[opnly bafld]

It is real simple, if you don't like , don't click.

[miklorsmith]

It's still an interesting question to me.  Wrapped within the wondering of whether measurements are sufficient is the nature of synergy itself, which most or all of us have struggled with.

[Daygloworange]

Man, that's original.

Cheers

[Kevin Haskins]

I think measuring synergy is about like measuring many of these other subjective characteristics.   They are hard to nail down to one measurement.   With enough money and time we could do research to better quantify what people prefer and tie that back to several measurements but it isn't real practical.

So far, the discussion has been about measuring individual components. Since we are concerned about "synergy," why not measure the whole system, all at once? For example, you would presumably take a CSD of a loudspeaker you are designing -- why not take a CSD of the whole chain, from digital test signal, through DAC, preamp, poweramp(s), crossover (active or passive), and drivers?

You mentioned earlier, for instance, measuring an amplifier with reactive loads (I think). But if it's synergy we are interested in, then why not measure the amplifier with the speaker at the same time? If there are problems with that amp and speaker, then there must be a way to show that up by measuring both of them at the same time. Or to turn it around, SETs and single drivers are considered to be synergistic, or you will see written that a particular speaker is "tube-friendly." So rather than simply speculating about what goes with what, can't we measure them together?

Before I go further, let me point out that I am following Kevin's "engineering approach to design" he explained above. I am not suggesting that measurement will tell us if a particular system will sound good or be to someone's taste, but that if you (Kevin, as the designer) see measurements that are different than what you expect, that is a sign that there is something going that you need to investigate.

So, to look at Karsten's example. If there is a "slew rate mismatch" between components, this will surely show up as IMD if you were to measure the components together. That would then give you (Kevin, the designer), pause to wonder why the IMD measurements are not what you expected, and hopefully further investigation would reveal the cause.

What do you think of this idea so far, Kevin?

JohnR

I'm not a good analog circuit designer, its not my area of expertise but I'd say that most circuits are designed to be operated within a window of parameters.   The designers make sure they are stable and perform within that window.    As long as you don't vary the components in such a way that you get outside of that range, you should be good to go.    It shouldn't drastically change in character.   

I think most of the synergy comments are about a wide range of phenomena.   I'd guess that grounding is a VERY large issue because system grounds can cause so many problems and they are so prevalent.    I'm just guessing though.... don't have anything to back it up.

[opnly bafld]

Till then, I suspect synergy will always be an elusive, solitary goal.

If a person can find others that have similar tastes or even have our eyes opened to something new to us the sharing of information can be quite helpful, so I feel synergy doesn't have to be solitary.
I have taken suggestions on good matches from others that own or have reviewed something I have and benefited.  (before any of you nay sayers post, I know that the only reason I liked something better was all in my head, because I WANTED it to sound better )

Lin

[Dan Banquer]

"So, to look at Karsten's example. If there is a "slew rate mismatch" between components, this will surely show up as IMD if you were to measure the components together. That would then give you (Kevin, the designer), pause to wonder why the IMD measurements are not what you expected, and hopefully further investigation would reveal the cause."

Could someone be kind enough to explain this further?
Thanks;
           d.b.

[Karsten]

Of course my "slew rate mismatch theory" is only a possible explanation to part of what is considered synergy effect.

Yesterday I experimented a little with DSP on a very clean/neutral system. This was actually quite interesting, because it is possible, using the exact same effects, to make dull sounding recordings sound amazingly good and great recordings sound terrible... This means that a certain amount of dynamic boost and a little phase manipulation, easily can fool you to think that great "synergy" is obtained if the "wrong" recordings are used as reference.....

So far I have otherwise been very puristic avoiding any kind of coloration in my system, but doing it the DSP way actually opens up some interesting possibilities as it can always be turned off when not needed. Another interesting thing is that certain effects made me quite clearly aware of exactly the kind of artifacts different components I have evaluated over time, were adding...

Karsten

[Dan Banquer]

Of course my "slew rate mismatch theory" is only a possible explanation to part of what is considered synergy effect.

Yesterday I experimented a little with DSP on a very clean/neutral system. This was actually quite interesting, because it is possible, using the exact same effects, to make dull sounding recordings sound amazingly good and great recordings sound terrible... This means that a certain amount of dynamic boost and a little phase manipulation, easily can fool you to think that great "synergy" is obtained if the "wrong" recordings are used as reference.....

So far I have otherwise been very puristic avoiding any kind of coloration in my system, but doing it the DSP way actually opens up some interesting possibilities as it can always be turned off when not needed. Another interesting thing is that certain effects made me quite clearly aware of exactly the kind of artifacts different components I have evaluated over time, were adding...

