Stereophile | January 2017 Issue

morricab said:

1) I was only talking about 1 priority, coherence and I was challenging you that there is no way your multi driver speakers are as coherent and seamless as a full range electrostat.

2) I didn't mention horns at all

You set up two strawmen; full range reproduction and horns and basically talked completely around the real point.

Now back to the point; seamless and coherent means that you can never, ever hear that the sounds do not come from a specific driver. Nothing to call out from a cabinet resonance driver breakup etc. Are your speakers truly time coherent? Have you seen the data?

Click to expand...

the data?

I'm not getting in the numbers dirt with you or Amir or anybody. never have and never will.

I don't claim any measured coherence high ground. that is only your deal. embrace it. make love to it. I don't care.

in fact, I ignore and have no use for measured high ground. I have no doubt one driver is typically more 'technically' coherent than multiple drivers. but technically coherent also is not relevant to me. how does it sound?

full range while being coherent is my whole priority, so less than full range while being more coherent does not interest me.

morricab said:

1) I was only talking about 1 priority, coherence and I was challenging you that there is no way your multi driver speakers are as coherent and seamless as a full range electrostat.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Brad, but this is dogma. You are talking from theory, not from potential audible result.

________

Edit: I saw Mike's post only after having posted myself. As he says, and I agree, it's about how it sounds.

NorthStar said:

Smooth and continuous, with no apparent gaps or spaces between one part and the next.

Click to expand...

That is a dictionary meaning without any context. Which parts are you talking about?

Al M. said:

Sorry, Brad, but this is dogma. You are talking from theory, not from potential audible result.

________

Edit: I saw Mike's post only after having posted myself. As he says, and I agree, it's about how it sounds.

Click to expand...

In which twisted world is a fact dogma? A single large electrostatic panel cannot have audible seams in the sound because there is no transition between drivers. It might be limited in a host of other areas but it will by definition be and sound seamless over that range. The best multiple drivers can do is approximate this but also gaining some potential advantages.

Time coherence is not quite the same but in my experience an important factor in seamlessnes.

Finally, using drivers of all the same materials is a key to seamless because each transition to a different material has a audible signature, whether or not the breakup is suppressed (breakup is happening constantly with all drivers that have breakup modes... particularly with ceramic and metal drivers). Sharp transitions to disparate materials is the kiss of death for seamless sound.

I am not talking theory these are facts of the reality of speaker design and multiple drivers have advantages that have been accepted as a tradeoff for some loss of seamlessness and coherence. Some can easily accept this...I have a hard time accepting it and am will to sacrifice SPL capability and deepest bass to get it.

Only a few two-ways conventional speakers get close to true seamless sound.

Mike Lavigne said:

the data?

I'm not getting in the numbers dirt with you or Amir or anybody. never have and never will.

I don't claim any measured coherence high ground. that is only your deal. embrace it. make love to it. I don't care.

in fact, I ignore and have no use for measured high ground. I have no doubt one driver is typically more 'technically' coherent than multiple drivers. but technically coherent also is not relevant to me. how does it sound?

full range while being coherent is my whole priority, so less than full range while being more coherent does not interest me.

Click to expand...

You seem to refuse to engage to the point, Mike. Fine. I only wanted to see measurements to see what crossover transitions look like with your speaker. Are there funny phase effects, strange off-axis response and ridges in waterfall plots that indicate crossover energy storage, break up modes, cabinet resonance etc. that are often audible but only when excited and therefore are intermittent and not always easily detected?

These things are dead giveaway seams that tell you it is not one big source of sound.

I really could care less about overall frequency response unless it's really screwed up just like THD means next to nothing for amps.

Mike Lavigne said:

the data?

I'm not getting in the numbers dirt with you or Amir or anybody. never have and never will.

I don't claim any measured coherence high ground. that is only your deal. embrace it. make love to it. I don't care.

in fact, I ignore and have no use for measured high ground. I have no doubt one driver is typically more 'technically' coherent than multiple drivers. but technically coherent also is not relevant to me. how does it sound?

full range while being coherent is my whole priority, so less than full range while being more coherent does not interest me.

Click to expand...

On the point of horns, I have not yet heard one that is as seamless and coherent as a big full range electrostat . However, I found one where I can live with a bit less than perfect behavior to gain other, musically meaningful, attributes like dynamics that are closer to live. The result is an overall more realistic portrayal at closer to live levels.

morricab said:

On the point of horns, I have not yet heard one that is as seamless and coherent as a big full range electrostat . However, I found one where I can live with a bit less than perfect behavior to gain other, musically meaningful, attributes like dynamics that are closer to live. The result is an overall more realistic portrayal at closer to live levels.

Click to expand...

"I found one where I can live with a bit less than perfect behavior to gain other, musically meaningful, attributes like dynamics that are closer to live. The result is an overall more realistic portrayal at closer to live levels"....

Exactly,...I bet we all can say that. I know my multi-driver speaker prefs are not 100% (perfectly) seamless but what you say about finding what I would term the best compromise given individual listening prefs is something we can all identify with. If your "About Me" is still correct, do you have the graphs on the horns you list there and/or a good plot of total frequency range for your favorite panels? I'll say for the record I am not writing this to bait you or anyone else, truly; frankly this has all got me a lot more curious about how various speakers meaure in-room (including my R1s which I'll now go chase down). BTW...I have always liked the sound of Wall Audio amps and have thought several times that if I was to switch, I might very well go to their big monos. How do you like them?

Well ...

