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

[JackD201]

Sure Frantz. When the nice man who designed my system (his name is Martin) from the source up (I just feed it zeros and ones, Martin does the rest), he made sure the output of the DAC was compatible with the input of the preamp, whose output was compatible with the inputs of the four individual amplifiers (one for each tweeter/woofer) which were designed specifically for the loads presented by the drivers which were designed, along with all the aforementioned, to accomplish accurate, within their physical limitations, reproduction of the code back at the beginning of the chain. I gotcher "synergy" right here. Engineered synergy. Synergy by design. The other kind of synergy is audiophiles thrashing about in the dark. It's no wonder it so expensive and largely unsuccessful. I'm convinced that it only perseveres because for many, the search is the hobby and a guy like Martin is a killjoy.

Tim

Hey Tim,

If that was the case then companies that make everything from source to speakers would be churning out near perfect systems whether it be mass market players like Sony, value players like Rega, or Hi-End players like Boothroyd and Stewart and MBL. That isn't the case now is it. Seems all you did was pass the work on to Martin. In return is you got the realization of his vision, which you pretty much adopted in toto.

Just teasing as always....

Jack

 

[silviajulieta]

I agreed with your first post. You lost me here, though. I think it was Chuck (audioguy) who said that in all the years he's worked in the business he has been in only 1 room that wouldn't benefit from room correction software.

Yes in the perfect world we should not need it. But as long as we're fantisizing, in the perfect world we wouldn't need room treatments either. While we're at it, in the perfect world there'd be no such thing as money, politics, or Paul Anka.

Dear Ron: I can't say for sure if there is a real benefit or only a different presentation/performance. I'm not against equalizers per se, in the past I used it I remember that at those times I use at the same time a DBX expander and two different equalizers, certainly my knowledge was very low/poor.

Today I learn and still learning that if you take care in deep on each single audio link you choose in the system audio chain then you can achieve a quality performance level very near to Excellence . Can I improve ( real improvement. ) what I have with the integration of an equalizer in my system?, everything could be in audio and maybe I try it sometime in the future but my take today due to my knowledge level in audio and music tell me that maybe that equalizer makes more harm than good in my system. Tomorrow?, who can say what happen tomorrow!

I think that we have to say thank's because our audio world is so imperfect because this fact is what move us in the quest of Audio Heaven home audio system quality performance. The perfection could be " boring ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[amirm]

Should we consider that jitter caused by a mismatched digital cable introduces a change in frequency response?

Surprisingly, the answer is yes! The addition of jitter creates sidebands frequencies that are sum and difference of the music plus and minus the frequency of jitter. Let's say you have a 2 Khz jitter signal. If you play a 4 Khz tone, what you get out of the system are: 2 Khz, 4Khz and 6 Khz. The last component in sufficient amplitude will make the sound "brighter" with slightly elevated highs. After all, you used to only have the 4 Khz tone but now, have an extra higher frequency component at 6 Khz.

 

[Ethan Winer]

But P, I thought digital recordings are perfect. How do you improve upon perfection?

Modern digital is perfect. I'm sure Tim uses an EQ to alter the sound created by the producer and mix engineers to be more to his personal liking. At least that's the only time I'd use an EQ, and the only reason.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

Let's say you have a 2 Khz jitter signal.

OK, as soon as I admit that the jitter signal is periodic it is easy to admit that we will see this periodic component at the audio output - I remember some experiments where the audio was extracted from from the PLL control signal of the clock recovery system using a deliberately modulated clock. But assuming that the SPDIF signal is jitterless at the output of the sending device, jitter will be caused by partial reflections of the serial bits of a digital coded signal due to a mismatched cable. Can we assume that this jitter also has the frequency of the analogue signal?

 

[FrantzM]

Modern digital is perfect. I'm sure Tim uses an EQ to alter the sound created by the producer and mix engineers to be more to his personal liking. At least that's the only time I'd use an EQ, and the only reason.

--Ethan

Ethan That is a strong assertion and one that is easy to refute .... I am on the digital side but claiming it perfect is ....well... perfectly incorrect ...

 

[amirm]

Ethan That is a strong assertion and one that is easy to refute .... I am on the digital side but claiming it perfect is ....well... perfectly incorrect ...

