Is There Such A Thing As "SYNERGY" Between Components In An Audio Chain?

[FrantzM]

Raul
That is an example of compatibility or components matching .. The word "SYnergy" has a clear definetion (Wikipedia)

Synergy, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently.

Your example is a clear example of compatibility , not of synergy ... IMO of course ... The same arm works likely well with other cartrdiges unless it was made for this specific cartridge in which case they are compatible, not synergistic ... I am still lost ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Dear Frantz: I can't speak for others but I will try to explain through an example what means synergy for me:

there are some factors/parameters that we can take to made a cartridge/tonearm match, one of those parameters is the resonance frequency between the tonearm effective mass and the cartridge compliance that when you have a good cartridge/tonearm match that frequency been between 8 hz to 10 hz.

So, if you have a cartridge/tonearm combination that measure between that frequency range then you already achieve very good matching between cartridge and tonearm: could this very good matched items means you achieve synergy to achieve top quality performance?, certainly not.

To attain synergy between these to audio items you need that the complex relationship between those items made synergy.
What affect that you achieve that need it synergy or not?: tonearm build material, tonearm damping type design, cartridge body build material, etc, etc. It is when all those factors coincide that you can achieve synergy.

The main reason why I own so many tonearms is precisely to find out synergy between different cartridges/tonearms. Many of my cartridges match very well with 3-4 different tonearms but don't perform at the same quality performance level because the cartridge will shows at its best only when find out the right and precise tonearm where exist in between synergy.
So matching these audio items are not enough if you are looking for EXCELLENCE level you need to look for synergy between them.

Now, I would like to know what is synergy for you.


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

This sounds like the compatibility that can be found between an individual stringed instrument and the type of strings used on it. It is acoustic, organic, highly variable in highly audible, measurable ways. One doesn't need to split hairs to understand that, on average, an Adirondack spruce top is going to be require relatively high action, relatively heavy strings and a relatively heavy touch to be as responsive as cedar. I'm still hoping for a definition of compatibilities between DACs, pre amps, amps, speakers...that cannot be explained clearly enough and predicted easily enough to justify the concept of "synergy" as we use it in the audiophile world.

Tim

 

[amirm]

Your example is a clear example of compatibility , not of synergy ... IMO of course ... The same arm works likely well with other cartrdiges unless it was made for this specific cartridge in which case they are compatible, not synergistic ... I am still lost ...

Frantz says it well. I will add another corollary. For synergy to occur, the opposite must also be true. If synergy is 1+1=3 then we we need to show that normally, 1+1 would be 2, not three. So it is not sufficient to say these two things work well together. You must show that either one of them would hugely underperform otherwise.

But fair warning : if you prove the above case, I will content that you are dealing with poorly designed products that lose much of their performance if their mating part -- from another company no less -- is not used. All of these products are marketed as general solutions and components. There is no fine print for example in Lam marketing brochure saying that its performance can only be achieved with Wilson's. If that pairing is required, then these are matched pairs and must always be bought together and there is no synergy but a requirement for proper operation.

The above is why I said the concept of synergy is a troubling one. To believe in it, is to also believe in critical pairing and lack of design completeness.

 

[silviajulieta]

Raul
That is an example of compatibility or components matching .. The word "SYnergy" has a clear definetion (Wikipedia)



Your example is a clear example of compatibility , not of synergy ... IMO of course ... The same arm works likely well with other cartrdiges unless it was made for this specific cartridge in which case they are compatible, not synergistic ... I am still lost ...

Dear Frantz: I posted that that is what for me is synergy. What's synergy for you?, you don's give me any answer about. I hope you can do it.

For me in my example that certainly is not compatibility only. A matched tonearm/cartridge has compatibility but could perform bad because no synergy in between.

You can have electrical impedance matchied/compatibility between an amplifier and speaker that could perform good, bad, excellent or in the middle. What could define that that speakers performs at its best ( other things the same and in good shape. ) with an amplifier? impedance matching?, no when exist synergy between an amplifier with those speakers: not before, certainly not at random but we have to " hunt " the right amplifier for those speakers where not only exist compatibility/match but synergy.

As I posted, synergy a complex subject. Maybe reading of what is your take on the subject could help everyone to understand the term/meaning.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Amirm: Which your take on audio items: synergy?.

It is easy to say: I don't agree with but IMHO is not so easy to say why you or I are not on agree and I don't read in your post or in the Frantz and Tim posts to explain why what I posted is no synergy but only compatibility and what's synergy for all of you.

Could you post you precise opinion on synergy between audio items?. Tim?

Like always I would like to learn and improve my knowledge about. If I'm wrong I will be delighted to know it and to fix it.