That would be where data come handy. It is possible to design a multi-driver speaker in a way that the transition between drivers is inaudible. Of course bias can get in and we could have people swearing to hear the transition when they only "know" there should be some. It is true that one driver doing its thing is likely to be more "seamless" than multiple. I hasten to say that due to physics even one panel will not radiate equally well at all angles at all frequencies . IOW panel beam when the frequency rises which creates a different "flavor" on than off-axis. It is where carefully designed multi-driver can surpass single driver in the way of seamlessness . It is thus good to not get into dogma based on seeming absolutes. A single panel is not by its nature constant directivity. Once in a room it tends to do things differently at certain frequencies. OTOH Constant Directivity speakers, many (but not all e.g Beolab 90) are waveguide (horn? ) based are better at ... err... controlling their directivity. Careful choice of drivers and crossover points can also lead to good directivity and allow some multi-driver to present the elusive and ill-defined impression of being "seamless" that is the stitches are not audible ... So MikeL speakers could well be "seamless" and perhaps more so depending on where the listener sit than a single driver ESL ... in my book Single driver cone do not qualify.. They do one thing well and have their cult following but they're not for me or anyone who would like to hear things the way they hear them in the flesh ...

Great post, very well said,...

NorthStar said:

'Seamless' (in music/sound reproduction):

- Smooth and continuous: Relating to the music...the sound reproduction.
- With no apparent gaps or spaces between one part and the next: Between the drivers, the x-overs, the on and off-axis sound responses/reflections.
Like "coherence", natural spaciousness and imaging. ...Those parts. ...A verisimilitude of the illusion of being there, @ the real life musical event.
...The total of all sound provenances being uniform, arriving @ the same time with cohesion, naturalness, pleasantness, unison, smoothness, continuity.

Click to expand...

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.

SCAudiophile said:

"I found one where I can live with a bit less than perfect behavior to gain other, musically meaningful, attributes like dynamics that are closer to live. The result is an overall more realistic portrayal at closer to live levels"....

Exactly,...I bet we all can say that. I know my multi-driver speaker prefs are not 100% (perfectly) seamless but what you say about finding what I would term the best compromise given individual listening prefs is something we can all identify with. If your "About Me" is still correct, do you have the graphs on the horns you list there and/or a good plot of total frequency range for your favorite panels? I'll say for the record I am not writing this to bait you or anyone else, truly; frankly this has all got me a lot more curious about how various speakers meaure in-room (including my R1s which I'll now go chase down). BTW...I have always liked the sound of Wall Audio amps and have thought several times that if I was to switch, I might very well go to their big monos. How do you like them?

Click to expand...

I do measure all my systems in room to see what is going on and used to do all the digital room correction stuff as well (some friends were also working this direction) ... then I stopped because I could hear it audibly degrading the sound most of the time.

I do not think a speaker needs to measure perfectly to flat to sound seamless or realistic. FR errors I have found are not critical ones unless they really gross errors.

Seamless is more about transitions than steady responses. It is a dynamic concept where two or more drivers is participating in reproduction of say a saxophone blat and something on the character of that bridge calls out differences that tell you it is two (or more) elements making that sound. It could be crossover related, driver related, cabinet related or an interaction of these elements. The FR could be perfect through that region and one can still pick it up.

It is possible to make two-ways that are nearly seamless, particularly when they are phase/time coherent. Will they have worse FR? Probably. Will they sound more of a whole? Probably.

Just to be clear, something with seams is a thing where two or more smaller pieces are "stitched" together to make the semblance of a whole. By definition, a single large panel will be seamless and will sound this way. I have yet to hear one of that design that did not sound seamless.

Seamless has little to do with frequency response (it may be important for FR around the crossover) or range and everything to do with driver resonance and crossover design. It is how well disparate drivers are "stitched " together.

morricab said:

It is how well disparate drivers are "stitched " together.

Click to expand...

It is how well disparate elements are "stitched " together and that includes the reflections of and the interactions between them. Dipoles are not exempt.

Kal Rubinson said:

It is how well disparate elements are "stitched " together and that includes the reflections of and the interactions between them. Dipoles are not exempt.

Click to expand...

I never said multi-driver dipoles are exempt, although many of them have the advantage that all the drivers are often composed of the same materials that reduces discontinuity through the crossover regions.

microstrip said:

I do not know and I really do not care.

Click to expand...

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

However google finds around 550 occurrences of the word "seamless" in the Theabsolutesound site, around 450 in the Stereophile one and around 300 in the WBF site, all with a similar meaning and used by people who manage to communicate effectively between themselves. I have used it several times with the same meaning others use it - seamless blend between the speaker units, that can show subjectively in different ways. It seems it is good enough for me and many others in high-end forums.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

I've found in life it all depends on the teacher

microstrip said:

I do not know and I really do not care.

Click to expand...

amirm said:

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

Click to expand...

I think our reaction to requests for data has much to do (but not completely) with the context of the question. a number of us here have been around the block with each other enough to see where the discussion of data might lead. let's call it aversion therapy of WBF.

so the bed you sleep in is one you made.

sharing data with a listener who is curious is one thing, sharing data with a data freak in another. each one leads to a different place.

btw; the world needs data freaks and nothing wrong with being one. but I don't hang with them by plan.

there is nothing wrong at all with a focus on discovering the numbers behind what we hear, but that process seems to get so painful most of us want little or nothing of it.

you have to already get this, yet you feign surprise with the reactions you get.

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.

Click to expand...

enough with your focus on an audiophile term that audiophiles are comfortable using. we don't need saving from ourselves.

Agreed Mike.

I look at it as a classic example of skilled trolling

BTW Mike et al , the best way to deal with such stuff is to use your ignore button rather than feeding the troll.

Mike Lavigne said:

the data?

I'm not getting in the numbers dirt with you or Amir or anybody. never have and never will.

Click to expand...

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.

I don't claim any measured coherence high ground. that is only your deal. embrace it. make love to it. I don't care.

Click to expand...

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.