Karsten

Hi Karsten;   
    Since slew rate is directly related to bandwidth, and we know that reproduced music has a rather limited bandwidth, than theoretically any unit that meets or exceeds that bandwidth could not influence slew rate.
I really like the rest of your post. I am slowly putting my entire music library onto my hard drive and have thought of experimenting with some eq software sometime in the future. Personally I would like to see more audiophiles experiment as you have.
                d.b.

[Daygloworange]

Yesterday I experimented a little with DSP on a very clean/neutral system. This was actually quite interesting, because it is possible, using the exact same effects, to make dull sounding recordings sound amazingly good and great recordings sound terrible...

This is what a mastering engineer does. You may have stumbled on to a new career. 

Cheers

[JohnR]

    Since slew rate is directly related to bandwidth, and we know that reproduced music has a rather limited bandwidth, than theoretically any unit that meets or exceeds that bandwidth could not influence slew rate.

Wrong again. Bzzzt.

[JohnR]

I'm not a good analog circuit designer, its not my area of expertise but I'd say that most circuits are designed to be operated within a window of parameters.   The designers make sure they are stable and perform within that window.    As long as you don't vary the components in such a way that you get outside of that range, you should be good to go.    It shouldn't drastically change in character.   

  Doesn't the "window of parameters" of a circuit presume the parameters of other circuits that it is/will be connected to?

[AJinFLA]

I have a completely unsubstantiated xxxxxxxx

That is the essence of being a "subjectivist" Audiophile (a poor term, I'll agree)

I'm sure it's hogwash

I thought Audiophile sites like this exist mainly so that members can share their hogwash, with a scientific blurb sprinkled here or there, in threads like this. I find them tremendously entertaining and fascinating. I encourage all to proceed.
I actually read the entire thread. I know what the definition of "synergy" is from a dictionary standpoint, but I did not see a single person here define it in terms of the audio component/psychology perspective. Is it like beauty?
14 pages of posts and no one has yet defined what is being discussed?
Does it exist in the sound wave reaching the ear, or the signal processing between the ear and the brain?
I suspect only one of those will be measurable, if that really matters.

cheers,

AJ

[Mag]

You may have the right equipment to achieve system synergy, but it comes down to just the right sound processing to hear it.
I had changed my front speakers to large and had listened this way for few weeks. Everything sounded fine but I found that I had become disinterested in the music. I assumed it was another phase in life I was going through and years of music listening had run its coarse.
Then I put my front speakers back to small as I found the added extension on the bass was wearing on me. I have 10 speaker and a sub so its not that I had a shortage of bass it was just more dominant with speaker set to large.
Just by putting speakers back to small the magic was back. The mid-range seemed better or it was no longer masked by extra bass and the highs seemed better. Life was put back into music listening.
Nothing had changed in the equipment just one small setting and the synergy was back.
If I could measure the difference I suspect it would come down to having a good balance between bass, mids and highs.

[Daryl]

    Since slew rate is directly related to bandwidth, and we know that reproduced music has a rather limited bandwidth, than theoretically any unit that meets or exceeds that bandwidth could not influence slew rate.

Wrong again. Bzzzt.

Do you even know what your talking about Mr. R?

Glancing next to your name and seeing a staggering 3600+ posts I'm wondering if theres more where that came from (maybe more reading and less typing would a good idea?).

Dan was right on track with his comments (of course slew rate is actually the product of bandwidth and amplitude but Dan knows that so does anyone else with a clue).

There is no such thing as a slew rate mismatch between audio componets (unless maybe digital noise from a DAC causes interstage clipping in a connected amplifier).

Slew rate, rise time, square wave and impulse response are all measurements of linear transfer function and are the same as frequency response.

Mostly for audio you want to use this information in the form of a frequency response curve (applies best to how your ears work) and the other types of views afore mentioned are used for very specific purposes which aren't that common in audio.

A loudspeaker for instance will have a fairly ragged output (even a good one) by the standards of your other componets and you will recalculate it's frequency response into a time domain chart to asses how signifigant any resonances or reflected energy are.

Once you know these things the question is simply is the frequency response flat and extended beyond what I can hear?

Then you can move on to the noise and non-linear characteristics.

As I said earlier in this thread (in so many words) Synergy is mostly a phsycological matter without basis in physical reality except in the case of poorly designed equipment where you must be concerned with stacking of shabby tolerances.

