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

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


Dear Phelonious Ponk: I agree with you. I think that in my last post ( #125 ) you can find not only my answer but how I really " work " about. No, I don't change cables ( for example ) to change the " flavor ".

Dear TIM: things are that I don't " feel " the need to change almost nothing in my today audio system quality performance does not matters what recording I'm hearing. If the recording comes with small SPL on the bass ( example ) I don't go and put higher the volume control in my subwoofers because IMHO the problem comes in the recording and not in my system.

To be nearest to the recording I have to accept first what comes in the recording even if don't like it. Bad recordings always exist and will exist and is part of the trade-offs, against those bad recordings there are a higher higher number of good and very good recordings. The average quality performance level on recordings IMHO is the higher number where the very good and the bad ones are only a minority.

My system quality performance permit that even bad recordings be " listenable " thank's to its very very low system distortions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
 
Last edited:
Dear Phelonious Ponk: I agree with you. I think that in my last post ( #125 ) you can find not only my answer but how I really " work " about. No, I don't change cables ( for example ) to change the " flavor ".

Dear TIM: things are that I don't " feel " the need to change almost nothing in my today audio system quality performance does not matters what recording I'm hearing. If the recording comes with small SPL on the bass ( example ) I don't go and put higher the volume control in my subwoofers because IMHO the problem comes in the recording and not in my system.

To be nearest to the recording I have to accept first what comes in the recording even if don't like it. Bad recordings always exist and will exist and is part of the trade-offs, against those bad recordings there are a higher higher number of good and very good recordings. The average quality performance level on recordings IMHO is the higher number where the very good and the bad ones are only a minority.

My system quality performance permit that even bad recordings be " listenable " thank's to its very very low system distortions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I think we're 99% in agreement Raul. I do occasionally tweak the eq of my system to tone down a harsh recording or get a little bottom end from a very low listening level, but I don't use eq often and do use it very conservatively. And I wouldn't personally even consider deliberately coloring my system with component choices.

Tim
 
Hi Raul,

You said:

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 the best crossover is no crossover and the best cable is no cable and one day long ago in a galaxy far, far, away we said something about simplicity, purity, and "a wire with gain." Then we continued to evolve great stacks of boxes full of redundant noise-makers and strung them together with miles of wire that gains nothing and abandoned the quest for something else altogether.

The only thing I disagree with, If I understand your point, is the bit about the midrange. The midrange is where the music is. The midrange is everything. I will gladly abandon the extremes for a purer, clearer, more coherent midrange.

Tim
 
The only thing I disagree with, If I understand your point, is the bit about the midrange. The midrange is where the music is. The midrange is everything. I will gladly abandon the extremes for a purer, clearer, more coherent midrange.

Tim

Now I know for certain that you would love those Lamm amps ;).. All kidding aside I do agree with your statement that the midrange is where the music is
 
I most certainly give my stamp of approval regarding the importance of midrange. It's the reason I selected my Sttafs.

John
 
Hi

Another point of debate.. Our hearing is most sensitive in the midrange but Music exists in the whole 20~20,000 Hz (and likely beyond) range.. The balance has to be right .. The best midrange with a lousy reproduction of the extremes is ultimately NOT satisfying. Ill-defined bass or dull treble quickly become unbearable no matter how much one proclaims a love of the midrange ... At least IMO... What to me makes the LAMM interesting as SETs go, is a more than decent reproduction of the whole Audio Spectrum ...Yes its midrange is quite spooky but the rest is very good too, else one would have been left wanting quickly...
To be back on topics I have NOT sure I have seen in this thread anything that illustrates the concept of Synergy. Unless this is another term for component matching or one of those we, audiophiles like to make up, to explain the sense of some equipments just playing together as one particular person wishes ...
 
Cheers!

I think for me, the older, ahem, I mean the more experience gained, then it is easier to see both sides of an issue and in some cases there is that other alternative, the third choice, but in audio it is the razors edge. That keeps it interesting for me.

I am pretty sure I have read Tim does not object to using the controls on his active speakers when needed to compensate for recording issues, IIRC.

