Is There Such A Thing As "SYNERGY" Between Components In An Audio Chain?
- Thread starter RBFC
- Start date
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Tim
I am curious as to whether you or others who listen to a system measuring flat and then switching out the amp that induces some coloration that when all is said and done that you prefer the same song played the first way. Have there ever been any tests of this nature carried out?
I am curious as to whether you or others who listen to a system measuring flat and then switching out the amp that induces some coloration that when all is said and done that you prefer the same song played the first way. Have there ever been any tests of this nature carried out?
Steve, it's already been done. B&K's 1974 study showed that, in general, listeners preferred a measured response, at the listening seat, as follows:
Some emphasis in the bass region, then gentle rolloff consistent with a flat response adjusted for room gain at the listening position. Harman's recent studies show that listeners preferred the top curve shown on slide 24 here: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...mUtNDEyNC00ZDcyLWEzZTAtMGJiODQ1ZTUxMGQ4&hl=en, which is a more consistent rolloff from bottom to top, again consistent with room gain at the listening position.
Having said this, these are not predictive of any individual preference i.e. what you or I prefer may not be the general preference (though I believe Marty has measured and found your system to be consitent with the B&K curve).
Yep. I use active monitors with extremely good driver control. I can hear the mid-bass hump that is so common in so many "monitor" - style speakers, even very expensive ones, from a mile away. I would never buy speakers with such a hump. NEVER. They would not be allowed in my room!
But when I'm listening at low volume and I want that doghouse bass a little forward, I create my own mid-bass hump. I feel a little dirty, but I do it.
Tim
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Steve, it's already been done. B&K's 1974 study showed that, in general, listeners preferred a measured response, at the listening seat, as follows:
Some emphasis in the bass region, then gentle rolloff consistent with a flat response adjusted for room gain at the listening position. Harman's recent studies show that listeners preferred the top curve shown on slide 24 here: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...mUtNDEyNC00ZDcyLWEzZTAtMGJiODQ1ZTUxMGQ4&hl=en, which is a more consistent rolloff from bottom to top, again consistent with room gain at the listening position.
Having said this, these are not predictive of any individual preference i.e. what you or I prefer may not be the general preference (though I believe Marty has measured and found your system to be consitent with the B&K curve).
I am quite aware of the HK testing Ken and this is why I ask. I believe there should be some gradual roll off from bottom to top
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Yep. I use active monitors with extremely good driver control. I can hear the mid-bass hump that is so common in so many "monitor" - style speakers, even very expensive ones, from a mile away. I would never buy speakers with such a hump. NEVER. They would not be allowed in my room!
But when I'm listening at low volume and I want that doghouse bass a little forward, I create my own mid-bass hump. I feel a little dirty, but I do it.
Tim
So I guess some form of tone control might be useful to us all at one time or another. I'm with Tomelex on this one
In an essay I wrote for another forum the gist was that even speaker positioning serves as a type of tone control, a vital one at that. It's the same for cartridge set up. The way recordings vary I'm definitely of the belief that to keep things enjoyable some manipulation is needed. It boils down to the practicality of whatever shaping is required and deleterious effects that come with it versus the benefits. For example an analog eq could very well give more distortion than a properly implemented passive crossover. My speakers come with controls for each of its 3 tweeters per side as well as a crossover, phase switch, 25Hz bass boost and level control for their built in powered subwoofers and I have no qualms about deviating from the flat factory settings whenever I feel like it. If I'm not mistaken, Steve's X-2 Series 2s have banks that allows selection of differing resistor values, something that has been incorporated into the Sasha as well. Magnepan continues to provide resistors with every pair they ship out. Controls are even more common in professional monitors. Just like adjusting VTA on a cart however, I usually just go with settings that are suitable for the greater part of my library. Who wants to get up for each track to move his speakers around or fiddle with his EQ or by the same token adjust VTA for each and every LP that differs in thickness anyway?
This begs the question as to why for many in the audiophile firmament simpler must be automatically better. It also begs the question as to why only speaker placement, cart set up and passive room treatments are considered acceptable ways to achieve whatever outcome is desired but ironically, mixing and matching is okay.