[bpape]

Sorry.  There is so much more to all those things that purely frequency related issues.  If you think that's all there is then enjoy your own nice little world.   Life is so much simpler there when one can just ignore things that can't be explained by science, measurement, etc.    I'm a firm believe that you should be able to measure everything that can be heard and can measure things that can't be heard - but I'm just as firm a believer that we don't yet have a clue on exactly what to measure to identify some of the differences that are easily heard.  Define a measurement for depth of imaging.  Define a measurement for space around and instrument.  Even if you could (which you can't) it certainly would likely have zero to do with freuqency response and probably not with distortion (except potentially in the time domain - but you just poo-poo'd that...)
 
Synergy is purely how a group of things work together.  NitroMethane is a great fuel.  A Mercedes is a great car.  Use them together and you have issues. Doesn't mean either is poorly designed. Same thing happens in audio.  It is a reality.  It has nothing to do with poorly designed components for the most part.  Are all OTL amps 'poorly designed' because they don't match well with low impedance speakers?  Are all tube amps poorly designed because they'd make a poor choice for driving a subwoofer?  Are all panel speakers poorly designed because the vast majority of them have 1 single sweet spot to listen in?  Are speakers that dip down to 1+ ohms poorly designed just because it takes something with the capability of an arc welder to drive them without shutting down?

To me, the other thing that's being ignored in terms of synergy is the listener and the room.  What is the room like?  How does he/she listen?  Do they prefer a forward or laid back presentation? Is imaging more important to them that purely ruler-flat frequency response and 16Hz extension?  What kind of music do they listen to?  I can take a system that sounds great in one room with a person who listens to one thing - transport it to another room (or even leave it in the SAME room) and let another person who listens differently, to different things, at different volumes, with different expectations and get a completely different opinion.  Might be able to swap one component and make him happy - but then the original listener may not like it for how THEY use it.

</rant>

Bryan

[AJinFLA]

Sorry.  There is so much more to all those things that purely frequency related issues. 

As I said earlier in this thread (in so many words) Synergy is mostly a phsycological matter

Apparently Brad isn't seeing that line of text, or does not understand it.

If you think that's all there is then enjoy your own nice little world.  Life is so much simpler there when one can just ignore things that can't be explained by science, measurement

So the life of people who hear ghosts is more complex? Because the voices of dead relatives heard at seances are unmeasurable, science is simply ignoring it?

I'm a firm believe that you should be able to measure everything that can be heard and can measure things that can't be heard - but I'm just as firm a believer that we don't yet have a clue on exactly what to measure to identify some of the differences that are easily heard.

We?

Synergy is purely how a group of things work together. 

Well, that's a fairly general definition of the physical properties and is open to a great deal of vagueness. The title of the thread is, "is it measurable". Is what measurable? The sound wave or the process after entering the ear?

cheers,

AJ

[bpape]

I think taking this to ghosts is a bit of a stretch to refute the point, don't you?

'We' as in humans.

It's simplistic because it's no harder than that.  Do some things work better together than others?  I say yes.  The thread asks if we can measure it.  Obviously we can't once it reaches the ear - or is that part of the point I was making about preferences, usage, etc? 

No comments about any of the other more real world comments and examples I gave?  Or, are those making too much sense...

Bryan

[opnly bafld]

Bryan,
Good point about the room.
I could see where two guys have the same speakers and both try two different amps, one might like amp A(leaner sounding) better than amp B(fuller sounding), because in his room the speakers are a little too full sounding, where as the second guy might feel in his room the speakers are a little lean sounding and prefers amp B. Then when they listen to each others systems they agree, the "wrong amp" sounds better.
Of course all of this would apply also in personal preferences between two listeners.

Lin

[Russell Dawkins]

Glancing next to your name and seeing a staggering 3600+ posts I'm wondering if theres more where that came from (maybe more reading and less typing would a good idea?).

Dan was right on track with his comments (of course slew rate is actually the product bandwidth and amplitude but Dan knows that so does anyone else with a clue).

This is all fairly rude, isn't it?  

I guess you must feel you are on pretty solid ground, Daryl.

[opnly bafld]

Glancing next to your name and seeing a staggering 3600+ posts I'm wondering if theres more where that came from (maybe more reading and less typing would a good idea?).

Dan was right on track with his comments (of course slew rate is actually the product bandwidth and amplitude but Dan knows that so does anyone else with a clue).

This is all fairly rude, isn't it? 

I guess you must feel you are on pretty solid ground, Daryl.

I agree.
Maybe there is a REASON JohnR has so many posts.

Lin