Stereophile | January 2017 Issue

SCAudiophile · Dec 31, 2016

KostasP. said:
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.

+1 Excellent Post.....Happy New Year All!

SCAudiophile · Dec 31, 2016

NorthStar said:
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

+1 That is so true,...more so for some of us living in my house

!

FrantzM · Dec 31, 2016

However much we want to avoid the semantics issue... It is impossible to conduct a discussion with any semblance of rationality and constructivity if terms are not properly defined. THe often cited cliche of porn is contextual too. So we see here the notion of "seamless" as an universally accepted meaning beginning to ... unravel ... Witness the very recent exchanges from bonzo and others.
It would be interesting that we accept that we may need to define what we mean by seamless..

For me it means that the transition from drivers is not perceived. It would also mean to me that at all SPL I don't find the flavor changing , nor does it change with frequency. It would also mean that there is an ideal distance at which all drivers sound like one... I must say that some horns and actually very expensive horns seem to never cohere anywhere within the room with the consequence of a inadequate imaging and lack of coherence i-e sounds comes from different points in space depending on frequencies. I hear the drivers... the different drivers. I perceive their seams ... audibly . The better multi-drivers, don't do that nor do ESL in general however beamy they can become at times

morricab · Dec 31, 2016

bonzo75 said:
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

You know the CLX is two panels divided by a crossover, right? Were you able, at a normal listening distance, to tell the transition between the two panels? I have only heard this speaker briefly so cannot comment.

The Soundlab is a single large panel so there is no crossover or transition between different drivers. Everything from bass to highs emanates from all parts of the panel at the same time. In what way did it not sound seamless to you? By definition there is nowhere for there to be a seam. I think the FR is even pretty good. Dynamics are also pretty good due to very large radiation area.

One possible area could be frame resonance. If this is excited at certain frequencies then that could create a kind of "virtual " driver. The time I heard them it seemed pretty darn seamless and coherent but my time was also short with this speaker.

What you are referring to is not really about seamless presentation. Coherence and seamlessness are related but not equivalent terms. I would call seamless a subset of coherence.

bonzo75 · Dec 31, 2016

Ok, didn't know CLX was too panels. I think what both spirit and I and some others are alluding to is that seamless might have nothing to do with crossovers. Soundlabs and Voxativ Ampeggio due might be crossover less, but you might not see a smooth transition between upper and lower for various reasons - maybe the rear wave comes into play, or the SPL of the lower frequency is not in sync with the upper, or maybe some frequencies did not get produced properly leading to a disconnect in the whole

thedudeabides · Dec 31, 2016

spiritofmusic said:
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

The best post to date.

thedudeabides · Dec 31, 2016

KostasP. said:
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.

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.

This one is also quite good.

853guy · Dec 31, 2016

FrantzM said:
However much we want to avoid the semantics issue... It is impossible to conduct a discussion with any semblance of rationality and constructivity if terms are not properly defined. THe often cited cliche of porn is contextual too. So we see here the notion of "seamless" as an universally accepted meaning beginning to ... unravel ... Witness the very recent exchanges from bonzo and others.
It would be interesting that we accept that we may need to define what we mean by seamless..

Hi Frantz,

While I think that’s true, the reality is it’s impossible to conduct any discussion without accepting the limits of language-based discourse in-and-of-itself. Most of us in attempting to articulate what we hear, can “prove” and/or experience can only ever ultimately use three mechanisms to do so:

The first is through description. Unfortunately, language by itself fails to adequately define the musical gestalt. As you say, semantics comes into play, and we end up discussing the meaning of words rather than whether those words actually define anything about the musical experience. Suddenly “seamless(ness)” becomes a debate in-and-of-itself without any further elucidation apropos music. We reach the limits of language when we attempt to define another process by it and it alone.

So we then look toward alternatives, one of which is the attempt to define the musical gestalt objectively via measurements related to (the distortion/deviation of) frequency, time and sound pressure level. This can be done in various different ways - mostly via electronic measurement (and/or a microphone) and subsequently analyzing the results. I think it’s worth asking whether the current form of analysis is adequate in-and-of-itself either, as for all the research accrued we only are almost always looking at music when it is no longer music but is instead analyzed as its individuated constituent parts via another mechanism. That is, we mostly measure the mechanism, rather than the mechanism’s effect on the medium.

