View Full Version : Synergy
On an amplifier thread recently I was airing some thoughts I have about the use of the word synergy. I feel it needs a thread to discuss the topic. Please, please appreciate this is not subjective vs objective. I'm very firmly in the subjective camp though I do like to understand technically what works and what doesn't; my final opinions are always formed by listening.
Saying two products have great synergy when paired together is useful in that we then have an idea they complement each. This is fine as far as it goes. Where possible I would prefer we went a stage further as synergy can come from various characteristics. The point to this is that if we 100% rely on having to try every combination of hi-fi components to arrive at what synergises we'll spend all of our time doing this and not listening to music.
Some examples of reasons for synergy or a lack thereof:
- Impedance mis-match, eg high output impedance into low input impedance
- Gain, eg high gain preamp into a high sensitivity power amp would be problematic
- Mirror image frequency response; eg where a speaker has a tilted response, the amp may need the mirror image of this. Ideally both would be flat-ish but where amps work well only with specific speakers, this can be a reason for unexpectedly variable results
- Speaker efficiency; amp power matches the speaker requirements
- Speaker load; the amp can deliver clean signal (current) into the speaker
- Noise; eg a hi-efficiency speaker is very picky about noise/hum levels
Synergy is used as a convenient shortcut to describe items above and more, sometimes it's contextually obvious what the reason is for the synergy but sometimes it's not. Understanding the reason will help others to for example select a different speaker to pair with a particular amp.
Maybe I'm being to pedantic but I feel a little understanding of what's happening is useful - rather like knowing not to start a car in 6th gear. It's easy to discover it doesn't work but by thinking about the effects of gearing you can work out that you can't start in 5th, 4th or 3rd either. I suppose you could search for synegy and find a car that will start in 6th gear. :)
I wish there were such simple rules for ideal equipment combinations, but I think the reason we have users at all stages of system building from the hesitant starter to the deliriously happy is that:
a) it takes so much trial and error, including wrong turns
b) it takes time to adjust to each change
c) you get more practised at knowing what it is you like in a system
d) the opportunity to hear different components can be quite limited
e) environments differ (room, house members, mains quality, sound intrusions, preferred volume)
f) budgets vary
In my mind, synergy is the symbiotic relationship of system components, room, musical tastes and personal preference in order to achieve far more than the sum of their parts.
Not sure if that helps, but I'm trying to move the topic forwards as I think it's a good one to discuss.
Great points Martin. I'm guilty of simplifying my explanation of synergy which I was suggesting is often seen too simply! Environmental and preference factors are equally important factors in addition to the technical ones.
jandl100
14-08-2012, 18:46
A really tricky subject!
I've a well-deserved reputation for trying different kit, but I still don't think I have a clue as to what it is that causes the "hey, now that's how the music should go" effect when the system suddenly jumps up a level or three.
With my speakers, I tried well over 20 different amps of all types (ss, valve, class A / AB / D - hybrids, high power, low power ...) and enjoyed many of them.
Then as just another step in my happy boxswapping journey I bought a Parasound A21 power amp.
Wowzer! :wowzer: - synergy strikes like a lightning bolt! That's how it should go!
Why? I have no idea.
OK, so it's a bit of a bruiser in terms of wpc, but I've used other ss amps of even higher power, so it's not that.
I've also heard it in other systems ... oh dear, results vary from pretty good to OK to not very special at all to 'urgh, turn that off, will you?'.
Something about the Parasound A21 / MBL 116F combo just does the biz. Others who have visited agree that it is very special, so it's not just me.
Synergy! yes!
What implications does the word synergy have when applied to mechanical and electrical systems?
I think Martin is correct and synergy describes a system that is more than the sum of its parts. I don’t think stereo systems can do that tbh. The performance is always going to be governed by the weakest link in the chain
I agree with your list in general Clive but need to point out these are measurable parameters.
The dictionary agrees with us, John:
Synergy: the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; synergism.
Your suggestion that stereo systems can't do that is interesting, but I don't think I agree with it. On too many occasions, I've heard a combination of components that just produce magic, more so than any individual item when used elsewhere. Perhaps Clive has it with yin/yang, each-offsetting-the-other's attributes idea.