Thank you in advance to all of you.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[FrantzM]

Raul

I have defined "Synergy" as per Wikipedia and I find this definition satisfying. I don't see how it applies for an Audio system. The often repeated at least here on this forum of Steve's system.. X-2 and Lamm SET.... That is not Synergy. They are compatible and likely the Lamm SET would be even more compatible with a higher sensitivity speaker , say one of these 101 dB or over speakers with relatively sane and flat impedance ... And the X-2, I repeat do not need the Lamm to sound good, ask the person using them with Boulder amp on this very forum ...
If the electrical characteristics match, one can be certain of great performance... Now there are some people who prefer Tang to Orange Juice , there it is a matter of preference and all bets are off .. It is still not synergy ...

 

[amirm]

Dear Amirm: Which your take on audio items: synergy?.

I am going to be "softcore" on it . I will concede to 1+1 = 2.1 or even 2.2. It is hard for me to accept that 1+1 = 3. So if someone pairs up two pieces and tells that all of a sudden there was a huge improvement than other pairings, I say that neither equipment is well designed to require such pairing to perform. I will accept such things as a low-wattage amp requiring a high efficiency speaker to go with it. I accept, without knowing what I am really talking about , that you can pair up a cartridge with a tonearm better than other combos. All of this falls in that fractional improvement of 0.1 or 0.2. I don't have a strong enough argument to rule out any and all matching improvements and do allow the confusion of terms matching and synergy existing to a small extent.

It is easy to say: I don't agree

Fair enough .

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear both of you: Thank you again for your answers. Even that I understand what both siad it unfortunatelly for me I can't lower my ignorance level in that subject with those answers.

I have to go now but latter I will try to comeback.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[mep]

Raul's definition of ignorance is the same here (USA) and probably the world over. Ignorance means you simply don't understand something but you have the ability to learn. However, people do usually take offense to being called ignorant even if they really are ignorant. I would rather be called ignorant than stupid. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupid can't be fixed.

 

[amirm]

Raul's definition of ignorance is the same here (USA) and probably the world over. Ignorance means you simply don't understand something but you have the ability to learn. However, people do usually take offense to being called ignorant even if they really are ignorant. I would rather be called ignorant than stupid. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupid can't be fixed.

I don't know Mep. I think I rather be called Stupid than ignorant as the former is something we have heard people call us all their lives since were young . You just brush that one off. But ignorant? Well, that is something else!

Seriously, a principal of having a constructive discussion is to stay on topic and not attempt to characterize the other person. Whether I am ignorant or not, only matters to me and people who live with me or work with me. It should be of no interest to general public. But whether equipment synergy exists, is relevant to many audiophiles. So my admonition was relative to this point. Let's not use personal terms -- especially those that can be taken negatively -- to make a point. Stay on merits of the discussion which by definition is impersonal.

 

[JackD201]

Synergy, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently.


That's Wiki, my dictionary widget says "effects" rather than "results".

Personally I think of synergy as simply "particularly good matches". At least matches that are better than most I've heard. So there's a bit of relativism rearing its ugly head in my case but unfortunately that's all I have on hand since in my mind, there's nothing magical or mysterious about "synergy" even if what exactly, in purely technical terms, causes the particularly good match may be unknown to me or plausibly may remain so.

Anecdotally, I know a lot of people that have built up systems whose performance is of extremely good quality for a lot less than many high rollers pay for a single piece (for what single pieces go for THESE days anyway). One such person is our very own, humble member Jadis who hardly talks about his system but haunts the music section here. With small ensembles, acoustic works and vocals, my only description that would do it justice is spookily real. In his case it's more like 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=20. I know it was achieved by careful attention to every detail. Not to stir up more measurements vs listening debates but I'd like to point out that Jadis did all this by ear measurements limited to a tape measure and a protractor. If we were to disassemble everything and put all the tubes randomly in a bin. I bet that If I had a crack at it to set everything back up again that total would be back down to 10 or maybe even less on a subjective scale of "effect".

 

[FrantzM]

So truly Synergy in an audiophile context is .. Just an overused term that means anything and will a eventually fall by the wayside? Now what is "prat" ? Call me thick if you want

 

[JackD201]

Perhaps, but it is a popular term because it is a quick way to say "very well matched set of components that as a whole have the effect of ________." . I guess what's important is that when someone sees the term used one has at least a general idea of what the user is saying.

 

[garylkoh]

So truly Synergy in an audiophile context is .. Just an overused term that means anything and will a eventually fall by the wayside? Now what is "prat" ? Call me thick if you want

PRaT: Pace, Rhythm and Timing.