Acknowledging the limits of the above, we then look to socio-cultural research, asking a small set of people* to report on what they hear (perceive) and average them out. This is problematic in itself too, hence the move toward studying the brain’s response to music directly. This - in combination with the above - seems to me to be the best way to understand and begin to define the musical gestalt, but the fMRI research is limited in number and still in its infancy. Unsurprisingly, we’re often in the same boat re: low statistical power.

But that’s not to discount subjective, experiential and anecdotal sharing of data as many of us do here. The value of it may not be so much be in defining concepts, as it is in helping define the limits of each and the need for acknowledgement of the other. Until all three converge - the philosophical dimension articulated via language, the objective determined via electrical research and the neurobiological via fMRI studies - we’ll continue to debate these topics in a similar fashion as we already do, and likely only to reach similar conclusions.

Happy New Year everyone - my thoughts will be with you in the moments they are not impaired by a bottle of François Lecompte Premier Cru Millésime 2008.

*Statistical significance for sample size is still the greatest impediment to understanding any research generated within the audio community because of its niche within the larger population. Most studies within audiophilia tend to suffer from the three main problems of low probability of finding true effects, the low positive predictive value when an effect is claimed, and an exaggerated estimate of the magnitude of the effect when a true effect is discovered. That, and the fact that there’s very little incentive for conducting and publishing replications means there’s very little likelihood of identifying false positives and accumulating precise estimates of research findings. (See Button, Ioannidis, Mokrysz, Nosek, Flint, Robinson, and Munafo (2013)).

MPS · Dec 31, 2016

bonzo75 said:
Ok, didn't know CLX was too panels. I think what both spirit and I and some others are alluding to is that seamless might have nothing to do with crossovers. Soundlabs and Voxativ Ampeggio due might be crossover less, but you might not see a smooth transition between upper and lower for various reasons - maybe the rear wave comes into play, or the SPL of the lower frequency is not in sync with the upper, or maybe some frequencies did not get produced properly leading to a disconnect in the whole

CLX is a two way speaker, nothing special about that. It is however very well implemented, much better than ML hybrid ones. I think the improved coherency (as sort of seamlessness) is more up to drivers (panels) being acoustically similar in the crossover region, more so than any hybrid configuration or typical multiway cone driver speaker. There are multitude of broadband speakers which strong point is similar behavior through out frequency range. Such are typically "challenged" in the top and low octave but for anybody prioritizing organic coherent seamless sound production might be the (maybe even the only) ones to to consider. As always it's a matter of quality before quantity.

But for each to their own.
I'm happy with CLX as I find it to be the compromise that to me doesn't sound as a compromise

English is not my first language and expressing what one hears or how something sounds is close to impossible to do in writing.

f1eng · Dec 31, 2016

KeithR said:
Horns have poor WAF and that inhibits their marketability in the US. Resale is a big issue outside of AG as well.

Funnily enough my Tune Audio Anima horns are the only piece of hifi kit my wife likes the look of.
She even has brought friends into my hifi room to see them. See them though, not listen

she is not bothered by hifi reproduction. As a professional musician she often compares different interpretations of classical works on her computer speakers...
I absolutely agree with her, btw, that a musical performer/performance is easily recognisable even with poor reproduction. I have fabulously musical old recordings with very "historic" recording quality.
The idea of a hifi system rather than the performer/ance being musical seems completely absurd to us.

f1eng · Dec 31, 2016

morricab said:
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.

This is using quasi-static thinking/logic to a wide-band dynamic system. It is a not uncommon error in hifi, the idea of a rigid tonearm is another.

No great big slice of material, whatever material you choose, can possibly be excited over an 8 octave range of frequencies without exciting a range of resonances, many of them complex. Each of these resonant changes could be considered a seam if you like.
My experience is in record players, but all wide band transducers have difficult engineering challenges regarding the effect of resonances and what to do about them.

Some are exploited for the transducer to work and some have to be masked or worked round, but the idea that a panel speaker is all moving together at all frequencies would require the material to have infinite stiffness and zero mass, so it never happens I can promise you.

