[Russell Dawkins]

Spoken like a guy in need of a clue.

I think Daryl is actually playing with his self.

Resounding disconnect from reality there regarding pre/post echo....echo...

[opnly bafld]

Topic: Synergy, is it measureable?
No. And neither is the smell of a fart. Not everything is measureable. End of discussion.

I don't know about others, but my NOSE can measure it.
As far as I know there are no man made instruments that can even measure it let alone with the accuracy of my nose.
I also have NO idea what others are smelling, is it the same or different from what I smell?
Could it be the SAME with ears and music?

Lin

[Daygloworange]

I'm all cool with hearing more on the technical side, but why not here?

Resounding disconnect from reality there regarding pre/post echo.

Can anybody elaborate on that? I was equating that to print through on analog tape.

Cheers

[miklorsmith]

Of course there are technical elements to whether combinations will work within acceptable parameters.  Beyond that, there is tremendous variability in what sounds good or does not.  To dismiss all the latter guarantees a glass ceiling.

[eric the red]

I don't know about others, but my NOSE can measure it.
As far as I know there are no man made instruments than can even measure it let alone with the accuracy of my nose.
I also have NO idea what others are smelling, is it the same or different from what I smell?
Could it be the SAME with ears and music?

Lin

I know someone who likes what a skunk's spray smells like. He has no idea why a dead skunk smells bad to others. "Could it be the same with ears and music?" Why does Coltrane sound like a cat in a blender to some people and to others is soul-stirring music?

[Daygloworange]

No. And neither is the smell of a fart. Not everything is measureable. End of discussion.

Actually, I believe that that is in fact measureable.

But, I do get what your intended meaning is.

Cheers

[eric the red]

No. And neither is the smell of a fart. Not everything is measureable. End of discussion.

Actually, I believe that that is in fact measureable.

But, I do get what your intended meaning is.

Cheers

I think any audio discussion like this comes down to certain things that we have to agree are not measureable. You can't measure how some things make you FEEL I guess is the point.

[Kevin Haskins]

You could measure preference/synergy in lots of ways.  None of which are practical for our applications.   

[Kevin Haskins]

No. And neither is the smell of a fart. Not everything is measureable. End of discussion.

Actually, I believe that that is in fact measureable.

But, I do get what your intended meaning is.

Cheers

I think any audio discussion like this comes down to certain things that we have to agree are not measureable. You can't measure how some things make you FEEL I guess is the point.

Sure you can.   It is called psychology and sociology.   

[Dan Banquer]

Yah, I'm with Dan. I have my synergo-meter right here in fact, and it's off the scale! Thank God for Engineering Education and the Righteous Way.

I've got one too John. Looks kind of like this


I also have my scent taste and beauty meters somewhere around here...

No more worries now Kevin; Everyone can connect up to the meter shown above to measure audiophile synergy.
Case closed.
           d.b.

[Russell Dawkins]

Resounding disconnect from reality there regarding pre/post echo.

Can anybody elaborate on that? I was equating that to print through on analog tape.

Cheers

You were correct in that equation. The fault is in the medium - vinyl or tape. In tape it can be caused by incorrect storage (tails in instead of out) or by a too-thin tape stock.
With vinyl it is a mastering decision involving, primarily, groove spacing choices as relates to signal level. If the groove spacing or pitch is inadequate, the "wiggles" in that groove affect the shape of the adjacent groove to an audible extent.

In neither case is the audibility of the effect connected in any way to the quality of the playback device.

[Daygloworange]

I think that in the context of the original poster, the answer would probably be more on the subjective side of what synergy is. In other words, what sounds good to you, is good sound to you.

But of course, there are valid reasons why technically something is (scientifically)better than something else, and should therefore be more synergistic. But that doesn't necessarily jibe with personal tastes and preferences.

It always becomes paradoxical.

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

In neither case is the audibility of the effect connected in any way to the quality of the playback device.

True. However, it is a shortcoming of the medium. Much like jitter and so forth with digital. There are shortcomings that affect what we hear.

Cheers

[rajacat]

If every phenomena in audio can be measured with contemporary equipment why can't speakers, amps, etc. just be designed on the computer with spreadsheets and forgo a/b testing with ears?

Raj 

[Kevin Haskins]

If every phenomena in audio can be measured with contemporary equipment why can't speakers, amps, etc. just be designed on the computer with spreadsheets and forgo a/b testing with ears?

Raj 

We have come a long ways toward that goal.   The ultimate engineering goal should that everything should be explainable and quantifiable, otherwise how can you repeatably design something?   