It is the thing I crave most about a system - the sense that all the members of a band are playing together in time, the sense that the drummer has well coordinated his two hands and his two feet. When a system has PRaT, you experience music with the whole body, not just the ears. You sway to the rhythm, your feet tap, and you can't keep your body still.

With classical music, you sway with the conductor, and you sense that the soloist will attack the note almost the split second before she actually does. You feel, rather than hear the pace that the conductor sets with the orchestra. Stokowski's and Muti's Firebird with the Philadelphia orchestra take on different meaning. With jazz, the interplay between the band members tighten up like they read each other's mind. The spaces between the notes take on greater importance - as importance as the notes themselves.

IMHO the importance of PRaT seems to be a cultural thing. Conducting demos around the world, I find the US audiophile audience one of the least affected (or demanding) of PRaT. The Japanese do not seem affected at all. The Latin American audience, the Southern European audience, and the South-East Asian audience, in descending order, seem to be the most demanding.

Different audiences seem to place widely different importance on the various subjective aspects of the synergy of a system. That's just based on personal and anecdotal experience, so don't hold me to this.

So, may be we are each looking for "synergy" in different places......

 

[FrantzM]

Gary

Same as "Synergy" then: one more term we use but whih can mean anything ...

 

[JackD201]

Synergy I understand, PRAT ir PRaT is a term I don't particularly like as mentioned and explained in another thread. Good music on a transistor radio can make me dance and not just toe tap. I've come to associate the term with over damped to the point of having a staccato quality because I associate it with a deliberate accentuation of the transient and truncation of decay. The song is still playing at the same speed, there's no difference in pace, rhythm or timing. Attack perhaps but somehow, somewhere, "Attack" turned into "And". Arghh.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[garylkoh]

You know what? I agree with both FrantzM and JackD. I am very clear in my own mind what PRaT is, but to someone else, it can mean something what is wholly different (like Jack) or it can mean absolutely nothing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So truly Synergy in an audiophile context is .. Just an overused term that means anything and will a eventually fall by the wayside? Now what is "prat" ? Call me thick if you want

PRaT was popularized, if not invented, by the Naim/Linn crowd. It stands for Pace, Rhythm and Timing. It supposes that your playback system actually has an effect on the precision of the performance, the sync of the instruments, the rhythm of the music. It is, of course, absurd, unless you are comparing your "high-PRaT" system to a malfunctioning turntable or tape deck. But undaunted by the fact that generations of musicians have leaned subtle timing cues listening to tabletop radios, the original PRaTists supposed that their playback equipment actually refined the rhythmic performance of recordings relative to to systems that were not broken.

In the original Naim/Linn examples, I suspect they were really just hearing amps/preamps with an edgy, forward treble that created the illusion of detail; a ying to the valve/vinyl yang that was the leading audiophile path of the day. Now? Who knows? I suppose it could mean almost anything. I've seen people claim their systems were both smooth and euphonic and very high in PRaT.

Of course only the most radical proponents actually believe their PRaT enhances the musical performance (without understanding that would be wrong). It is enthusiasm manifesting itself in the usual exaggeration. I suppose what they're really trying to get at is a precision that does not allow the playback system to diminish the timing of the performance. But for such things we have damping, slew rate, driver control. We don't really need PRaT unless we want to exaggerate.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

I have been an active audiophile for most of my life and never knew about Prat.. of course I knew about the rythm thing from Linn, I did have a Lnn Sondek, the "de Rigueur" TT of the 80's.. and it was not as good even with the Ittok arm as the bizarre looking but well engineered, Mapleknoll Ariadne... I never could figure what the Linn "Rhythm" thing meant and sent to my mental garbage bin .. I never, really never thought such a Bovine Manure concept would have any traction .. How wrong was I...
I sincerely think that we audiophiles need to take a break from time to time to reflect on our hobby, our behavior in this hobby when we are willing to throw everything logical out of the windows, Science, education and basic common sense be damned. I am not sure there are many hobbies out there that have the amount of nonsense that are routine in ours .. then again I could be wrong on that side too, since there is a company which sells things to audiophiles and car enthusiasts claiming that their treatment improves mpg or horsepower .... I forgot which one, could be the intelligent chip people on that one ...

Oh Well!

 

[Gregadd]

For those who cannot cognizance PRaT, I can only make the following assumptios:

You have never heard a sysytem that has PRaT. Consequently you do not not what you are missing.

Every system you have heard has PRaT. Therfore you have taken it for grantted.

Either intentionally or unintentionally you are just unable to grasp the concept.

For example listen to the two versions of "Round Midnight " on this thread:http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1848-Piano-Scale-System-Diagnostic&p=23476#post23476