FrantzM · Dec 31, 2016

f1eng said:
Funnily enough my Tune Audio Anima horns are the only piece of hifi kit my wife likes the look of.
She even has brought friends into my hifi room to see them. See them though, not listen she is not bothered by hifi reproduction. As a professional musician she often compares different interpretations of classical works on her computer speakers...
I absolutely agree with her, btw, that a musical performer/performance is easily recognisable even with poor reproduction. I have fabulously musical old recordings with very "historic" recording quality.
The idea of a hifi system rather than the performer/ance being musical seems completely absurd to us.

Same here..

microstrip · Dec 31, 2016

bonzo75 said:
I agree, I don't find full range stats seamless just because they have no crossovers

Some full range single panel stats have crossovers - just remembering SoundLab, Acoustat and Martin Logan. ESL 63 series Quads also have them and are my reference for seamless in their usable bandwidth.

microstrip · Dec 31, 2016

bonzo75 said:
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. (...)

SoundLabs can sound seamless if well matched and integrated in a system and room. Most of my friends who listened to them spontaneously refer that they can not feel the speaker units when listening to them. However if improperly driven or poorly placed they become a nightmare - some zones of excellence with gaps of edgy and dissociate sound. What was the model and system that you have listened?

853guy · Dec 31, 2016

f1eng said:
This is using quasi-static thinking/logic to a wide-band dynamic system. It is a not uncommon error in hifi, the idea of a rigid tonearm is another.

Hi f1eng,

That's a fantastic point.

If I were to amend my previous post I'd say this:

853guy said:
So we then look toward alternatives, one of which is the attempt to define the musical gestalt objectively via measurements related to (the distortion/deviation of) frequency, time and sound pressure level. This can be done in various different ways - mostly via electronic measurement (and/or a microphone) and subsequently analyzing the results. I think it’s worth asking whether the current form of analysis is adequate in-and-of-itself either, as for all the research accrued we only are almost always looking at music when it is no longer music but is instead analyzed as its individuated constituent parts via another mechanism. That is, we mostly measure the mechanism, rather than the mechanism’s effect on the medium, using quasi-static/linear methodologies and applying it to a wide-band dynamic/asymmetrical system.

microstrip · Dec 31, 2016

FrantzM said:
(...) For me it means that the transition from drivers is not perceived. It would also mean to me that at all SPL I don't find the flavor changing , nor does it change with frequency. It would also mean that there is an ideal distance at which all drivers sound like one... I must say that some horns and actually very expensive horns seem to never cohere anywhere within the room with the consequence of a inadequate imaging and lack of coherence i-e sounds comes from different points in space depending on frequencies. I hear the drivers... the different drivers. I perceive their seams ... audibly . The better multi-drivers, don't do that nor do ESL in general however beamy they can become at times

Your excellent definition means we do not need to define it ... It is exactly in that sense that most people (including speaker manufacturers and known reviewers, such as Harry Pearson) use it.

PeterA · Dec 31, 2016

FrantzM said:
However much we want to avoid the semantics issue... It is impossible to conduct a discussion with any semblance of rationality and constructivity if terms are not properly defined. THe often cited cliche of porn is contextual too. So we see here the notion of "seamless" as an universally accepted meaning beginning to ... unravel ... Witness the very recent exchanges from bonzo and others.
It would be interesting that we accept that we may need to define what we mean by seamless..

For me it means that the transition from drivers is not perceived. It would also mean to me that at all SPL I don't find the flavor changing , nor does it change with frequency. It would also mean that there is an ideal distance at which all drivers sound like one... I must say that some horns and actually very expensive horns seem to never cohere anywhere within the room with the consequence of a inadequate imaging and lack of coherence i-e sounds comes from different points in space depending on frequencies. I hear the drivers... the different drivers. I perceive their seams ... audibly . The better multi-drivers, don't do that nor do ESL in general however beamy they can become at times

Excellent. This is how I've been thinking about seamless when referring to speakers also. It is about what we perceive when listening to a system. If we do not perceive the transitions between drivers when listening to a system for all intents and purposes it can be described as seamless.

NorthStar · Dec 31, 2016

To expand somehow on the BeoLab 90 loudspeakers that Kal reviewed not so long ago: Music in the Round #82
...And a return to multichannel (5.1) music setup.