The beef I have about supposedly flat amps is that 99.99% of the time even the simplest amp is flat at some point within it's operating range. As Tim, the crackpot formerly known as P said (Just kidding you know I luv ya man!), all bets are off when it comes to transducers and rooms. That's like saying a motor is perfect but all bets are off when it comes to rubber meeting pavement. This also means that at least to my knowledge a truly uncolored amp has yet to come into existence and by that I mean one that will not sag at any frequency at any point.
I guess my point is that there is no getting away from colorations so the best thing to do is make it work for you. When it does, I call it synergy
This begs the question as to why for many in the audiophile firmament simpler must be automatically better. It also begs the question as to why only speaker placement, cart set up and passive room treatments are considered acceptable ways to achieve whatever outcome is desired but ironically, mixing and matching is okay.
The beef I have about supposedly flat amps is that 99.99% of the time even the simplest amp is flat at some point within it's operating range. As Tim, the crackpot formerly known as P said
(Just kidding you know I luv ya man!), all bets are off when it comes to transducers and rooms. That's like saying a motor is perfect but all bets are off when it comes to rubber meeting pavement. This also means that at least to my knowledge a truly uncolored amp has yet to come into existence and by that I mean one that will not sag at any frequency at any point. I guess my point is that there is no getting away from colorations so the best thing to do is make it work for you. When it does, I call it synergy
Dear Steve: I heard the Wilson several times running by SS and tube electronics. I never heard your combination but this is not the subject.
I take your speaker/amplifier non-synergy example only because was at hand in the thread, nothing else.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
How on earth do you randomly mimic the preferred curve with a low frequency boost? The odds of someone landing on that curve by mixing and matching speakers and amps is infinitely small. The only way to get there is with signal processing and measurements.
So no, I don't believe that is the reason Steve likes the Wilson+Lam combo. Unless we see a measurement that says so, I don't think it is a valid hypothesis that somehow the two of them simulated that curve. Heck, some of that curve in Steve's system comes from his sub, not from his Wilson anyway.
On Spectral and MIT, I thought the reason for that recommendation was that they took out the output filters from the amp, and with it, opened themselves to destructive oscillations. The filter circuit in the MIT cable provide that necessary component, albeit, further away from the amp.
So no, I don't believe that is the reason Steve likes the Wilson+Lam combo. Unless we see a measurement that says so, I don't think it is a valid hypothesis that somehow the two of them simulated that curve. Heck, some of that curve in Steve's system comes from his sub, not from his Wilson anyway.
On Spectral and MIT, I thought the reason for that recommendation was that they took out the output filters from the amp, and with it, opened themselves to destructive oscillations. The filter circuit in the MIT cable provide that necessary component, albeit, further away from the amp.
Listening to frequencies and listening to notes can be very different things. I strongly suspect Steve listens to the latter
++++++++++++++ " The only place where synergy plays a huge factor is the interaction of the room and speaker. In other place, I like to think the better the gear, the less synergy it needs to perform well![/QUOTE] " ++++++++++++++
Dear Amir: I totally disagree with you because first we have to define what really means or what we need as " the better the gear ": if you are talking that an amplifier design ( example ) that will work surrounded of other audio items are take in count this fact then that amplifier will have not only a very low output impedance, high current design or high input impedance as targets but a near " perfect " electronic design with a near " perfect " boards layout and with " perfect " active/pasive parts along perfect design execution.
If this example is a " the better the gear " then synergy between this amplifier and any speaker is not a cue/issue: always will match electrically to any speaker and preamp too.
We need synergy between a phono cartridge and tonearm and here to say that because " the better the gear " I don't have to worry about synergy could be a misunderstood.
As I posted my first target to attain my home audio system quality performance priorities or at least the main one: to be nearest to the recording, is achieve synergy between each audio link at electrical level.
Of course that if your target is different that " to be nearest to the recording " then IMHO synergy means nothing even at speaker/room stage.
I don't know you but I have very precise targets and very precise " roads " to achieve those targets.
Steve posted: ++++++++++ " At the end of the day however when it is our ass sitting in that sweet spot spinning the music nothing or no one else counts. " +++++ of course because your tragets are different or at least different " to be nearest to the recording " and nothing wrong with that.
So IMHO matched electrical system must be the first target ( between others. ) to attain true synergy on that system. IMHO try to deny this statement only shows a very poor know-how in the whole subject and targets way different of what I state and certainly targets that has nothing to do with true system synergy.