The dictionary agrees with us, John:
Your suggestion that stereo systems can't do that is interesting, but I don't think I agree with it. On too many occasions, I've heard a combination of components that just produce magic, more so than any individual item when used elsewhere. Perhaps Clive has it with yin/yang, each-offsetting-the-other's attributes idea.
Yep, quite happy with the definition Martin. :)
It's the magic bit I'm not comfortable with. ;)
Certainly you can maximise a systems performance with careful matching of components and call that synergy but the system will still only perform to the weakest links strength.
need to point out these are measurable parameters.
Indeed the items on my non-exhaustive list are measurable. As a subjectivist I don't discount objective elements where they make sense, it just that the result are more important to me than a bunch of measurement. Maybe where we'll get to a point with this topic where we can only say there is a certain magic that happens, such as with Jerry's Parasound amp. Could this be where we aren't measuring the right parameters so we can only say it's magic because we don't understand the reasons?
I'm desperately trying for this not to become subjective vs objective......
Indeed the items on my non-exhaustive list are measurable. As a subjectivist I don't discount objective elements where they make sense, it just that the result are more important to me than a bunch of measurement. Maybe where we'll get to a point with this topic where we can only say there is a certain magic that happens, such as with Jerry's Parasound amp. Could this be where we aren't measuring the right parameters so we can only say it's magic because we don't understand the reasons?
I'm desperately trying for this not to become subjective vs objective......
I appreciate this.:)
I personally dont call events I cant explain, magic.
Reid Malenfant
14-08-2012, 19:39
Indeed the items on my non-exhaustive list are measurable. As a subjectivist I don't discount objective elements where they make sense, it just that the result are more important to me than a bunch of measurement. Maybe where we'll get to a point with this topic where we can only say there is a certain magic that happens, such as with Jerry's Parasound amp. Could this be where we aren't measuring the right parameters so we can only say it's magic because we don't understand the reasons?
I think it's like flavours of food :)
While no-one can agree on how things taste, well we can't as we are all different! We can often agree that salmon & broccoli goes together very well indeed :D
None of it is measurable, or even if it is then how do you define it? But put certain things together & some magic can indeed happen. Even if you have no reason to think that it would given the ingredients.
It's the same as colours. We are all taught at school that this is red, that is green, & that is brown. But at the end of the day, while we may well agree on the names, we can't in any way prove we are seeing the same thing!
We just agree on a name for it :eyebrows:
Damn, I'm getting hungry :rfl:
I personally dont call events I cant explain, magic.
How about a UE - Unexplained Event?
Or Happenstance?
I think it's like flavours of food :)
While no-one can agree on how things taste, well we can't as we are all different! We can often agree that salmon & broccoli goes together very well indeed :D
None of it is measurable, or even if it is then how do you define it? But put certain things together & some magic can indeed happen. Even if you have no reason to think that it would given the ingredients.
It's the same as colours. We are all taught at school that this is red, that is green, & that is brown. But at the end of the day, while we may well agree on the names, we can't in any way prove we are seeing the same thing!
We just agree on a name for it :eyebrows:
Damn, I'm getting hungry :rfl:
So do we have synergies that just about everyone can hear and appreciate through to synergies that only one person can hear (after a couple of glasses of their fave liquid perhaps)?
Reid Malenfant
14-08-2012, 19:52
I'd say that it'd be not exactly universal as we are all different, but a good proportion of people would agree that certain kit goes together very well indeed.
Getting back to the food thing, not everyone likes salmon, so salmon & broccoli is out of the window for those that don't, even if they love broccoli ;)
I also agree with the definition of synergy, it's that rare occasion when 2 + 2 = more than 4...
Greater than the sum of the parts...
I also agree with the definition of synergy, it's that rare occasion when 2 + 2 = more than 4...
Greater than the sum of the parts...
Which suggests to me it's an environmental influence or personal preference that's adding the magic/unexplained event/happenstance.
I am not sure if you can quantify these terms as to many variables, preference plays a part and so does envioronment but its more complex than that
Sorry struggling to define what may be the cause
bobbasrah
14-08-2012, 20:27
I am not sure if you can quantify these terms as to many variables, preference plays a part and so does envioronment but its more complex than that
Sorry struggling to define what may be the cause
Might I suggest John that despite a good handle on the sciences involved, the interactions between components in stereo systems are a bit of a lottery unless they come from the same manufacturer where they have tested them together. Even there, a change of interconnects or a speaker cable can change the interactions again......