I smell a second debate topic coming!!!

Suggest creating a new thread....

 

[amirm]

But assuming that the SPDIF signal is jitterless at the output of the sending device, jitter will be caused by partial reflections of the serial bits of a digital coded signal due to a mismatched cable. Can we assume that this jitter also has the frequency of the analogue signal?

"Cable induced" jitter has correlation to the signal itself:

So if by analog signal you mean the music itself, that is probably true.

 

[muralman1]

Being the house music signal purist, EQ is the last thing I would put in the way of the CD music I listen to. It has been pointed out that old recordings of important musical events needs the assist of EQ. I just assume listen to these events as recorded. The oldest I have is a '42 recording of native music of Bali. The music was cut into a giant disc. The music sounds faint and fuzzy. But you get the real feel. It is an important recording because Bali is now married to the tourist industry.

 

[rsbeck]

This is completely anecdotal, but in my experience, synergy is definitely the goal.

Seems we keep going round and round on the same topic, but with different titles.

This reminds me of the "accuracy" debate.

I thought we had come to an agreement that we couldn't make judgments about what others hear because we cannot measure what actually goes into each of our brains.

No two speaker designs sound alike.

Since they don't, it seems to me that the rest of the system needs to play well with your speakers to render what sounds "right" to each of us.

In my system, I just kept buying pre-amps, amps and front ends on Audiogon and moving them through my system until it sounded right to me.

I get a little tired of the chest thumping in these threads by people who pat themselves on the back for choosing some kind of Calvinistic "accuracy" path of least enjoyment as if accuracy is some sort of Castor Oil that is taken by the virtuous audiophile and anyone who strays from this path must be a "hedonist" who is trying to cheat and enjoy his system.

I'll just relate one experience to show what I am talking about with regard to synergy.

At one point, I had some powerful Krell Mono-blocks in my system. Boy, these babies brought my bass to life and seemed to help me find a new octave of bass in the lower frequency region of my speakers.

Then, I moved some Levinson mono-blocks in.

The bass seemed to dial back just a bit and to me it sounded a little less exciting, but more natural. The bass seemed just as extended as with the Krells, but didn't draw as much attention to itself. The Levinson's seemed to integrate better.

I went back and forth, listening to each set of amps for a few weeks at a time.

Further, I noticed that after extended listening sessions with the Krells in the system, I would have a little headache.

And I started to notice that my listening sessions were longer with the Levinsons.

I thought I picked up a tiny bit of hardness in the upper frequencies with the Krells in my system.

I didn't take any measurements and I'd be the first to admit that in a double-blind test, I'd be hard pressed to pick out the ones with the exciting bass and hard upper frequencies.

The differences weren't mind-boggling, they were very, very subtle.

Now, I can see how if I had speakers that were a little more shy in the bass department and in need of some more upper frequency extension, I might have picked the Krells.

IMO, they were both excellent high end amplifiers and the differences between them in my system were very subtle, but it was there and it was important to me.

The system sounded "right" to me with the Levinsons.

Right, meaning they allowed the system to disappear so I could forget about it.

Right, meaning my system sounded both more accurate (to me) and more enjoyable.

Does that mean anyone who chooses the Krells is a hedonist who wants less accuracy?

Not if the Krells sound more natural with his/her speakers.

Should I have stayed with my original multi-channel amplifier?

It measured well and had low THD numbers.

To my ears, some music sounded pretty good with that amp, but some didn't and I was always aware of the system wanting to fix it.

I guess i could have stayed with that amp, taken my castor oil and then pounded my chest and proclaimed that I was the most righteous audiophile in all of the land because I was taking my well-measured low distortion castor oil and wasn't some sort of hedonist that wanted "nice sound."

On that system, I would have just listened to the Righteous Brothers and Calvinist sermons all day.

And I could have ruled the audio forums all over the internet.

To think what I gave up.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan That is a strong assertion and one that is easy to refute .... I am on the digital side but claiming it perfect is ....well... perfectly incorrect ...

