[opaqueice]

I hate to be so argumentative about this, but if there really was a "right" way to do this, don't you
think after about 40 years now, someone would have figured it out and everyone else would have
copied it?

In a word: no.  No, I don't think so.

Let me make another analogy:  medicine.  People believed in humours (you know, warm, cold, moist, dry) for millenia and based their medicine on that.  For centuries (at least) people treated sickness by letting blood.  They thought cholera - a major, major killer in 19th century London - was caused by vapors (when it was actually caused by polluted water, and very easy to stop once you knew that).  This was life or death stuff, for the patient and sometimes for the doctor, and yet they didn't get it right - not until they started applying science and the scientific method, and started controlling for all the variables and thinking rationally.

When you do a listening test and it's not blind, the results are more or less useless, because you didn't control for all the variables.  Sorry to be so blunt, but it's a fact.  And until the audio community recognizes that fact, it's not going to go much of anywhere, and we're going to keep having these arguments and keep not getting it "right" (in so far as we haven't already).

There might be tons of effects out there waiting to be discovered or noticed by the mainstream.  Audiophiles might be on to something when they say amps sound different, or magic pebbles matter, or cables matter, or whatever.  But no one is going to know, and no one outside this tiny community will take it seriously, until proper procedures are adopted and proper evidence is found.

[opaqueice]

By the way (not to get back on topic!), here's my list:

1) listener
2) recording
3) listener's mood
4) speakers
5) room
6) type of single malt scotch in listener's hand
7) equalization/room correction
8 ) source, amplification, cables, preamp, etc.

 

[darrenyeats]

Audiophiles might be on to something when they say amps sound different, or magic pebbles matter, or cables matter, or whatever. But no one is going to know, and no one outside this tiny community will take it seriously, until proper procedures are adopted and proper evidence is found.

Opaqueice...blazing post. Well put.

[miklorsmith]

Good luck with that.  Here's the problem, audiophiles are in it for fun and testing isn't fun.  Further, most are satisfied to have an opinion and debate it.  The scientific types telling us to prove it are the ones needing proof, not the ones they demand it from.  Further, in order to be effective at blind testing, one has to be trained at it.  I've tried some blind testing and was not good at it - way too stressful.  And it was not fun at all, like doing all the cooking and no eating.

[opaqueice]

  I've tried some blind testing and was not good at it - way too stressful.  And it was not fun at all, like doing all the cooking and no eating.

Well, I more or less agree - it isn't much fun, most of the time.  But when you pay to go to a restaurant, you expect the chef to cook for you and not eat your food, right?   

What's odd about high end audio is that the pros - speaker manufacturers, amp designers, pro reviewers, etc. - mostly don't take a scientific approach.  These are the people that get paid to do this, that make their living off it.  They should do their job in the most effective way possible.. but they don't (some don't, that is - there are plenty of exceptions). 

Those are the people I'm talking about, not the consumers.

[miklorsmith]

Ah!  I agree.  If I did it for a job I might feel differently.  I don't mean to say measurements don't tell any of the story, rather that they are elevated beyond their actual usefulness in assessing sound quality.

[TONEPUB]

Let's cut to the chase even further...

You own and like amplifier A while your friend owns amplifier B that
you can't stand (even though your friend really likes it)

A test report comes out that says amplifier B is way better than
amplifier A.  Are you going to sell the piece of gear that you own
and love because a magazine article says so?

I'm not and I do this for a living.

Sound is way to subjective and has way too many variables.

It's like measuring paintings to see if you like Picasso better than
Van Gogh.

I've talked to quite a few of the most successful audio designers
and they all agree that the tests don't tell the whole story.  You
guys are trying to make science out of art and high end audio is
somewhat of a mixture of the two.

The reason so many people DON'T get involved in our world is
because they perceive us all as a bunch of nerdtrons.  I've talked
to quite a few people (and even helped a few of them out with
buying systems) and they all come back with the same comment:

I'd spend 5/10/20/50 thousand dollars on a good hifi system, but
I just want to listen to music.  I don't care about cables, blah blah.

Most people do not see the "hobby" part of our hobby as interesting
in the least. The minute you start talking about the tech side of this
world they check out, except for the 1% that make up the audiophiles.

Personally, I think there are too many choices and too many people
peeing on the bush claiming they have "the best".  No one cares.

Except us nerdtrons....

[miklorsmith]

Who you callin' nerdtron?   

[darrenyeats]

If you have thoughts about the order of importance in a two channel audio system...it's looking bad for you on the nerdtron front.
Darren

[Geardaddy]

Amen TONEPUB.  You nailed it. 

[Geardaddy]

By the way (not to get back on topic!), here's my list:

1) listener
2) recording
3) listener's mood
4) speakers
5) room
6) type of single malt scotch in listener's hand
7) equalization/room correction
8 ) source, amplification, cables, preamp, etc.

 

I think #6 needs to be bumped up the list....

[BrianM]

Great comments from Tonepub and others.

It bears remembering and repeating that actual musicians, people who live for music (at least, in my experience) don't tend to give a hoot about what kind of stereo they have.  I know and have known scads of musicians and I can count on one hand the number that have given any thought at all to what is reproducing the music they live for.  That includes some world class players and singers I've rubbed elbows with.  What they tend to own, is dreck.  People like me, who are into both, are very much the exception afaik.  I guess this reminds me, 1) that the actual difference between crap sound reproduction and oh-so-refined hifi isn't really as big as it's made out to be.  The music gets through just fine on crappy systems, if your ears are listening to music and not to gear.  And 2) that reproduced sound is (of course) never as good as the real thing.  (hence the endless & hopeless pursuit.)

It's interesting to me that making music well requires extreme fastidiousness - exactly the sort of "anality" you would think would translate perfectly into striving to obtain the best home stereo system possible.  But it doesn't usually.  And I really don't know why; to me it always seemed like a no-brainer that the more you care about music the better the stereo (and bigger recording library) you would want.  But I do find that the hobby can as easily lead one away from musical enjoyment as enhancing it.  No wonder people avoid blind tests; they're a total drag, zero fun at all.  I just compared a bunch of cables, or tried to, and it just sucked.  It reduced me to the world's biggest nerdtron, indeed.  Half-way through I said "Why the fuck am I putting myself through this misery, these cables sound just find, the music's all happening, enough already."

Order of importance:

1 the music
2 maybe a quiet well-damped room
2 everything else in any order you like (except that wire is mainly just wire fer chrissake)

[Canyoneagle]

Interesting topic, including the science versus emotional (a.k.a. rational versus experiential) tangent.

As far as the 'chef' methaphor is concerned, most truly brilliant chefs (and musicians, for that matter) do thier work intuitively.  Their work is art. The eating (and listening) of what results becomes an experience that defies simple words and definitions.

I was once an analytical audiophile.  For me, it was unfulfilling.  I now listen to enjoy the MUSIC.  I have now built my system around these principles, and am truly enjoying what some may classify as 'colored'.  I frankly do not care.  I am finished with analysis, and am now deeply rooted in the experience (and no, I have not been doing any illicit drugs).

So, to bring things back to the original topic at hand, I feel that such a thing as "synergy" does in fact exist (at least in my experience).  Certain speakers DO convey the source material differently (whether emotional or technical) than others when using certain amplification and sources.  Cables?  Well, that is a 'softer' topic to me, because I have not personally experienced such subtleties - but who am I to say that cables are ABSOLUTELY the same?  I dare not be so arrogant.  Ahhhhh, I guess I need to avoid the gravity of such a controversial topic..............

Anyway, in my own experience,  I feel that SYNERGY is the driving force.

If one is analytical in their musical enjoyment, then they will buy Mark Levinson, B&W, etc. in their quest to unveil the engineers flaws.  If one of the components is not in alignment with this quest, the result will likely be less than desired.  Is it the speaker?  The amp?  The source?  The cables?  I'm inclined to think the limiting constraint (to put it scientifically) would be the speakers due to their mechanical limitations.  naturally, it follows that the proper amplification is required to aid in overcoming these mechanical limitations, further increasing the likelihood of achieving acoustic perfection.  The sources and cabling are very likely to be far lower in the food chain of imperfection.  Room?  IMO this is a HUGE aspect of system performance.  Power source.  Hmmmmm.  This one can be a real bugger.  Clean power lines?  Dirty voltage drops?  Unexpected voltage variations?  Ouch!  Anyway, the result of a properly constructed system can be incredible in its own way.  Emotionally involving?  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  What floats your boat?  From my experience, I have sat in indifferent appreciation for such perfection in numerous listening environments.  

This is not WHY I listen to music.

If one is experiential in their musical enjoyment, the technical details matter far less.  What matters is the ability of a system to pull the listener into the performance to the extent that the physical world ceases to exist and there is only the music.  For people like this (me), the components are catalysts for the experience.  In this context, it seems (to me) that each component is of equal significance.  I guess this boils down to the 'round earth' versus 'flat earth' schools of thought - constantly debated, and (IMO) both are correct.  After all, music is very personal, and (I feel) that there are no WRONGS or RIGHTS.  - Back to 'synergy'.  IMO, compatibility is the main focus, and the other elements fall into place.

Back to the music!!!!!!

[Daygloworange]

Sound is way to subjective and has way too many variables.

It's like measuring paintings to see if you like Picasso better than
Van Gogh.

I've talked to quite a few of the most successful audio designers
and they all agree that the tests don't tell the whole story.  You
guys are trying to make science out of art and high end audio is
somewhat of a mixture of the two.

Yeah....I don't buy into that at all. Technological advancements are based in science, not art.

It's not magic. Calling it art is conjuring and attemptimg to shroud the science in mystery.

Synergy in audio, to me, is just ameliorating deficiencies to suit someone's tastes, which is fine, but let's call it was it is.

Musical instruments are made better sounding today than they were in the past due to science and understanding of materials and physics. Before, development and advancement was through trial and error. It was stumbled upon, and became known as art. It's not talent, it's knowledge.

Ask any modder who modifies gear, and his mods are rooted in his firm grasp of science, and sonically, is shows.

I own numerous guitars and vintage amps. They are all modded to some degree, and perform better than stock. All the mods are done by people who know science very well, and the mods are rooted in science.

I mod my own guitars. I can tell you what I do, why I do it, and know what the results are going to do. Any variables in sound can be attributed to the fact that they're made of wood, and that no two trees are the same.

And before you say that which instrument sounds better is a subjective thing...

Audio is no different. There have been, over the last number of years, a number of vast improvements in driver technology. Motor structures, materials etc... Science and technology is making better transformers, capacitors, inductors, wire etc....

I see science as the leader in advancing audio, not art....

Keep in mind, it's science that invented all the different brushes, paints and canvas that artists use.

Science is also what created all the instruments musicians play, not art.

Cheers

[BrianM]

DGO touches on the evolving meaning of the word "art" over time.  Before Romanticism (capital R) made art into something mysterious, art was virtually synonymous with what we call craft.  And good craftsmanship was based in empirical knowledge and predictable outcomes.  Even though J.S. Bach would've told you he was a craftsman, you could of course argue his being an artist in the Romantic sense.  But building audio gear?  Hardly requires divine inspiration, just sound knowledge of engineering principles.

[rajacat]

Before Western "science" or the scientific method was a concept there were musical instruments and painters. I think that you are putting scientists and  "science" on a pedestal like it's just another religion. I believe the line between art and science is not absolute but they're constantly mingling to the benefit of both . In science there has been intuitive leaps that resulted in great discoveries. Sort of like great art. eh??

-Roy

[*Scotty*]

Daygloworange,believe it or not you can have the same transistor made by 5 different manufacturers and all but one will sound mediocre or bad in the circuit you are designing and only one will be a standout in its' performance. You still have to design by ear to a degree. You can build an entire circuit out of poor sounding parts and have a circuit that measures fine and still sounds like crap. You have to listen to the circuit to know what you have done right or wrong.
Scotty

[Daygloworange]

Then at some level, the transistor is not well made. Some unknown (scientifically identified) variable is at the core of the reason why.

Our ear is merely an indicator that there is (still) something wrong, now we turn to analysis to isolate the cause.

Science will then be employed to discover it, and science and technology will aid us in overcoming it, and making a better transistor.

That's the history of progress. Advancements are made based on things learned from the study of things past.

Cheers

[Housteau]

Daygloworange,believe it or not you can have the same transistor made by 5 different manufacturers and all but one will sound mediocre or bad in the circuit you are designing and only one will be a standout in its' performance. You still have to design by ear to a degree. You can build an entire circuit out of poor sounding parts and have a circuit that measures fine and still sounds like crap. You have to listen to the circuit to know what you have done right or wrong.
Scotty

Then at some level, the transistor is not well made. Some unknown (scientifically identified) variable is at the core of the reason why.

Our ear is an indicator that there is something wrong, now we turn to analysis to isolate the cause.

Science will then be employed to discover it, and science and technology will aid us in overcoming it.

Cheers

It seems to me that there is an agreement here.  In time one may be able to quantify all of those variables, but until then we need to trust the human element here to fill in those missing gaps.

[Duke]

The only stage where I engage in anything approaching "art" in loudspeaker design is when I do scale drawings of various possible enclosures to make sure I'm not about to build something that's truly hideous.  Well okay, maybe there's some "art" in the juggling of trade-offs too - but that's more like making educated guesses than like Picasso or Rembrandt working "in the zone". 

That being said, speaker design is NOT rocket science.  In fact, it's a helluva lot more interesting than rocket science, because we can't point to a fixed set of equations that will tell us exactly what performance parameters we must meet in order to accomplish our goal.  There is still room for widely varying individual opinions about and approaches to loudspeaker design.

Still, I do not look forward to the day when there is an undisputable "best way" to design and build a loudspeaker, for at that point loudspeakers will become commodities - much like a bag of rice or a gallon of gas - with nothing but marketing and labelling to distinguish one from the other. 

Duke