Some environmental factors are easy to understand, eg the effect of some speakers, especially OBs, placed in front of a bay window. This usually has a strong effect on vocals/mid-range imaging, this doubles up on what OBs already do very well. If this is where 2 + 2 = 5 comes from maybe the equation should be 1 + 2 + 2 = 5. Synergy in this case would not be transferable to a room without a bay window.
Ok Clive
So in our rooms we are quite used to our environment it either helps us with the sound or create issues, most rooms will create issues.
That still does not account for why I might perfer one amp against another and that in my case I am using a lot less expensive gear and getting better results
I personally think that there no real end goal in this journey
I think though John that good kit does not have to be expensive and when you take into account different business model then prices can be very different (eg direct vs including distributor and dealer margins)
Beechwoods
14-08-2012, 21:28
2+2=5 is a simple way of explaining synergy, but it has zero relevance to hi-fi, where any notion of quantifying the value of a component is entirely subjective.
What is true is that sometimes shocking results can be achieved via different combinations of components. One person's experience of a certain component may be down to the combination of that component and the other equipment they have, and the way they have their room arranged etc. There is no absolute, and slavishly replicating someone else's setup may not in any case work with the room modes and conditions you have.
Ultimately synergy is about serendipity, trial and error, and a good dose of other people's experience to minimise costly mistakes.
I think it's like flavours of food :)
While no-one can agree on how things taste, well we can't as we are all different! We can often agree that salmon & broccoli goes together very well indeed :D
None of it is measurable, or even if it is then how do you define it? But put certain things together & some magic can indeed happen. Even if you have no reason to think that it would given the ingredients.
It's the same as colours. We are all taught at school that this is red, that is green, & that is brown. But at the end of the day, while we may well agree on the names, we can't in any way prove we are seeing the same thing!
We just agree on a name for it :eyebrows:
Damn, I'm getting hungry :rfl:
Wow, what a great way to explain it Mark, have a Brownie point or ten... :D
Being a non-technical person, I couldn't tell you whether the resistance of the IC's in my system compliments the components, or in fact whether the Mini T sends Pixie Dust into the DM2's to enhance the sound. All I can describe is the joy I feel when I discover a component that works particularly well with the ensemble thus enabling me to hear further into the music. For what ever reason, I am in a happy place with my setup just now and as a result I am enjoying listening to music more than I have ever done before. T'is synergistically good enough for me... :D
2+2=5
Ultimately synergy is about serendipity, trial and error, and a good dose of other people's experience to minimise costly mistakes.
+1 but wish I had more of "To minimise costly mistakes"
Let go back to speakers and amplifiers
Certain amps will match really well with your speakers, others will do a good job and others will sound not so good. So there is something to do with how each is voiced
I know their other more techinical factors, but I had amps in my system with very similar power yet with each one have sounded different. (e.g Difference between the Argen Mini T and Bantam Gold with high efficency drivers)
For me, I feel that "synergy" happens when the music flows effortlessly and just feels "right". This can be for a number of reasons and may only happen when you change only ONE component, All of a sudden there it is.....Click.
I have been playing with some very basic room treatments recently. Very basic in that they are unwanted album covers that I have placed to deal with wall reflections (If you take a double album cover and make a sort of tent shape out of it and then attach it to the wall). In addition I placed a half open double cover on the top of each speaker. I suspect that it is interfering with reflections from the rear wall and maybe ceiling, but what I do know is that everything seems more right.....explain that? Oh yeah if you invert the covers on the speakers it sounds different again.
hoopsontoast
15-08-2012, 07:35
IME, synergy only happens with trial and error rather than matching specifications/expectations.
Regarding 2+2=5, I like to suggest another alternative in addition to 1+2+2=5 where 1 is the environment.
How about when we get the synergy right it's 2+2=4 and when we don't it's 2+2=3?
Let me illustrate with an anecdote. In the mid 90's I went oven to Tom Evans' house to pick up a "Digital Turntable" for a HFN piece I was doing. While I was there - fightng my way through substance-filled smoke - I listened to his system. Tom strives for linear phase throughout his system. He used Ted Jordan drivers and Michell / Trichord electronics. Trichord was Tom and Graham Fowler at that time, they both had parts to play in designing the Michell amps.
The sound of Tom's system was amazing, what I was hearing was a system approach from a single designer.
So 2+2=3, 4 or 5?
Could it be that when it's 3 we're not hearing what the designer intended due to a technical or environmental incompatibility?
When it's 4 we have synergy as the designer intended.
When it's 5 we've been drinking or smoking....
Note that I say "what the designer intended", this may not be the same as a single manufacturer such as Linn who have been known to use many different designers, often plucked straight out of uni.
jandl100
15-08-2012, 07:47
IME, synergy only happens with trial and error rather than matching specifications/expectations.
+1, sort of ... I mostly agree, but there are some components like the Denon 103 where you can have a pretty good idea of what will work well based on spec - i.e. high mass arm = good, low mass arm = bad.
Although for that elusive touch of 'magic' (sorry, John! :eyebrows:) only trial and error can really work, imo.
Yes, I agree. Trial and error can be painful but sometimes it's the only way, with a good dose of intuition to lead you in the right general direction.
Clive you trying to apply logic to a emotional response and we move back into the subjective vs objective
So lets back to your mathmatical equation
1 =environment
2 = Speakers
3 = Source
4= Cabling
5 = Amplifier
so in theory you have 1+2+3+4+5= Sound
But sound can be changed by changing any ot these so perphaps we looking for another word
Clive you trying to apply logic to a emotional response
I suppose John what I have trouble with is that we magically find a combination that does something it shouldn't. Are we that clever? Or are we simply not that smart when the results are not so good? Maybe we're slapping ourselves on our backs (difficult :)) when we get it right, but is that all we are doing - getting it right?
When synergy occurs, there has to be a reason other than pixie dust. If not then it is pure emotion and are we imagining it. Getting a system right helps us feel emotion - is that all it is....getting it right or is it synergy?
Clive you trying to apply logic to a emotional response and we move back into the subjective vs objective
I don't see it in the traditional subjective vs objective way.
Objective for me suggests a perfectly measuring system will sound perfect. I don't believe that for all sorts of reasons. I firmly believe our ears are the final arbiter of what sounds good to ourselves.
But....for there to be a change in sound there has to be a reason. Simply saying synergy is a kop-out that conveniently removes then need to understand what has caused the effect. If we ever understand all the causes then maybe objectivists and subjectivists might see eye-to-eye. Some designers have unlocked the keys to the sound they are looking for, but that's very far from a complete picture.
Let me illustrate further where I'm coming from.
Going back to food/cooking. A well cooked recipe evokes an emotional response from the person enjoying eating it. Is the cook working objectively or subjectively? Objectively would be measuring say when butter starts to bubble/boil. The problem here is that there are too many variables, the type of pan, the specific butter used, even altitude. So what does the cook do? They watch the butter heat up and make an approximate measurement by subjective means...their eyes.
Designing hi-fi equipment isn't so different. Most designers will start out with a circuit that is designed to equations - after all you can't deal with resistance and ignore ohm's law - not unless you want a huge amount of trial and error. Once the design is done they listen to it and tweak some component values until they get the sound they want. All I'm saying is that what we are calling synergy - is this simply our achieving the sound the designer originally heard and intended?
All I'm saying is that what we are calling synergy - is this simply our achieving the sound the designer originally heard and intended?
Yes that makes sense but can I also add hope for; as the designer system might sound a bit ifferent due to the different variables:)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Not sure if this is a quote but it’s close enough.
I’ve always taken the above as a bit of a piss-take at mankind’s seemingly futile attempts to rationally explain the universe around him.
Rather than leap straight to the occult and supernatural and twist the mathematically impossible (2+2 always equals 4!) I personally would much rather we just stated we don’t understand why or how something works. Let’s leave the magic with the fairies and stick to technical explanations for technical systems.
There are people who it seems do know enough about how these systems work and they prove this by making such systems work.
Not one of these people who do make these systems work have spell books and snake oil in their labs so they didn’t put any magic in their components. Where does the magic come from then?