I also found it interesting reading Rauls link in post 114 above that he found such super audible enhancements after cleaning his contacts, expecially that digital sounded better and did not irratate anymore, ie he could listen for 4 hours instead of 1 hour. While dirty contacts do impede the signal, and can create diodic effects, it facinates me to hear it improved digital to "let more of digital" through. I have always found digital to be a little thick compared to LP, but one might really say that LP is a little lively compared to digital and be more to the point.

Anyway, Raul found synergy by cleaning his contacts. Of course, technically, after he cleaned them, the second part he put on them in effect added something that was not there. IIRC, from the original Cramolin days, that helped fill in the microscopic (well pretty big really)gaps between the two metals as they mated together and so in a way, he has perhaps applied a little bit of #2. And, should keep a regimen of cleaning contacts so the stuff added does not dry out and produce a different diodic effect at the metal junctions. Its the razors edge, again.

Tom



Dear Tom: Magic on Cramolin?, certainly not is only a good alternative. The very great discover was and is that today ( as I posted on that Agon link. ) I have every single electrical power supply/transmision/conductor soldered directly inside the electronics with nothing in between both ends in the power cable other than in one end the circuit breaker where the power comes and in the other end the audio item circuit board.

I have no any more electrical conditioners/transformers/RFI filters/more filters/capacitors/wires/plugs ( any, the best plug ( Furutech, Sshunshyta or whatever ) is no input/output plugs. )/spade lugs, zapata/slip-on connectors/ etc, etc, nothing but a direct connection where the electrical power signal flow freee with no single obstacle.

This is what really makes some kind of " magic ". IMHO there is no trade-offs with this kind of alternative, any audio system will receive benefits with this direct electrical connection it does not matters which kind of electrical power installation/conditioners you own. Nothing I know can give the huge quality system overall improvement that this direct electrical connection.

As you can read in that link in one of the systems where we test/try it this direct electrical connection we compare it against top top " conditioners " like: Audience Adept, Shunshyta ( something. ), Equi-balance ( something. ) and in my system with Tice, Monster and Ps Audio. The direct electrical connection makes dust every one.
As I posted in that link: " adding these type of electrical " conditioners " are IMHO redundant because the audio item designers already take care about ", this redundant subject only makes degradation to the electrical signal in a way that is just " incredible ".

I even soldered each fuse all over the electronics.

The rewards are amazing, IMHO you can't even imagine how higher is the quality improvement: outstanding! My friend are trying to return or sale his ( second hand ) equi-balance ( or something, I forget the precise model/name. ) fancy two boxes electrical conditioner.


Tom if you can please try it, you always can return/come back to original status if you don't like it.

This kind of experiences help to achieve EXCELLENCE level and of course you can discern better on matching/synergy audio system items. One of my strategies to be nearest to the recording/EXCELLENCE is: NO TRADE-OFFs, I don't accept trade-offs till my ignorance level preclude I can go on. This strategy of no trade-offs help a lot because I try and test everything I know taking information everywhere ( even from " you ". ) before I accept a trade-off in the quality performance of my home audio system.

The digital source reproduction quality performance improvement was a very nice surprise to me. Now I not only understand in full way what PP/Tim posted in favor of digital against analog but I agree with in almost all. The improvement on digital was and is higher a lot higher that with analog source.

Seems to me that a higher distorted source like analog preclude to discern in precise way when you lower other system distortions when in a lower distorted source as digital any added distortions ( the normal ones in an audio systems. ) affect it in a higher manner so when you lower the system overall distortions both sources will benefit but the digital one in higher way. In the other side seems to me too that some kind of system distorions ( like the electrical ones. ) affect and degrade more the digital source than analog and maybe this could be because with digital you can't hide " problems and with analog due to inherent bigger distortions some " problems " are hide and we can't discern about.

Anyway, due to this unexpected change in favor of digital source I decide to increment my digital source software and investigate/researh and learn in deep all what I need to know about digital to decide which player I need. I'm almost ignorant on digital subject.

Tom, as you see my " religion " not close my opportunities out there but sometimes really opened like this time.