Well, by "perfect" I mean as far as audibility is concerned. At this point in time, modern high quality digital gear running at 16 bits 44.1 KHz can capture and reproduce an audio signal such that nobody can tell the copy from the source in a proper blind test. Even if we can measure 0.004 percent distortion or whatever, or jitter artifacts 100+ dB below the music, it's still "perfect enough" as regards audible degradation.

--Ethan

 

[silviajulieta]

Hi Raul,

You know, I think many of us understand where you are coming from pretty well. I for one agree that one should try to put together as accurate a reproduction system as is possible within budget, etc.

Yet, do you understand that stereo reproduction is fairly lame and really does not present that great of an illusion of the actual sound event to many of us. Of course we may listen to someones 150K system or perhaps 20K system and sometime walk away astounded or sometime dumbfounded. But never walk away saying yes, s/he has got it, got reality. No, they just got more STEREO.

And, a lot less stereo recordings IMO capitalize on the true capabilites of the art of stereo than one would hope for. Then there is the LP thing vs the CD thing and the master tape thing and tube thing and solid state thing and OMG mike/speaker thing and the mixers attitude and ears thing and the masters thing and man does it get sticky.

Then, there is the thing where, hey, maybe I don't care or believe that STEREO is the best thing out there, and perhaps if I flavor it some, AT MY CONTROL with a suitable box (for some with "synergy"..although that is an expensive and time consuming route) that I can adjust the amount of flavor I want at any time, well that is cool too.

Because, maybe we also do not want to be part of the opposite of the AHEE, and that is part of the "hey look, dude, its STEREO, its recorded the way we want, and you just got to reproduce it and shut up establishment" also known as HLDISIRTWWWAYJGTRIASUE!

A long time ago I used to agree to your comments about growing up and learning about the HLDISIRTWWWAYJGTRIASUE establishment. I find that anytime you go too far in your religion you are shutting out possibilities, a lot of them. You might just throw an image enhancer on your stereo system someday for the fun of it, just to rock out with your favorite artist, or look over in the 3D audio thread and open up to possibilities that maybe there is more fun to be had in this hobby by trying other things.

Get the best components you can, and then, when you desire, get a flavor enhancer you like and use it when you want, liberate yourself from the
HLDISIRTWWWAYJGTRIASUE establishment!

Over to you!

Tom

Dear Tom: I don't understand yet what you meann or what I have to understand with your first sentence in that post.

I know all the posibilities around audio but right now I'm entilted to achieve my STEREO targets and I hope that when this happen I could go a head with those so many posibilities out there. Yes, as I grow up in my " religion " as loosing opportunities but this is only a trade-off.

I'm inside de AHEE ( Audio High End Establishment ) and I learned a lot thank's to it, I learned good and bad things. In the last years I think that AHEE was and is a brake for I can achieve my targets so I had and have to learn on my own new " roads " to mantain my growing up target in my audio learning curve/ladder and continue to scale/climb step by step in that audio learning curve. I have to do it thinking a little outside the " box " and this permit me not only improve my system quality performance and my enjoy listening with but I discover some very nice alternatives like the MM/MI analog source over the LOMC cartridge one. Thinking and taking actions in that way permit me today appreciate and discern that digital is way nearer not only to the recording but to perfection than analog, even that I'm an analog audiophile.

Right now I'm experienced a new subject that you can read here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1286160563&&&/Magic-on-Cleanse-Electrical-Power-quot;-

well maybe not so new for me because I had many years ago this experience but not with an audio system with to high quality performance.

Matching audio system audio items at random is something that fortunatelly I left behind me many years ago. I don't know where you are seated: below, even or above me but I can tell you that the EXCELLENCE target can be achieved almost in a budget price system because the most important subject for attain EXCELLENCE is not money ( big money ) but knowledge heavy and in deep know-how on music and audio.
As you know when you achieve this kind of knowledge then the Audio World Open a very shinny light that you never ever imagine could exist in Audio: the opportunities goes WIDER and your music enjoyment makes a paramount diffrence from what you had yesterday.

The people that today can't understand why: the frequency extremes are more important than the midrange or that tubes goes against music reproduction or that digital is so " perfect " against analog or that the best audio " power supply plant/conditioner " is no " power plant/conditioner " or that the best tube is no tube or the best transformer is no transformer, then the only subject is that these people needs continue learning to grow-up and sooner or latter almost all could understand those audio statements and some other ones that I'm trying to understand but I could not yet because my ignorance at this moment.

