Synergy

[Welder]

It's in the chorus mostly.

[YNWaN]

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]

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.

Relatively simple anyway, 2nd order I believe.



From when I had the SCM10's (copied from my post on HFWW)

[YNWaN]

Yes, simpler than I anticipated.

[MartinT]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

- Arthur C. Clarke

[Welder]

- 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.

[MartinT]

It's word perfect, John.

[Harry Hill]

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.

[nat8808]

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.

[nat8808]

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..