Anyway, to each one his own.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Amir: I totally disagree with you because first we have to define what really means or what we need as " the better the gear ": if you are talking that an amplifier design ( example ) that will work surrounded of other audio items are take in count this fact then that amplifier will have not only a very low output impedance, high current design or high input impedance as targets but a near " perfect " electronic design with a near " perfect " boards layout and with " perfect " active/pasive parts along perfect design execution.
If this example is a " the better the gear " then synergy between this amplifier and any speaker is not a cue/issue: always will match electrically to any speaker and preamp too.
We need synergy between a phono cartridge and tonearm and here to say that because " the better the gear " I don't have to worry about synergy could be a misunderstood.
As I posted my first target to attain my home audio system quality performance priorities or at least the main one: to be nearest to the recording, is achieve synergy between each audio link at electrical level.
Of course that if your target is different that " to be nearest to the recording " then IMHO synergy means nothing even at speaker/room stage.
I don't know you but I have very precise targets and very precise " roads " to achieve those targets.
Steve posted: ++++++++++ " At the end of the day however when it is our ass sitting in that sweet spot spinning the music nothing or no one else counts. " +++++ of course because your tragets are different or at least different " to be nearest to the recording " and nothing wrong with that.
So IMHO matched electrical system must be the first target ( between others. ) to attain true synergy on that system. IMHO try to deny this statement only shows a very poor know-how in the whole subject and targets way different of what I state and certainly targets that has nothing to do with true system synergy.
Anyway, to each one his own.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Steve: Your simple question has IMHO no simple answers.
SOUND GOOD depend on many system subjects where flat frequency measures is only one factor/subject of several ones. By random could be that even with out electrical synergy you could have flat frequency but this means almost nothing about quality of the sound reproduction. Flat frequency always help but it needs to be sorrounded of other " good " and precise factors to achieve: SOUNDS GOOD target.
SOUNDS GOOD is a very complex whole subject where are involve not only each audio link quality design and execution design but our each one knowledge level and each one targets.
So IMHO there is no absolute answers about because SOUNDS GOOD depend on several several factors: objective and subjective ones.
Btw, seems to me that almost all of you are really in deep in audio link random compensation system colorations and accept as is with out matters in no subject other that: """ Hey, I like it ", I'm not: my targets are precise and different from almost all of yours that at the end: " Hey, I like it " too but with huge differences like : neutrality, between other things.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I am not quite sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing here
. But I gave a pretty easy example regarding amps. A 20 watt amp will have a tough time with some speaker loads that a 200 watt amp would not. In that sense, a more powerful and better amp has less of a "synergy" than the lower-end amp. Let me know if you disagree with this specific example.I don't deal with LPs so I am happy to exclude that from my statement
.
Well what else could it be? Terry summed it up perfectly in the link below, though Armin's comment about room interaction is also relevant. Though in that case I'd say any "synergy" is between the room's peaks and nulls and the key (frequencies present) of whatever music happens to be playing at the moment.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...n-An-Audio-Chain&p=22116&viewfull=1#post22116
--Ethan
I am not quite sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing here
I don't deal with LPs so I am happy to exclude that from my statement
Dear Amir: Yes I'm disagreeing with your statement and I'm only saying what IMHO could be an example and the " needs " where synergy is not important.
A 20 watts amp could be better than a 200 watts if the 20 watts amp shows 0.1 ohm in output impedance with high current design and if the 200 watts amp has 2.5 ohms as output impedance. IMHO there are not simple answers to simple questions on audio synergy when we are talking on electrical matching subjects and its importance.
I can remember ( I owned both. ) the Apogee Scintilla's with a very low impedance near the 1.5 ohms where 200 watts amplifiers were not enough but where the Classé DR3-VHC amplifiers were almost the only amplifiers that works perfect with those Apogee speakers. Those Classé amplifiers were only 25 watts in class A but the VHC in the amplifier model designation means: Very High Current, current is what speakers ask on its load to the amplifier.
I understand what you mean but things are not so easy like that. In the other side we have to think that there is no perfect audio items where synergy is not critical, always exist trade offs and are these trade offs the ones that we have to choose and depending of what trade offs we choosed then at that level will be our system quality performance level: our system neutrality!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Last edited:
And you are not alone ... Look at the way Peter Walker of Quad implemented tone controls in his model 34 preamplifier decades ago - a bass boost control and a tilt control.
When I had the 34-405-ESL63 I used the tilt control a lot!
Similar threads
- Sticky