If you look at how we designed loudspeakers 20 years ago vs. what we do today we have tons of improvements in the art.    There is better models for transducer design using computer tools to simulate magnetic fields and flux.   We have Klippel & Dumax to better measure/analyze drivers.   We have tools that help us model crossovers and listen to them in real-time without having to rebuild them when we make a change.    We have better research about what is and is not obviously audible .

I've seen some people moan that there isn't anything new under the sun.   I often wonder what pace of change they envision.   It seems to me we are making plenty of progress.

[Dan Banquer]

Yah, I'm with Dan. I have my synergo-meter right here in fact, and it's off the scale! Thank God for Engineering Education and the Righteous Way.

I've got one too John. Looks kind of like this


I also have my scent taste and beauty meters somewhere around here...

No more worries now Kevin; Everyone can connect up to the meter shown above to measure audiophile synergy.
Case closed.
           d.b.

It's right here rajacat, just change the meter label and it will give you certified eric the red approved masurements for any piece of audio equipment.
            d.b.
P.S. I hear John R. likes it too.

[Daryl]

You were correct in that equation. The fault is in the medium - vinyl or tape. In tape it can be caused by incorrect storage (tails in instead of out) or by a too-thin tape stock.
With vinyl it is a mastering decision involving, primarily, groove spacing choices as relates to signal level. If the groove spacing or pitch is inadequate, the "wiggles" in that groove affect the shape of the adjacent groove to an audible extent.

In neither case is the audibility of the effect connected in any way to the quality of the playback device.

It is a liability of the medium in general.

A cutting lathe has a button you can press during an abrupt soft to loud or loud to soft transition so that you don't hear something before it happens or hear it end twice.

If you were to use it for the entire record you wouldn't even fit a single song on an LP.

When CD came along everyone was saying you lose the ambience of the hall with digital when in fact the "lost" ambience was created by the medium and never existed at the actual event.

Digital has also a very low noise floor which is percieved as less high frequency response (recording engineers like to say digital has less high end when you can measure it to be completely flat).

Since digital has no groove echo, print through and extremely low distortion recordings sound thinner as well as lacking 'acoustic space'.

In fact that was simply the music that was made and how it was recorded, the fatter/fuller spectrum and acoustic space were being created in the medium by accident without the knowledge of those making the recordings.

When digital came along it clearly showed the recording process for what it was but everyone started saying it was the digital medium.

However you can measure the digital recording to be a precise replica of the original and also measure tape and vinyl mediums to have all sorts of additional ingredients that were being relied upon by the industry though most of them didn't know it.

In the age of digital recording engineers must understand that the acoustic space (both acoustics and background noise) are an integral part of a music recording and they must either capture it or create it when making the recording or end up with a lifeless disembodied recording.

Also suitable choices must be made when choosing accompanying instrumentation and how it is played to see that the music spectrum is as full as it should be, because a vocalist and two instruments in a sound booth will sound exactly like that on digital if you just record it and print it (recorded on tape then printed on vinyl the same thing might not sound like anything is lacking).

Of course for a lot music the distortion is part of the experience.

Many rock recordings are recorded on tape and transferred to digital later to get the high energy sound of a tape being overloaded.

[eric the red]

Yah, I'm with Dan. I have my synergo-meter right here in fact, and it's off the scale! Thank God for Engineering Education and the Righteous Way.

I've got one too John. Looks kind of like this


I also have my scent taste and beauty meters somewhere around here...

No more worries now Kevin; Everyone can connect up to the meter shown above to measure audiophile synergy.
Case closed.
           d.b.

It's right here rajacat, just change the meter label and it will give you certified eric the red approved masurements for any piece of audio equipment.
            d.b.
P.S. I hear John R. likes it too.

C'mon Dan tell us how you really feel. We're all a bunch of idiots aren't we?

[Daryl]

I wanna get fun low one in....

Topic: Synergy, is it measureable?
No. And neither is the smell of a fart. Not everything is measureable. End of discussion.

Both Synergy and farts are measureable.

There are devices which will separate the physical componets of gasses and tell you the componets and relative levels.

What is going on here is that some people prefer (enjoy) smelling farts, taking in the experience and being able to share with others their musings on the bouquet and so forth.

I'm in the company of some pretty fart smellers (er....pretty smart fellers).

[Dan Banquer]

How could I possibly say that Eric? I can now throw out all of my other test equipment, and replace it with just one unit. I'll save so much space! If I had only know about this earlier I could have saved a whole bunch of cash.
Now tell me Eric; how often does this unit have to calibrated?
            d.b.