Okay, some seem to be saying it just happens when all the system components are joined together but surely this suggests that any 'synergy' is in fact an explanation of something that is perceived by an observer which he cannot explain and not an intrinsic property of the system in isolation.
This would seem fair given each observer will rate that systems performance differently.
We link up various components and some combinations work better than others. I’m good with this. We just need to have a better understanding of the sytem.
Sure, you can swap stuff about until you get a noise that pleases you without any understanding, or even the desire to understand what may influence the quality of the noise but what is wrong with accepting that ‘science says’ and starting there?
hoopsontoast
15-08-2012, 14:31
My main example that sort of supports the 'matching specifications' argument but without doing it was how well I got on with the Decware Zen (1.5wpc) and T-Amp (8wpc) with my Kolts (80dB) and on paper really should not work. I have now measured them and found that the DC resistance is 8.5 Ohms, which may explain the 'synergy' that means both those very low powered amps (that like easy loads) can work really well despite the low power/low sensitivity combination.
The ATC SCM10 I guess is similar, simple crossover, sealed box so no massive impedance peak at fs (good for tube amps) and a generally benign impedance plot.
http://open.spotify.com/track/5IFbcj5pGV0g2YmX0jkNFE ;)
Sorry John could not help myself
I have visions of Paul Daniels sawing Debbie McGee in half but of course it's smoke 'n mirrors. ;)
http://open.spotify.com/track/5IFbcj5pGV0g2YmX0jkNFE ;)
Sorry John could not help myself
Pfft. :D
Get yer tunes out John. :ner:
G0jk5ReXv1o
oP2SS8ggLtU
It's in the chorus mostly. ;)
Well, when I saw the crossover of ATC SCM50's simple is not how I would have described them. I would be surprised if the 10's had a very simple crossover.
hoopsontoast
15-08-2012, 19:36
Well, when I saw the crossover of ATC SCM50's simple is not how I would have described them. I would be surprised if the 10's had a very simple crossover.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6230/6222161033_c3ef43659b_z.jpg
Relatively simple anyway, 2nd order I believe.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6117/6222254989_07c998aaf0_z.jpg
From when I had the SCM10's (copied from my post on HFWW)
Yes, simpler than I anticipated.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke
- Arthur C. Clarke
That's the chap. Thanks Martin.
Is my wording correct?
I wouldn't want the quote to end up as technology is magic. ;)
Harry Hill
16-08-2012, 18:01
IME, synergy only happens with trial and error rather than matching specifications/expectations.
This might explain why some mega expensive and complex systems dont sound as sweet as some simple and less expensive ones. Sometimes all that "matching" is not such a good thing.:cool:
synergy, it's that rare occasion when 2 + 2 = more than 4...
Greater than the sum of the parts...
(forgive me if this has moved on, am reading page 2)
I think then that what you're describing as synergy is actually the rare occasion where 2+2=4 !
At all other times you've only been able to get 2+2=3.5.
Human nature to adapt to the current environment (well, all nature not just human nature) and to take the current norm as being as good as it gets.
Something out of that ordinary norm comes along and it is kind of mythified, given magical status even if it completely to be expected, all things considered. Co-incidences are often a good example - when examined, those coincidences may still be statistically rare but still happen often enough (and more often, are relatively likely but the odds are misunderstood, don't appeal to 'common sense').
Given the massive variation in design of kit and their specs, it's no wonder that even big box swappers only come accross good synergy relatively infrequently. A god-like omnipotence of all things audio electronics would probably allow you to find synergy quickly but I don't think anyone is really there yet in terms of electrical understanding.
Is the cook working objectively or subjectively? Objectively would be measuring say when butter starts to bubble/boil. The problem here is that there are too many variables, the type of pan, the specific butter used, even altitude. So what does the cook do? They watch the butter heat up and make an approximate measurement by subjective means...their eyes.
I'd say that it is confusing to call that subjective. The cook is objectively measuring with his eyes. He would be measuring using different parameters to others, he'd be using colour and bubbling rate and smell.
His 'art' and subjectivity will come in when he draws on experience and chooses what colour and bubbling rate etc gave him the results he enjoyed last time.
So he is measuring objectively but is subjectively choosing which value of measurement he considers 'correct'. I suppose that's where the emotion mentioned comes in.