"Bang & Olufsen's revolutionary BeoLab 90 loudspeaker, which I examine in greater depth elsewhere in this issue, has had some profound effects on me, not least of which is that the review pair prevented me from listening in multichannel for nearly two months. Additionally, I and a few friends found that the two BeoLab 90s delivered an absolutely stunning and convincing soundstage. So when the time came to relinquish them, I was anxious. Would my reference 5.1-channel surround system now disappoint when I played two-channel recordings? Would I still find multichannel to be a substantial advance over stereo, or no improvement at all? Would I need to come out of retirement and find a new day job so that I could afford the BeoLabs' price of $84,990/pair?"

Continue Reading »

Remember, the BeoLab 90 is a STEREO system. And Kal is also a big multichannel man (classical music).
* And with stereo turntables we are limited to stereo. Unless we have a sizable QUAD LP collection. :b
It's fine, stereo can be spacious too. ...Electrostatic loudspeakers, dipolar/bipolar radiating speakers, omnipole speakers, other wide dispersion type of speakers... ...Avangarde Acoustic, MBL, Beolab 90's Wide and Party modes, etc.

Stereo is much easier to integrate seamlessly than a multichannel music setup...say from 5.1 to 7.1.5 (Auro-3D).
Acoustic room treatments are part of that "seam". ...And in addition, for some, digital room EQ (DSP).
______

* Bonus: Speaking of stereo, digital (CD/SACD): Luxman D-06u SACD player

No multichannel SACD with this baby.
By the way, "u" stands for Ultimate.

And because that player is stereo, it could be partnered with the BeoLab 90s, as the ultimate stereo sound reproduction...in the digital domain.
That would certainly qualify as a "seamless" match, in the year 2017.
______

My life is bigger and better than ever, more seamless with all my surroundings. :b
And my music server is fuller too.

Earlier I was talking with one of my brothers (Skype), and they were dancing (sons and daughters and grandchildren) on his living room's floor to traditional New Year's Eve music, while a big turkey was roasting in the oven (seventeen pounds).
Then I walked to my next door neighbor for some Irish whiskey...the very best...expensive too, very.

I get a strong feeling; 2017 is going to be a real blast! Lol ...And no, I'm not even warmed up; I am totally sober in my solace.
My sound system is much smaller than ... but my heart is equal to ... and my home the biggest planet of the universe ... for now.

morricab · Dec 31, 2016

f1eng said:
This is using quasi-static thinking/logic to a wide-band dynamic system. It is a not uncommon error in hifi, the idea of a rigid tonearm is another.

No great big slice of material, whatever material you choose, can possibly be excited over an 8 octave range of frequencies without exciting a range of resonances, many of them complex. Each of these resonant changes could be considered a seam if you like.
My experience is in record players, but all wide band transducers have difficult engineering challenges regarding the effect of resonances and what to do about them.

Some are exploited for the transducer to work and some have to be masked or worked round, but the idea that a panel speaker is all moving together at all frequencies would require the material to have infinite stiffness and zero mass, so it never happens I can promise you.

You are right that a transducer will have resonances but if it is a single driver it will not have transitions between disparate materials and the attendent phase shifts and signal robbing passive components in the signal path. It will still, despite possible response anomalies, sound as "cut from the same cloth" and not a patchwork.

Reference 3a is interesting because they run their main driver full range without a crossover and blend in a tweeter with a single cap at around 3khz. You can think of their speakers as augmented "not so" widenanders. The MM models (there are many iterations) are all this way and are time coherent and pretty close to seamless despite having a bit of a ragged FR. There is a response peak at 1khz that sometimes gives away the game. Still it is better than most two-ways in this regard. I liked their speakers very much and owned three pairs before moving to my two way horn solution.

bonzo75 · Dec 31, 2016

f1eng said:
This is using quasi-static thinking/logic to a wide-band dynamic system. It is a not uncommon error in hifi, the idea of a rigid tonearm is another.

No great big slice of material, whatever material you choose, can possibly be excited over an 8 octave range of frequencies without exciting a range of resonances, many of them complex. Each of these resonant changes could be considered a seam if you like.
My experience is in record players, but all wide band transducers have difficult engineering challenges regarding the effect of resonances and what to do about them.

Some are exploited for the transducer to work and some have to be masked or worked round, but the idea that a panel speaker is all moving together at all frequencies would require the material to have infinite stiffness and zero mass, so it never happens I can promise you.

Superbly put. Each of those octave resonances could be considered a seam, and matching them is not about crossovers alone in a speaker.

Stereophile | January 2017 Issue

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Active Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor