Please see edit
Printable View
Please see edit
I don't see it in the traditional subjective vs objective way.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
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?
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:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive
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?
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. ;)
Pfft. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by John
Get yer tunes out John. :ner:
Lol