Regards and enjoy the music ( please no simple: " Nice Sound. ". )
Raul.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello Raul,

Yes, I remember before we had some hard time with translation.

In my first sentence I agree with you to put together the most accurate system as is possible. In other words, yes, clean your contacts with cramolin or whatever. Yes, you need the low end and the high end as well, agreed. The best transformer is no transformer, yes, if you do not need do not use it.

The concept I was talking about after reading your post (#81) is this:

It is OK to have some way for you to alter the signal. This can be an equalizer, a bass and treble, a dbx unit, a stereo synthesizer, or ambisonics box.

First, make your system as accurate as possible, then, it is OK to use your own component to change the sound.

Why?

Because the sound you receive on your CD or your tape or your LP is not the true performance. It is manipulated by the "sound" of the microphone, the amplifier, the equalizer, the reverberation, the delay, the chorus, the filters, the effects units, the de"s" ers, the noise gates, the ears of the mixer and the master, the monitor speakers in the studio, the headphones in the studio, then the tape deck with its electronics and tape heads and bias adjustments and tape head bump and then comes the cutting machine for LP and the sampling/adc and all the digital manipulations for digital, then comes the record and the cartrigde, and for digital the dac, then finally all your electronics.....

So, at that point, what is pure about this "sound" anymore? And this is important, STEREO has big limitations as far as giving a realistic illusion of the actual event, simply because it is two speakers, and not binaural. STEREO is flawed, not perfect.

So, for some of us, it is OK to make some manipulation of the "sound" so it is more exciting to us.

My theory is get your system as accurate as possible, then use some device of choice to allow you to "take control" of the system in a manner that you like.

I am way past being a slave to STEREO as presented to me by the mixers and masters and the mechanical and electronics that tries to bring a poor illusion of the real event to my ears!

So, I agree with you as follows:

(1) make the system as perfect as you can in reproducing the signal that comes in, make a larger copy of the input, nothing more or less......

then, I disagree with only adhering to above (1) because for me #2 is very important..

(2) then, adjust the system as you want so you can better enjoy the music. But I think it is better to use an electronics box, that you can bypass or not as you please. Sometimes, I like the sound just the way the mixer and electronics give it to me.

In this thread, the word synergy may be considered to be that two audio components when working together produce a more satisfying sound, and sometimes, two audio components when working together produce a less satisfying sound....it should not be the case if the end result is accuracy to the original music signal but since STEREO is flawed, then sometimes a less accurate component can bring a more pleasing sound to the individual than pure accuracy. Accurate electronics reproduction does not always mean it "sounds" best to you!

Regards and enjoy the music ( please no simple: " Nice Sound. ". )
Raul. Cheers, and ( please no simple: " Accurate Sound!")

Tom

What Tom said. +1,000

Tim

 

[Steve williams]

Tim

I thought you were not a proponent of Tom's #2

BTW Tom I agree completely with you

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim

I thought you were not a proponent of Tom's #2

BTW Tom I agree completely with you

I am. I'm also a proponent of Tom's #1.

Tim

 

[Steve williams]

It's just you said "What Tom said +1000. I took that to mean you support Tom's #2

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's just you said "What Tom said +1000. I took that to mean you support Tom's #2

Nope. Strongly agree with all of the above.

Tim

 

[silviajulieta]

Hello Raul,

Yes, I remember before we had some hard time with translation.

In my first sentence I agree with you to put together the most accurate system as is possible. In other words, yes, clean your contacts with cramolin or whatever. Yes, you need the low end and the high end as well, agreed. The best transformer is no transformer, yes, if you do not need do not use it.

The concept I was talking about after reading your post (#81) is this:

It is OK to have some way for you to alter the signal. This can be an equalizer, a bass and treble, a dbx unit, a stereo synthesizer, or ambisonics box.

First, make your system as accurate as possible, then, it is OK to use your own component to change the sound.

Why?

Because the sound you receive on your CD or your tape or your LP is not the true performance. It is manipulated by the "sound" of the microphone, the amplifier, the equalizer, the reverberation, the delay, the chorus, the filters, the effects units, the de"s" ers, the noise gates, the ears of the mixer and the master, the monitor speakers in the studio, the headphones in the studio, then the tape deck with its electronics and tape heads and bias adjustments and tape head bump and then comes the cutting machine for LP and the sampling/adc and all the digital manipulations for digital, then comes the record and the cartrigde, and for digital the dac, then finally all your electronics.....

So, at that point, what is pure about this "sound" anymore? And this is important, STEREO has big limitations as far as giving a realistic illusion of the actual event, simply because it is two speakers, and not binaural. STEREO is flawed, not perfect.

So, for some of us, it is OK to make some manipulation of the "sound" so it is more exciting to us.

My theory is get your system as accurate as possible, then use some device of choice to allow you to "take control" of the system in a manner that you like.

I am way past being a slave to STEREO as presented to me by the mixers and masters and the mechanical and electronics that tries to bring a poor illusion of the real event to my ears!

So, I agree with you as follows:

(1) make the system as perfect as you can in reproducing the signal that comes in, make a larger copy of the input, nothing more or less......

then, I disagree with only adhering to above (1) because for me #2 is very important..

(2) then, adjust the system as you want so you can better enjoy the music. But I think it is better to use an electronics box, that you can bypass or not as you please. Sometimes, I like the sound just the way the mixer and electronics give it to me.

In this thread, the word synergy may be considered to be that two audio components when working together produce a more satisfying sound, and sometimes, two audio components when working together produce a less satisfying sound....it should not be the case if the end result is accuracy to the original music signal but since STEREO is flawed, then sometimes a less accurate component can bring a more pleasing sound to the individual than pure accuracy. Accurate electronics reproduction does not always mean it "sounds" best to you!

Regards and enjoy the music ( please no simple: " Nice Sound. ". )
Raul. Cheers, and ( please no simple: " Accurate Sound!")

Tom

Dear Tomelex: I can' say I agree with you because we almost are talking on the same but with a little differences that due to my targets are really important as those differences that are important to you.

First and I think you will agree is that what we can heard in an audio system ( any ) , in a perfect audio system, is what is in the recording and never the live event: there is no way. I for sure can't do nothing on what is in the recording: the recorded LP/CD information was out of my control. Yes, we can manipulate on the reproduction but this is something different.
As you read my main target is to be nearest to the recording, accuracy if you want, and this means ( between other things. ) that the less signal manipulation the better. Protect and mantain the signal integrity is one of my main tasks on that audio signal.

A change of audio " signal FLAVOR ": I would like to analyze what we have in a live event where we do'nt have control over almost nothing and where we attend to hear and nothing more than to hear. We can't manipulate the signal, we can't change the generic violin of the Orchestra Concertino for a Stradivarius or change the double bass players position. What can we do to attain a different flavor ina live event?, I think that the only " road " is to change our seat position: both on distance and direction, with this seat change position we can change the flavor of what we hear at that live event.

At home and according to my main targets I don't want to add any single audio item/link where the audio signal must pass because this additional ( passive or active. ) audio item will makes a degradation to the signal even the switch for decide when use it degrade the signal.
What can we do to put some " flavor " on what we are hearing?, like in a live event a change in the seat position could help, a change in the speakers position could help too, a change in the room treatment could help with out doubt, a change in the IC/speaker cables could help, different sources on audio signal could help, etc, etc.
In all these alternatives I don't have to add nothing else to the signal but only change where the signal pass trhough. I own several phono cartridges that permit me a change in the flavor of the audio signal, I own several tonearms that help me in the same way and if I 'm ( that I did not. ) in digital then maybe I could own two-three different CDP.

This is the way how I think on the subject .


Tom: ++++++ " then, adjust the system as you want so you can better enjoy the music. " +++++

this is some way or the other what everyone of us are already doing, the difference is not only how each one of us did it but against which targets because all depend on each one targets.

Enjoy The Music is a very wide meaning sentence where exist several levels of quality on that Enjoy The Music. My targets on this are not only as high as yours or even higher but very strict and tight, IMHO there is no other way to achieve EXCELLENCE level.

