"Synergy"

Mike Lavigne · Nov 16, 2011

mep said:
I didn’t quote you as saying “distortion figures.” That was my term for percent of distortion as in 1%, 2%, 3% etc. I think that the percentage of distortion an amp has means something to you in terms of understanding its meaning.

i did not mean any offense. i simply don't pay attention to distortion numbers. i'm interested in the purity of the mid-range and the degree of delicacy, detail, and natural texture. particularly in my system where the amp only needs to power the mids and tweeter.

an amp can miss all the inner detail of the music and be linear.....in that case linearity without completeness has zero value to me.

it's like the accurate but incomplete nature of digital verses analog.

mep · Nov 16, 2011

There is a very interesting article in the new TAS that just hit my door today written by RH. This article will drive objectivists to frothing at the mouth and make subjectivists smile. One of the things that RH says is that digital distortions are not heard in nature and bother people whereas analog distortions such as second harmonics are heard in nature and don’t cause the same type of reactions as unnatural digital distortions. This is just one of many nuggets in his article. We need to start another food-fight thread after enough people have read his article and want to offer comments on it. It’s a doozey.

JackD201 · Nov 16, 2011

The Autobots and Decepticons will beg to differ.

Old Listener · Nov 17, 2011

mep said:
This article will drive objectivists to frothing at the mouth and make objectivists smile.

I'm an objectivist. Do I get to choose my reaction?

I haven't paid attention to anything RH had to say in years.

Bill

Phelonious Ponk · Nov 17, 2011

Old Listener said:
I'm an objectivist. Do I get to choose my reaction?

I haven't paid attention to anything RH had to say in years.

Bill

I've personally decided to smile. Frothing is so stressful.

Tim

audioguy · Nov 17, 2011

Old Listener said:
I haven't paid attention to anything RH had to say in years.
Bill

+1.

Or 90% of any of the other self proclaimed "golden ear" reviewers.

FrantzM · Nov 17, 2011

Hi

After having seen a picture of RH listening room.. I think I am allowed to have many doubts about his opinions... I also wonder what RH meant by distortion heard in nature ???? I mean really.. I have not read a word of his article but I know music reproduction is not found in nature .. it is a technological construct ... Is there a tree that grows loudspeakers?

microstrip · Nov 17, 2011

mep said:
There is a very interesting article in the new TAS that just hit my door today written by RH. This article will drive objectivists to frothing at the mouth and make objectivists smile. One of the things that RH says is that digital distortions are not heard in nature and bother people whereas analog distortions such as second harmonics are heard in nature and don’t cause the same type of reactions as unnatural digital distortions. This is just one of many nuggets in his article. We need to start another food-fight thread after enough people have read his article and want to offer comments on it. It’s a doozey.

Mep,

Sometimes I find we have short memory...

Thirty years ago, this same argument was used by scientists to develop new techniques in digital conversion and was referred in peer reviewed papers of unsuspected entities such as IEEE and IERE and was one of the strong arguments of the supporters of delta sigma ADCs. Happily at the time people reacted more positively to it.

On a completely different area F. Toole also considers that humans have excellent capabilities to distinguish what is natural and non natural, and that this can be the basis of our discriminating capability in audio and finding something right or wrong - and in the broad sense enjoyable/not enjoyable. For me it seems adequate that someone considers a bridge between these two subjects.

I have not read RH article and do not know exactly what he is referring to, and I am not competent to evaluate his findings. But I do not find it "doozey" and think we will loose something if this argument is used as the start for a campaign against RH or subjective reviewing.

KeithR · Nov 17, 2011

mep said:
Keith-We have been down the synergy road before. I think half of the people that responded don’t believe in synergy and the other half did and it turned in to another food-fight if memory serves me correctly.

As for my opinion, I think synergy encompasses much more than just the amp/speaker interface. I think it’s the entire system. Most synergy can probably be explained away by acknowledging that you have components that were designed electrically such that they are compatible together (output impedance is correct for the input impedance, phono gain is sufficient for the cartridge, efficiency of the speaker and the impedance are within the amplifier’s capabilities, etc.).

Mark- i was just specifically relating the discussion to speaker/amp. and since i have 101db speakers, they can be driven with any amplifier within its optimal power band, so it has to be something else.

KeithR · Nov 17, 2011

fas42 said:
I find it intriguing that most people don't use the phrase "levels of distortion" when describing the sound of components, rather warm, bright, neutral, as if this really related to the frequency response being altered. I would put money onto betting that the FR of these components was barely different, one from each other, but if you examined the distortion spectrum at the output there would be a wide divergence. So depending on the context, something is "bright" either because it is accurate and perfectly showing up deficiencies of equipment earlier in the chain, or it is in itself injecting unpleasant levels and types of distortion, which people again use the adjective "bright" for ...

Frank

I think the problem is SS and tube distortion sounds dramatically different.

mep · Nov 17, 2011

Old Listener said:
I'm an objectivist. Do I get to choose my reaction?

I haven't paid attention to anything RH had to say in years.

Bill

Bill-Why yes, you do get to choose your own reaction.

Mark

mep · Nov 17, 2011

microstrip said:
I have not read RH article and do not know exactly what he is referring to, and I am not competent to evaluate his findings. But I do not find it "doozey" and think we will loose something if this argument is used as the start for a campaign against RH or subjective reviewing.

This would not be my intent at all as I actually think RH makes some very interesting points worthy of non-frenzied discussion. But I know how polarized audiophiles tend to be and the article will polarize people.

mep · Nov 17, 2011

KeithR said:
I think the problem is SS and tube distortion sounds dramatically different.

That could probably be another food fight thread all on its own.

mep · Nov 17, 2011

FrantzM said:
After having seen a picture of RH listening room.. I think I am allowed to have many doubts about his opinions...

Even without seeing pictures of his room, you are allowed to have many doubts about his opinions.

FrantzM said:
Is there a tree that grows loudspeakers?

No, but I think loudspeakears are grown from trees. You know, the ones that use wood pulp in the cones and wood to make the enclosures.

fas42 · Nov 17, 2011

KeithR said:
I think the problem is SS and tube distortion sounds dramatically different.

Yes, there are many, many colours to distortion: pick your shade, or try to eliminate completely. On the "natural" distortion issue, there's an analogy with analogue and digital TV: analogue can be very severely distorted, as in ghosting and lots of snow, and still be quite watchable, you can still follow the "plot" and tune into the broadcast. Digital TV on the other hand, works or doesn't work: you either have close to a perfect picture, or breakup which is extremely disturbing, and completely disrupts your ability to follow what's going on. Obviously digital sound doesn't quite follow this same route, but my experience is that digital when working right jumps quite a dramatic notch in quality upward.

Frank

Gregadd · Nov 17, 2011

FrantzM said:
Hi

After having seen a picture of RH listening room.. I think I am allowed to have many doubts about his opinions... I also wonder what RH meant by distortion heard in nature ???? I mean really.. I have not read a word of his article but I know music reproduction is not found in nature .. it is a technological construct ... Is there a tree that grows loudspeakers?

Just to poke fun at you frantz there are many animals that mimc sounds. Also echos abound. OTOH I aree with you.

Search

Search

"Synergy"

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

JackD201

WBF Founding Member

Old Listener

New Member

Phelonious Ponk

New Member

audioguy

WBF Founding Member

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

microstrip

VIP/Donor

KeithR

VIP/Donor

KeithR

VIP/Donor

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

fas42

Addicted To Best

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member

Similar threads

Members online