Designing hi-fi equipment isn't so different. Most designers will start out with a circuit that is designed to equations - after all you can't deal with resistance and ignore ohm's law - not unless you want a huge amount of trial and error. Once the design is done they listen to it and tweak some component values until they get the sound they want. All I'm saying is that what we are calling synergy - is this simply our achieving the sound the designer originally heard and intended?
The above still works given what I said too. The designer is still measuring objectively with their ears. The values of those by ear measurements that are chosen to be 'right' is subjective.
Both the cook and hifi designer's objective parts could still be done with equipment if you knew specifically what you needed to measure and how to do it (a listening machine, not electrical measurements). but then why bother when appropriately experienced humans do it so naturally?
Edit: Just had a thought that there is a kind of confusion of uncalibrated measurement being subjective - it is still objective but simply no value or scale has been yet asigned.
Another thought is that you could measure synergy using brain scanners on audiophiles - certain bits of brain might light up on average when they proclaim there was synergy. You'd eventually come up with a kind of scale worked out by corollating their subjective proclaimations with brain activity maps.
I feel judging synergy by electrical engineering rules alone might be like controlling a kite's position by moving the end of the long string down on the ground. You can do a certain amount but essentially you're too far down the chain for your judgments to be anything more than general. I hope that makes sense..
i dunno, describing it is 'je ne sais quoi...'
some call it mojo, others may call it synergy or kismet or va-va voom!
I've kept out of this thread so far because I'm simply not smart enough to be able to describe it. I know when i hear it.
I'd say that it is confusing to call that subjective. The cook is objectively measuring with his eyes. He would be measuring using different parameters to others, he'd be using colour and bubbling rate and smell.
His 'art' and subjectivity will come in when he draws on experience and chooses what colour and bubbling rate etc gave him the results he enjoyed last time.
So he is measuring objectively but is subjectively choosing which value of measurement he considers 'correct'. I suppose that's where the emotion mentioned comes in.
Following this line of logic, which I'm happy to do...when we hear a sound we prefer over another we tend to say this is a subjective view. We could say that providing there is agreement that a difference exists, then we are objectively measuring some system parameters without a defined scale.
For what we call synergy to occur there has to be a reason for, it's not foo, magic or whatever. The reasons may be complex or not even fully understood but there are reasons.
No, the cook is judging in a subjective manner (an experienced and trained one perhaps, but still subjective) unless he/she is using a measuring cup, scales or a meat thermometer etc., then it is objective.
awkwardbydesign
26-08-2012, 15:34
I find it curious that measuring sound with ears is subjective, but measuring sound with eyes is objective. Making static something that is dynamic.
Excellent discussion, chaps - I agree with most of what's been written :)
I would also add that the much sought after 'synergy' can often be obtained by judiciously selecting and using equipment from the one manufacturer, as more often than not said equipment will have been designed together from the ground up, and thus will perform optimally in that context.
That effect is certainly revealed in all its glory, for example, with the combination of my Ortofon tonearm/SPU cartridge/ST-80SE MC step-up transformer :exactly:
Marco.
Spectral Morn
27-08-2012, 10:33
Trial and error = not good imho.
In the good old days quality dealers and distributors put systems together and they worked out the base line synergy in order to make it easier for the customer. Of coarse variables like room acoustics and taste in music/presentation were factors but for the most part the work was already done the course mapped out. The best example of this - outside of Linn/Naim -was the Audio Innovations, Snell, Voyd, Audio Note cables system that Peter Q put together. The systems worked beautifully together and it was really a case of whether one liked the system or not whether one bought into it or not. PQ under the guise of Audio Note UK pretty much still does the same thing today.
The difficulty back then and today occurs when those brave individuals go off piste and try and put unlikely combinations together, throwing conventional wisdom and specifications out the window or an amalgamation of What HiFi 5 star reviews together in hope of synergy (1)- the end results are usually a mess. Its also I feel more the case - these days - that some dealers don't bother experimenting with components to be able to present base line set ups to their customers and often there is no rhyme nor reason to the components distributors take in to add to their portfolios - as they don't work together. I say that based on observation and listening experience.
I think it unfair to target any system/set of components regardless of price if it is not well put together and if it is, quite often negativity expressed here - in my opinion - is relating to presentation not system mismatches, which some are mistaking for a lack of synergy. The system is working well but they don't like the sound. Make no mistake this can still be the case with set ups that are working well.
I feel that many that are doing this are basing their opinions on hearing at a show - and we all know that most dealers/distributors don't make much effort to get this right - rather than years of experience trying different combinations together in a room/environment they know well.
Synergy is usually achieved by taking into account fundamentals like power to speaker sensitivity - room size and tonality blending. The cooking analogy is a good one.
(1) A good example would be mixing Cyrus with Monitor Audio - not a synergistic match in my view unless one likes an in your face presentation.
Trail and error very costly IMHO
But this is where forums and friends come in
Spectral Morn
27-08-2012, 10:53
Trail and error very costly IMHO
But this is where forums and friends come in useful
Agreed with the fist point.
However sadly forums and friends are at times - and lets be clear I am not pointing at AOS here - a case of the deaf/ignorant leading the deaf. Well meaning deaf/ignorant ones but deaf and ignorant all the same. I have stumbled upon examples of this sort of thing many times and the advice been given is very poor to say the least and will end up in an even bigger mess than already exists. :sofa: I know the above will irk some but I am telling it as I see have heard it.
In my view trial and error is a mugs game unless you have a bottomless wallet or an endless supply of equipment to play with for free.
Common sense, experience and watching specifications will stand most people in good stead.
Well to be honest i think the best way is to hear as many systems as you can, hear what possible, then hear stuff in your own enviornment and do not make rash choices.
Common sense, experience and watching specifications will stand most people in good stead.
This is more what I had in mind at the start of the thread. The magical synergy we speak of can be more easily found is some account of specs is taken as some sense applied to matching and yes, plently of listening to different setups. I think what we have though is not so much any magical synergy, it more a profound lack of synergy all too often.
Spectral Morn
27-08-2012, 11:16
Well to be honest i think the best way is to hear as many systems as you can, hear what possible, then hear stuff in your own enviornment and do not make rash choices.
Agreed
Spectral Morn
27-08-2012, 11:21
This is more what I had in mind at the start of the thread. The magical synergy we speak of can be more easily found is some account of specs is taken as some sense applied to matching and yes, plently of listening to different setups. I think what we have though is not so much any magical synergy, it more a profound lack of synergy all too often.
Agreed :cool:
Following this line of logic, which I'm happy to do...when we hear a sound we prefer over another we tend to say this is a subjective view. We could say that providing there is agreement that a difference exists, then we are objectively measuring some system parameters without a defined scale.
No, the cook is judging in a subjective manner (an experienced and trained one perhaps, but still subjective) unless he/she is using a measuring cup, scales or a meat thermometer etc., then it is objective.
Subjectivity is only about choices due to taste. Using yourself as a measuring instrument isn't about taste, it's about using you senses as tools to make rough objective measurements.
For example if you have to put up a shelf level and at 1.5m but forgot your tape measure or spirit level, you're not suddenly making subjective choices because you forgot your tools, you're trying to make objective measurements using what you have to hand - your previous experience and senses. Similarly, if you're trying to put a shelf up at the same height as you previously had it and still with no measuring implements to hand, that is also objective.
If you were asked to put up a shelf so that it was aesthetically pleasing then where you put it, at what height at what angle etc would be subjective.
There's a big difference in the situations in terms of why and how you are making the choices. The subjective one is only the one where you are making choices to please yourself at that particular moment (not a pre-determined choice where the subjective part was done in the past and you're objectively recreating it).
Can't remember why I'm talking about it now.... sure its relevent.
Doing it more randomly is ultimately more fun though as it allows you to come up with combos that are more pleasing because they seem to defy convention.
It frees up your choices too and more able to make purchases on other perameters like the design or 'aura' of the bit of kit (like a 40s cinema valve amp).
I see people trying to find a good match for their speakers or pre for their power amp, making logical choices and disregarding this or that out of hand or this type of topology and see them taking well trodden paths because they have to make choices where the kit's specs are well known etc.
For me, that turns a hobby (the hifi kit part) into a bit of a sterile and boring affair in my personal opinion anyway. Then again if hifi for someone is only about the music (not the kit) then it's a means to and end I suppose.
awkwardbydesign
27-08-2012, 15:10
Subjectivity is only about choices due to taste. Using yourself as a measuring instrument isn't about taste, it's about using you senses as tools to make rough objective measurements.