The times on audio " dissipation " already gone for me and fortunatelly I'm inside a stage where tiny " things " can help to EXCELLENCE target or destroy it, I have to be very carefully about. I think that sooner or latter you will be here if not you are here or even a step forward
Is dificult to explain the stage/step where I'm and what I have through the audio system for you could understand in full manner. Anyways I hope you can understand only small part of what I'm sharing. I appreciate what you posted because it is a way for questioning my self what I'm doing and if I'm wrong or not yet.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What can we do to put some " flavor " on what we are hearing?, like in a live event a change in the seat position could help, a change in the speakers position could help too, a change in the room treatment could help with out doubt, a change in the IC/speaker cables could help, different sources on audio signal could help, etc, etc.
In all these alternatives I don't have to add nothing else to the signal but only change where the signal pass trhough. I own several phono cartridges that permit me a change in the flavor of the audio signal, I own several tonearms that help me in the same way and if I 'm ( that I did not. ) in digital then maybe I could own two-three different CDP.

But if these changes of cabling and components put some "flavor" on the sound, they are changing the recorded signal. It is no different than using tone controls, it is just much more expensive, unpredictable and difficult. It is not adjustable, and most important, it cannot be bi-passed on that day that you find the perfect recording. I've found many - not perfect, but close enough that I want no equalization at all, whether it comes from a change of preamps or the turn of a knob. But if you think you can flavor the signal through component changes, and that is somehow purer than using processing, you are fooling yourself. It is the same thing; it is just a much blunter, less useful tool.

Tim

 

[silviajulieta]

I think we actually understand each other, you use components to change the color (as many audiophiles do) , BUT YOU CHANGE THE COLOR TO BE MORE ACCURATE, and others use actual controls and circuits desgined to change the color (such as bass and treble and components) to just make it SOUND BETTER but perhaps not more accurate to the original recording. That is the whole synergy thing...cool...

Tom

Dear Tom: I only writed about components changes as an alternative/example. My whole process to be where I'm ( well my audio system quality performance level ) was and is a very long one. I don't change system components to attain my targets that was a task that I made several years ago.

Some time in the past I have to decide which components/audio links were the ones that could help me to achieve my targets, this process was not only long but really a hard task where ( due that my wallet is restricted. ) there was no " space " for mistakes ( at least not big mistakes. ). The time for mistakes already pass, I learnend from several mistakes I made, I made and make a lot of hearing tests and read a lot to decide what to do.

My componets in my audio system are the same for more than 10 years ( lot more ) and today I'm not thinking to change anything yet. I don't touch easyly my system , IMHO it has a great and almost unique equilibrum. I think that the kind of " attitude " that I think help me to be nearest to my target is that I try to be in " focus " always ( I try that nothing disturb me in the targets defined and the road to achieve those targets. I'm not an " emotional " person in this subject, I try don't take decissions by my " emotions " only. ), open mind and test/try everything ( orthoox or not ) that I think could or even could not help to improve my audio system: I'm not " close " to anything and I'm not " married " to any audio subject.

I'm not fully against " tone controls " to attain that " nice sound " as a fact I have " controls " in my system. The Velodynes comes with at least three controls where you can change the " flavor ": phase, crossover frequency and volume, I take almost a full year to integrate in absolute seamless way these subwoofers in the audio system and when I did it all those controls were untouched any more ( well till three weeks ago were I had to change the subwoofer gain. You can read it on the link I posted. ).
My Tannoy supertweeters comes with two controls: crossover frequency and gain, I did the integration in the system over time and since then never touched again. The same with the rear speakers tweeters that was and add-on.

I made and make some changes/modifications in the system but are changes inside the componets trying to improve it but not a change for other component. All my system and each component in that system IMHO is/are fully competitive in performance with any today audio component.

Tom, accuracy is not enough to attain " nice sound " it is more complex that only the" accurate " word. If is true that accuracy is one of my main targets it is true too that " nice sound " is too a main target for me: I want to enjoy the music ( nice sound. ) but I want to enjoy it with accuracy, not an easy task I can tell you but fortunatelly IMHO I did it and I think that I will follow in the quest to scale at higher steps/level to find out the " Audio Heaven ", day by day I'm coming nearest to that target.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.