and varied connotations, as expressed by some members. An impotant tree it is; a forest it is not. There was no need for dogma and prejudice, tinged with the herbs of malice to have crept in.

And in the larger and wider scheme of things, in this very transient world of only one life given to us all ( I am a solipsist afterall ), why worry about transients of our systems! Just «seAm as you are and be as you seAm».

Finally, may we all walk on soft rose petals in 2017 and beyond, sparing a thought ( although much, much more is needed ) for those far less fortunate than ourselves , whose only luxury is how to piece together a meagre meal, seamlessly or not.

Cheers to all and any offence equally shared by all of us, Kostas Papazoglou.

 

[NorthStar]

Good post Mr. Kostas.

We, as humans, have many more flaws than the systems we create and put together. We are less than seamless.
@ the edge of a new year I share with you my thoughts to the unfortunate ones, and to the departed.

? Melbourne

 

[morricab]

Brad, the Zu full range drivers cover 40Hz-11kHz, and seem absolutely invisible to my ears
The Radian super tweeters also never draw attention IMHO
The on board Zu/Lundahls/Hypex subs from 40Hz down to under 20 did take a long time to dial into my previous challenging room acoustic, but judicious use of GIKs helped a lot there
Early results in my new, more neutral and forgiving space, are highly promising w sub bass response present but not drawing attention to itself

I have heard zu druid IV and it was not seamless to my ears; however your model might be better realized.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Bonzo, you confirm exactly the point I'm making
No, you didn't quote seamlessness as an attribute and lack thereof, you criticised many aspects of my sound that by my definition would mean my sound wasn't seamless
Whether this means seamless as a term is not particularly helpful, maybe

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo, you confirm exactly the point I'm making
No, you didn't quote seamlessness as an attribute and lack thereof, you criticised many aspects of my sound that by my definition would mean my sound wasn't seamless
Whether this means seamless as a term is not particularly helpful, maybe

I agree, I don't find full range stats seamless just because they have no crossovers

 

[spiritofmusic]

Kostas, yr points are well made
No doubt extra terrestrials may be viewing this thread, and wondering quite how so called intelligent beings could get into a bind over the simple use of an insignificant word while somewhat more pressing problems in the world go unresolved
And I'm not immune to the same criticism myself

 

[morricab]

I agree, I don't find full range stats seamless just because they have no crossovers

In what way are they not seamless? By definition a thing that is of one piece does not have seams. A single driver that covers 20-30Hz to 20Khz is by definition seamless. Seamless does not mean that it doesn't have frequency anomalies or beaming. Seamless means by definition no visible transition between two things joined together (fabric, drivers, whatever). If you have only one driver then there cannot be a seam. It might not sound very even to you but that is different from seamless because it will never sound like two or more drivers producing sound. You are misusing, IMO, the definition of what a seam is and therefore what seamless means. To have a seam you need at least two pieces of something joined together. Therefore, the goal of all multi-driver (read: two or more drivers per channel) speaker should be to get as seamless as a single driver speaker covering the same frequency range. Even though it takes a pretty big stat to get down to 20Hz, my 1+1 and Spectras were both 30Hz flat in the room to 20khz (down about 3db). Was the sound seamless and coherent? You bet it was. Was it perfect in other areas like dynamics? Nope. The 1+1 beamed quite a bit as well that made a venetian blind effect to a small extent (the Audiostatics were worse in this regard...).

I have yet to hear a multi-driver speaker that can do seamless like this...but I have heard many systems do other things that help with realism as much or more than a seamless speaker. However, after living with it for a long time I hear the lack of continuity in multi-driver speakers...it is often a deal breaker because I hate hearing transitions between drivers or tweeters or woofers that stick out. It ruins the illusion.

 

[bonzo75]

Acoustat is one brand. I did not find CLX and soundlabs seamless. Possibly we are misusing the definition but it does not necessarily sound coherent across frequencies. On some, yes. Seamless might be more than just crossovers, might have to do with the rear wave in that particular room, or maybe the various frequencies need certain levels of SPL that make the whole seem coherent. I don't know, all I know is that at the seating position the sound should be one and flow and change as one. You know it when you hear it, and hearing the crossovers is just one of the problems a speaker can have