For example if you have to put up a shelf level and at 1.5m but forgot your tape measure or spirit level, you're not suddenly making subjective choices because you forgot your tools, you're trying to make objective measurements using what you have to hand - your previous experience and senses. Similarly, if you're trying to put a shelf up at the same height as you previously had it and still with no measuring implements to hand, that is also objective.
If you were asked to put up a shelf so that it was aesthetically pleasing then where you put it, at what height at what angle etc would be subjective.
There's a big difference in the situations in terms of why and how you are making the choices. The subjective one is only the one where you are making choices to please yourself at that particular moment (not a pre-determined choice where the subjective part was done in the past and you're objectively recreating it).
Can't remember why I'm talking about it now.... sure its relevent.
Coo, I like it. Can I quote it elsewhere, please?
awkwardbydesign
27-08-2012, 15:13
Trail and error very costly IMHO
But this is where forums and friends come in
However, if you can modify AND return to earlier specs cheaply, then trial and error can be very useful. Unless you blow something up!
Coo, I like it. Can I quote it elsewhere, please?
Ha ha, of course you can. A brave man... :lol:
So, what you are saying Nat is that the shelf I put up a few years ago is subjectively straight and level therefore everyone who's criticised it for being wonky can go sling their collective (objective) hooks. I win... :lol:
awkwardbydesign
27-08-2012, 17:40
So, what you are saying Nat is that the shelf I put up a few years ago is subjectively straight and level therefore everyone who's criticised it for being wonky can go sling their collective hooks. I win... :lol:
Surely that should read "objective hooks...."
Essentially, I would second the comments made by Neil in posts 56 and 58.
So, what you are saying Nat is that the shelf I put up a few years ago is subjectively straight and level therefore everyone who's criticised it for being wonky can go sling their collective (objective) hooks. I win... :lol:
No, cos 'straight and level' has a universal objective meaning so if you deliberately trying to make it straight and level then you were trying to objectively get the shelf to a stated measured standard but your 'tools' weren't good enough!
If you put it up that way cos you thought it was best, in looks perhaps, then that was your subjective decision and must be pleased with it !
The others didn't realise that it was a subjective art piece and were expecting the former. Wrongful expectation can lead to anger and so they should calm down and accept that it was their expectation of you that they got wrong.. it should only have been expected. Hopefully they are wiser now. :)
In my view trial and error is a mugs game unless you have a bottomless wallet or an endless supply of equipment to play with for free.
Common sense, experience and watching specifications will stand most people in good stead.
I'd say the opposite is true.
When you go searching for specific equipment because you've concluded it should match well, you end up paying top prices because you don't want to spend years searching for a bargain to come up. You know what you want, so you go out to find it asap.
Buying things as and when they pop up at good prices means you never loose money. In fact, my hifi fund pool has only increased from buying things at (very) good prices when I can and selling on when I'm done at just average prices for the time.
My current integrated is excellent. I can't find any specs nor any mention of it anywhere... so I guess I shouldn't have bought it? My experience told me it was well made, a quality piece no matter if it matched any speakers I had or whether I did in fact like the sound. Had I tried to find anything out about it or ummed and ahhed over it, it would have gone and for even cheaper. I still have no idea about it, power output or anything!
There's excitement in discovery and needing to feel assured before making a choice is something to shake yourself out of IMHO (I'm still learning to myself before that sounds like I'm saying I'm on some kind of higher plain..).
P.S.
I guess I've forgotten about the synergy part.. If instant synergy is what you're after, just spend the cash and buy a whole system brand new from a good dealer. Then listen to your music - no need for forums or ever thinking about the gear ever again..
If you like the gear side too, then making mistakes and making discoveries is what it's all about - just make sure you're not in a position where you have to sell the last bit of kit in order to try the next. Keep as much as you can and sell on when you're at a good sticking point.
If you like the gear side too, then making mistakes and making discoveries is what it's all about - just make sure you're not in a position where you have to sell the last bit of kit in order to try the next. Keep as much as you can and sell on when you're at a good sticking point.
I have to say this approach has worked for me and for a fairly modest outlay to date :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.