I received some emails asking for: " where can I learn more in deep about EXCELLENCE? ". I really wish to say that through the AHEE and here through reviewers but unfortunatelly these persons are not entilted with EXCELLENCE, the meaning/knowledge of the word and how achieve it.
I have no answer because this is something that we can't learn in a book or in a specific place, it is a process long process that was been enriched with our each one experiences, mistakes, reading, tests, hearing lot of systems and the like.

IMHO we at least need three factors that help to make we can be nearest to EXCELLENCE level: overall audio knowledge, overall music knowledge and the more important of the three: how use your audio and music knowledge in favor of that audio system EXCELLENCE level, our each one level skills are the ones that makes the " difference " not only the audio/music knowledge level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
 
Last edited:
Hi Raul,

You said:

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...

Can you please tell me more about what you are saying above?

Tom


Dear Tom: All those factors/points are critical not only to achieve quality audio system performance EXCELLENCE level but ( contrary to what frantz states: that is out of the thread subject. ) but to really know/discern what to match.

Tim already give an IMHO good answer as a whole I would like to answer about that: MIDRANGE and his importance.


Almost all of us already learned through the AHEE teaching over the years that midrange is the frequency range where music belongs and IMHO this is one of myths in audio high end and one of the worst and " corrupted " information we learnend.

There are many " things " why that statement is not true ( between other things what Frantz posted. ). The music BELONG to a very wide frequency range where midrange is only a fraction of it. If was true that midrange is where music belongs then all the music instruments and music compositions/scores only concentrate/perform in the midrange frequency range and you , everyone and me knows that this not happen.

We have to take in count too that music has harmonics and with out these music harmonics music does not exist ( at least in the way we heard it. ), we need both frequency extremes to enjoy those music harmonics. Midrange can't live with out midrange harmonics and these midrange harmonics belong to a frequency spectrum out of the midrange it self.

Both frequency extremes are the ones ( in a home audio system. ) that have or where reside the main weight when we are talking of soundstage not midrange, midrange give us only center/focus on the image but are the frewuency extremes the ones that put the more on that soundstage.

You can choose a midrange frequency range ( any ) and test it in your system ( with an equalizer. ) with out both frequency extremes and after this exercise come here and post what you experienced, I already do it and know what I'm talking about.

As better your frequency extreme quality performance as better the midrange not the other way around, midrange depend on the frequency extremes quality in your system. So, IMHO as wider and better are both frequency extremes as better is the whole quality performance in any home audio system.

Now, if like Steve posted in this thread and other threads that the Lamms amplifiers has a midrange to " died for it " or " Tim you will like the Lamms because its midrange " or that in your system you have great midrange or that you feel that needs to improve your midrange then what you have is a poor equilibrum/ tonal balance where because deficient frequency extremes the midrange is the " great " frequency range is the one that always take your attention when hearing your system.

IMHO no tube amplifier and I mean no one can honor music home reproduction. A tube amplifier ( all ) are severe faulty at both frequency extremes and that's why the midrange " take your attention " and not because the tube midrange is great but because the tube frequency extremes are really bad are inaccurate and don't put the right " frame " to the midrange and to the MUSIC.

The answer to this kind of problem certainly is the SS technology. Why the people does not like a good and accurate SS design?, IMHO because when they introduce that good and accurate SS design electronics in their system all the system problems that were hide behind those heavy distortions and inaccuracies that has tube electronics comes " alive " and the tube system owner instead to research where are or where comes all those " quality performance problems " with the SS electronics decide with out any real foundation that the SS electronics are the culprit! and decide that " only tubes " are the ones: wrong terrible wrong audio asumption. These tube system owners lose the greattest opportunity to improve what they have because when the SS audio item " naked " their system it is the best time to dress ( from almost cero. ) the system in the right way. Yes, what you hear on tube electronics and what we read here and there about tube performance is only about " midrange " because the frequency extremes are really wrong ( adn the tube advocates just does not talk about. ) and are so wrong that the midrange take your attention and not because is better ( at least not better than SS. ) but because the overall tube performance is wrong/bad.

One, IMHO, of the name of the game in audio is: equilibrum and that's means first than all that each frequency range be in equilibrum just like in a live event: natural equilibrum, with no midrange or bass " I'm here " reproduction performance.

Yes, I think that if I owned the Wilson MAXX 3 I for sure don't mate it with tubes but with SS that IMHO gives the best match.

Yes too, IMHO many of us way before to take care on midrange we have to take care on the quality performance at both frequency extremes. The right midrange is extremely easy to have in almost any amplifier but EXCELLENCE level on both frequency extremes are really really hard to achieve. Advanced digital sources and SS are the way/road to go.

I don't want to convince to any one on the whole susbject and I don't need to do it: sooner or latter you will learn ( as many of us. ) and don't only understand it but will accept it, growing up is what " moves " to some of us.

Btw, I made almost the same mistakes that many of you living with tubes and other myths but over the time and step by step I learnedd and fixed many of those mistakes.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
 
Last edited:
I hear this ALL the time...'the midrange is where the magic lies' or many many variations on that theme.

i'M GLAD FRANTZ AND (sorry) Raul made the points they did.

BTW, to those who make that comment (not that I disagree all too much, but it has simply become yet another throwaway audiophile term that does not mean anything, like, hmm, synergy) tell us, just WHAT is the midrange??? If all answered honestly it would vary from a sudden realisation that 'actually, I have no idea' to many different ranges presented.

Having done that...just play your midrange driver only and tell us how lovely it sounds.

No matter how good it is or not, it would be more enjoyable to listen to a clock radio.

Here is the funny bit. You may have the best midrange ever built (include the entire chain if that is your bent in audio), superb and sublime. BUT, if all the other frequencies are not in 'sync' with that midrange it will NOT, by definition, sound correct!! Be that missing or poor frequency extremes, huge peaks and dips in the bass region, it will and does impact on the perceived tonality of every other part of the frequency spectrum.

If you have not personally experienced this, then you may not have a true idea of how much impact (for example) smoothing the bass response has.

It it is NOT simply 'just removing bass humps and dips'...it manifests across the entire frequency range!

The pros are well aware of this, the effect across the spectrum of bass anomalies.

But, 'oh the magic of music resides in the midrange' does sound rather well educated and cool, picked up (no doubt) from the mags and rags of the audiophile world.....along with prat and synergy....

Raul, I hope you used the correct solder in your mods, after all good audiophiles know that different solders have different sounds.
 
sermon...oh dear!

worse than that, provoked..double oh dear!!

Well, that's enough to drive me away, very much in line with my Op you referenced. That is one of the essential weaknesses of audio forums, the oft times adversary tone it can adopt.

Leaving aside the self deleting button for now (is it in the 'tools' btw??) it was a serious question I was asking. 'What IS the midrange' that is being referenced here??

If it cannot be defined, and I'm willing to bet there will be many different ranges for as many different people, then how can it be of any comparative use?

Maybe we do not need to 'fix the bass' to illustrate this, how about a simple high pass on the system. Listen to a well sorted full range system, then high pass it at say 50 hz, and then maybe 80 hz, and see how the perception of 'midrange' changes. Note that we have not touched the midrange. But it will most certainly have 'changed'.

So the function of 'purity of midrange' is not solely limited to midrange. My extreme illustration of 'listen to the midrange only' would certainly make the midrange too prominent no? Then, by definition, it would not be a good midrange in a system.

It was a simple point I was trying to illustrate, and a symptom exhibited by many audiophiles, 'the concentration on one aspect to the exclusion of others'. I have zero doubt your personal system shows these traits, which was why it was simply a general observation that no part of a system works in isolation.

THAT the point was echoed by a few others prior to me, yet it was only mine that was deemed sermony (related to simony?? haha) simply shows limitations in my method of communication, or at least one that does not fit in well here.

sorry about that, please delete the account.
 
Raul

I usually agree with you on most everything but we have a parting of the ways on this your present post.



Dear Steve: As I posted I don't post it to convince any one. Sooner or latter as you grow-up and learn what you need to learn you will discover it by your self: no doubt about, today you are not prepare to accept it.

Today more than anything IMHO what impede to see the " light " is all that big money that you paid for your tube electronics and I understand that. As I posted I already made almost the same mistakes that you or other audiophiles that growed-up inside the AHEE and that unfortunatelly followed the AHEE myths. Fortunatelly I decide ( some years ago from now. ) to made and make my own " road " out of the AHEE and this attitude made that I not only grow up and learn faster but in a totally different direction that the wrong one that AHEE wants.

You don't have to believe you only need to learn in the same way I'm doing it.

All the mistakes that we made and make are not a shame for any one of us, at the end of the day there is no one out there that can give us a real and true advise to lower those mistakes: certainly the AHEE can't do it because it is the AHEE whom support and preach those mistakes in favor of commercial busine$$$$$.
The true and real audiophile enjoyment through our each one audio system IMHO only cares to each one of us: all the $$comercial$$$ member in the AHEE cares only on busine$$$ not your/mine or other people music enjoyment.

So, IMHO, if you want to improve your music home reproduction enjoyment and happiness you need to take some actions/decisions out of the " box ". As sooner the better or you can go on in the same road where you are today: your call and please don't take " personal " in anyway my " advise " or what I posted.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
 
Last edited:
Terry before you get too upset all I was doing was disagreeing with Raul. Understand that one man's passion is another man's poison. I just happen to own those amps so for "my" ears and my pleasure this is the flavor that I prefer. And to Raul to talk about "growing up" ..............
 
Dear Terryj: I think that many times when some one as you/me or other persons " touch " Tabú audio susbjects the reaction/answers of the people is not an easy one and almost always " charged " of some kind of agressive frustration. It is normal this happen.

IMHO I think that makes more harm ( to all of us ) to stay quiet/dead silence with so many Tabu audio subjects that to analyze them. I'm sure that in some way or the other and at some different kind of level the discussion of Tabú audio susbjects affect directly to each one of us, the best way to to accept argue on those Tabu subjects is with an open mind and with no compromises other than improve our each one MUSIC enjoyment.
Even if we are not ready to accept a Tabu audio subject it helps its discussion for to have a different point of view that maybe in the near future could help each one of us.

That some one puts his finger where it hurts only IMHO can help ( depend on each one attitude. ) with no harm in anyway.

Btw, I agree with your last two posts. As Johny Walker said: " keep walking ".

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

PS.: This time I use Cardas solder because was not only the one that I have at hand but the one that works fine with me.

Btw, as you " my idea of audio hell is to find myself never satisfied with what I have " I think the same and if my system does not change ( for several years ) on names by new audio items certainly was and is not " steady ". I made and make several internal changes on electronics and speakers to improve its performance.

That direct electrical connection subject is the last change I made but tomorrow I don't know yet which will be my next " move/play ". As I told you we have to " keep walking"!!!
 
Last edited:
I'd define the midrange as somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 10k cycles, and while I'll be the first to admit that all the music is not there, and that overtones and fundamentals outside of that range can be important, I'd respond to terryj's post by saying:

A) My midrange comment was a response to a post that said the extremes of the frequency range were more important than the midrange. I strenuously disagree.

B) While I really don't want to give up anything up to about 15k (the current extent of my hearing) or even 20k (the historical extent of my hearing; hope springs eternal) I will and have gladly sacrificed flat response below 60 cycles for a system that fits my room and life and gives me really good reproduction from that point up. And in most music I'm missing very little.

C) The midrange IS where the music is, or at least the lion's share of it. it is where most of the fundamentals of most musical instruments and human voice live and where most of the harmonics live as well. All? No. Most? You betcha. And "the music is in the midrange," being a statement that, while not absolute and not given as such, is based in reality, which means it deserves no connection to PRaT. That was slander on the good reputation of the midrange. :)

Last but not least, your turn terry: What on earth does "all frequencies in sync" mean? How did they get out of sync? Poor dears. They must have lost their way...

Tim
 
Terry before you get too upset all I was doing was disagreeing with Raul. Understand that one man's passion is another man's poison. I just happen to own those amps so for "my" ears and my pleasure this is the flavor that I prefer. And to Raul to talk about "growing up" ..............

Dear Steve: As I said, certainly you are not prepared yet. Nothing wrong with that keep enjoying what you have because you already have it.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
 
I'd define the midrange as somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 10k cycles, and while I'll be the first to admit that all the music is not there, and that overtones and fundamentals outside of that range can be important, I'd respond to terryj's post by saying:

A) My midrange comment was a response to a post that said the extremes of the frequency range were more important than the midrange. I strenuously disagree.

B) While I really don't want to give up anything up to about 15k (the current extent of my hearing) or even 20k (the historical extent of my hearing; hope springs eternal) I will and have gladly sacrificed flat response below 60 cycles for a system that fits my room and life and gives me really good reproduction from that point up. And in most music I'm missing very little.

C) The midrange IS where the music is, or at least the lion's share of it. it is where most of the fundamentals of most musical instruments and human voice live and where most of the harmonics live as well. All? No. Most? You betcha. And "the music is in the midrange," being a statement that, while not absolute and not given as such, is based in reality, which means it deserves no connection to PRaT. That was slander on the good reputation of the midrange. :)

Last but not least, your turn terry: What on earth does "all frequencies in sync" mean? How did they get out of sync? Poor dears. They must have lost their way...

Tim


Dear Tim: That's a really wide midrange frequency range. Why not choose all the frequency range as midrange now that even you disappear the mid-bass range and the other extreme almost disappear too?

I can't argue about with that midrange wide range you states. As a fact, I don't want to follow argueing in this subject when your knowledge in the subject is so " different " from mine: we are far away each to other in this issue.

Btw, I'm trying to remember which speaker ( three way design. ) midrange driver crossover/handle the frequency range between 60hz and 10k and a speaker ( same speaker ) that the tweteer crossover/handle from 10k and up, you know what?, I just can't find it: wonder why?

Enough for today.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
 
Last edited:
Tim,

FWIW an analog crossover is crossover be it active or passive. It does the same thing and uses the same type of parts to do it. They just do the same thing in different points of the chain. Again for me it's a matter of implementation. Having done sound reinforcement, hours upon hours of studio time and home audio, I can say from experience that there are very good implementations of both and very poor ones of both. :)

In my experience and of course YMMV, passive crossovers of about the same quality as an active crossover cost more because of the cost of the parts mainly caps and inductors because of the higher values needed. The active on the other hand catches up because it needs more of the smaller parts as well as the make up gain output sections. THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF HIGH QUALITY ANALOG ACTIVE XOs for domestic signal standards (reference voltages). I am shouting because I am frustrated because I want one. Marchand doesn't cut it for me. In any case the pure signal is chopped up. In digital EQ and XOs the bits are redistributed and later reassembled. Again implementation is key and that's why there are again preferences both in the pro world whether it comes to basic choice of plug-ins all the way to the choice of a digital board. I'd take a Neve Capricorn to a Protools HD for example. There are so many choices however. If the work was to be done in DSD then I'd scratch out these two and go Pyramix.

Perhaps what you mean is that active for you is better because the amps supplied are matched as close to optimal for each driver. That is very valid. It has nothing to do with the signal fed it though.

It doesn't take much work to turn any loudspeaker into a completely active one. A set of wrenches and a soldering gun is all you'd need. The practical question is, if one did, could the individual actually set up his active crossover better than the passive fed an with reserves capable significantly reducing IMD which is IIRC more an issue of power delivery. Here it gets dicey because these types of amps cost more again in parts alone, never mind mark ups and what not. You'd need less hardy amps for an active system. VERY TRUE! But! you'd also need more channels which again cost money.

So we come full circle and end up with proper matching. The only difference with active speakers is that someone else did the matching for you. Fact remains however that the designer, to the best of his ability still went to the efforts of finding "Synergy" between his choice of amp and driver whether he uses the term or simply calls it "properly matched".

Peace!

Jack
 
Terry before you get too upset all I was doing was disagreeing with Raul. Understand that one man's passion is another man's poison. I just happen to own those amps so for "my" ears and my pleasure this is the flavor that I prefer. And to Raul to talk about "growing up" ..............

Please, I was NOT upset. However, I was mortified if it were true that I cam across as sermonising, absolutely not my intent at all.

And, if I do come across that way it is MY error in communication, no error on your part to point it out.

And I can see that I managed to get under PP's skin a little too, sorry about that.

It is only audio, and what interests me most atm is the human side, how and why we react the way we do.

Maybe these last few posts are some sort of indication about that??

So, to be completely clear, I was apologising to you all if I came over the wrong way and take it as completely my fault.

I'd define the midrange as somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 10k cycles,

Thanks for that, and I would have thought a rather good illustration of my point, simply because I would not have thought others would have named the same range as being the midrange???? I'll admit this was far outside any boundaries I would thought be mentioned.

As I tried to make clear, my comments were of a general nature, one that encompassed the 'fact' that for starters, we are not usually all talking about the same thing, one persons idea of 'music lies in the midrange' can be very different from the next, hence we are not on the same page at all.

yet, there IS this undefined floating sentiment of 'the midrange is where it is at'.

And, as such, as 'useless' a term or concept as synergy, or prat. If only because we are all talking about different things.

that's all.

again, sorry if it came over the wrong way.

A) My midrange comment was a response to a post that said the extremes of the frequency range were more important than the midrange. I strenuously disagree.

was that what was said? If it was, then I'd agree with you too.

B) While I really don't want to give up anything up to about 15k (the current extent of my hearing) or even 20k (the historical extent of my hearing; hope springs eternal) I will and have gladly sacrificed flat response below 60 cycles for a system that fits my room and life and gives me really good reproduction from that point up. And in most music I'm missing very little.

60 would be a tad bit high for me personally, but I think I get your drift. 35 might be my lowest limit. We can all agree that what fit's our room and waf can have a big bearing on what we can do!!;)

Still is it true that 'all' you are saying is that 'I want the best reproduction I can get' within my limitations of room and waf etc??

I doubt anyone would disagree with you.

C) The midrange IS where the music is, or at least the lion's share of it.

Well, if you are going to define midrange as 60-10,000 then again, who is going to disagree??;);)

And "the music is in the midrange," being a statement that, while not absolute and not given as such, is based in reality, which means it deserves no connection to PRaT. That was slander on the good reputation of the midrange. :)

Haha, I know we agree on thoise terms:p.

Maybe you missed the point in my post that started all this about the midrange? (something like) 'not that I disagree'. And I DO get it, and agree.

But surely there is merit at times in examining those unexamined things? How else do audio myths get started and flourish.

I see this as merely a different flavour of the usual audiophile things 'valves are better than ss', analog is better than digital' (reverse them all too of course) etc etc. Often at the bottom of them is some unexamined assumption, that's all.

Yet I also wanted to stress just how much the midrange (or treble, or bass) is simply part of the perceived spectrum, it almost has no meaning when taken out of context. And that these things are very dependent on the overall frequency balance.

As bass is the hardest, most expensive or complicated to get right, it is usually the case that that is the part most often missing from a system, and as such is most useful to illustrate how the perception of midrange itself is affected by changes in the bass.


Last but not least, your turn terry: What on earth does "all frequencies in sync" mean? How did they get out of sync? Poor dears. They must have lost their way...

Tim

maybe poor choice of words?? at the time all I meant was (for example) extreme peaks and dips in the bass induced by the room, and which are normally there in any system. Physics and all that jazz.

But here is the funny thing about bass, correct that and the effects are not limited to the bass region (fr wise), they do extend across the boards. It can be very weird to experience!

But seeing as how you took it up then yes, I can extend that to timing. As you will no doubt be aware, one of the things easily corrected in an active system or with dsp, preferably both! And something that can only be crudely addressed with a passive system, reduced to slanted baffles etc.

As much as i have been 'harping' on frequency, to me the thing that sets systems apart is the timing, not merely time aligning drivers etc, but having all the frequencies arrive in time. Add to that arriving at the proper level, now we are talking.:eek:

Taking all that into consideration, and that we are talking about different things usually, what does it mean then when we say 'the magic resides in the midrange"?
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu