• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Your experience with finding "Synergy"

I was hanging with a few friends and listening to one of their DQ-10's being powered by a Sansui middle weight amp, around 90 watts. The mids sounded funny. The typical Sansui weight was missing, but it did not sound bad. Having experienced true Dahlquist Unicorn magic, I recommended that the owner use something with more heft, so he brought out a 200 watt B&K amp to power the DQ-10's.

Several of my friends are EE's. One that was there said, "I don't know how that is going to make a difference..."

The amp turned on and SHAZAM the DQ-10's completely changed their character. Frequency response became very even. The mids bloomed, details began appearing, and the speakers started sound staging like crazy.

EE friend, "I don't understand, the amp shouldn't make a difference...Dang it sounds good!"

Me: "Dang, you engineer types don't believe in anything you can't measure. You live in a static world where variables don't change. But all of existence is dynamic and changing and what we know is probably the tip of the iceberg..."

:scratch2: :yes:
 
blhagstrom said:
I'm working on a theory based on amp damping factor and speaker efficiency.

I have experienced the "synergy". Others have reported the same thing.

What you need is a few rooms full of components and speakers of different levels. TOTL to BOTL and mix and match.

One example.
Most folks hold that Dahlquist DQ-10s like a LOT of power.
They do.
BUT, they can also SHINE with small units, Akai AA-1135, Marantz Model 22.

Some speaker need power to really shine, or at least I haven't found any low power units to make them sound good.
Examples
Infinity Monitor Jrs.
Advent Maestros.

Some speakers don't like a lot of power.
Dahlquist DQ-20s shine best around 50wpc
Click to expand...

I'll have to try that with my DQ-20s and 10's. Sounds like fun...
 
Isotonic said:
I'll have to try that with my DQ-20s and 10's. Sounds like fun...
Click to expand...

IF you have a large room, placement can really make lot of difference too.
The more "out in the open", the better.
First time I fired up my DQ-10s was out in the garage. In the middle of one car bay. With a small Kenwood. The image and sound stage was incredible!

My DQ-20s sound good just about all the time on anything, but they didn't like my Marantz 2385 as much as my smaller units. The DQ-20s seem best as far apart as possible and toed in a lot.
 
sometimes experimentation is the most effective upgrade. I find amplifiers all tend to have their own sonic footprint...regardless how flattering the distortion specifications are... a jvc ax-2,sansui aud-101,akai aa-1175,akai am-u7,sansui au-719,jvc r-x80,aiwa af-3090... they all have their own way to presenting what is being amplified..yet all boast distortion specs of 0.0'something'- 'something'...
I think the typology must have somethign to do with it too...dual mono sounds very different to...er...non dual mono(:D)...and even then...a sansui au-719 dual mono sounds entirely different to an akai aa-1175 dual mono...

critical listening using a good source is a good way to find the right balance between components...

ironically... i've heard a 'neutral' source...through a supposedly 'neutral' amp...attached to some 'neutral' speakers... all of which cost a pretty penny...and the result was actually 'boring'...even using some pretty upbeat music..
so.. i'll stick with the 'trust your own hearing curve' selection process instead...it's way more fun.. :thmbsp:
 
As far as placement, I never changed the position of the speakers. I only swapped the amps/receivers. Huge difference with this combo. I only have basic knowledge of matching impedances, maybe that's what's happening. But I've never had a pair of speakers "open up" like these have. Most of the time I hear a difference between amps/speakers, but not a HUGE one. It's more of the manufacture sonic signatures I pick up on, not necessarily that one amp/speaker combo is better than the next (more of a I like it or I don't like it reaction; even when it all sounds good). This is part of the reason I've stopped hunting down receivers and amps (still hungry for speakers 'tho). I've got my good ones and I'm sticking with them. And with prices skyrocketting on vintage equipment, I'd rather not take the risk of wasting money for a next to nothing improvement. I guess I need to hunt down some of this unicorn magic. I bet the guys with the $100K systems snatched it up years ago. I'll have to set some RSS feeds and see if some pops up on the net (already searched the Bay...no bueno :).
 
Sorry I do not believe in synergy. I do not feel there is combination that allows two particular components to all of a sudden perform above their combined ability. That is what synergy is, when two or more devices, components, people, or things work in unison to create an output that is greater than what could be expected or calculated from their individual abilities.

Component interaction and pairing can be determined by an understanding of specifications and measurements, at least to a significant degree. I am not really a hard core spec kind of pig, but understanding input impedance, dampening factor in amplifiers, slew rate, noise floor, jitter rate, and so on goes a long ways to explaining "synergy".

Does that mean there are components that sound better than to be expected at their price point? Of course there are these, and these products are what the frugal audio hobbyist searches for. But this is not some magical event, that can only occur by throwing random pairings of components into a boiling cauldron.

Are there components that sound good together, that are inexpensive? Sure there are. But these pairings often have significant limitations too. They only work with a certain type of music or style of recording. Or perhaps they are limited to a certain type of room and set up, although yes all components have a particular set up regimen. But in this case, it is far less forgiving, and many may not be able to duplicate it. Finally, it may just come down to the preference of the owner, who declares "synergy" has occurred, while others who get to hear it may go WTF?

So I am not a fan of the idea of synergy, nor am I a proponent of the idea of giant killers. For if a component can kill a giant in our hobby, well its a giant in its own right then too.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
My amicable porcine sir, I wonder if "synergy" is a relative term. Your argument that the whole cannot exceed the sum of the parts makes sense. Is it not possible, however, that what we describe as synergy is a minimizing or even elimination of the negative factors in a combination? I've heard it argued that a cable cannot make sonics better, only "less worse". In a similar fashion, what if the magic combination is the one that has the least amount of mismatches that negatively impact the audio presentation, whatever those factors are, and however achieved? In other words, one, or a few pairings, that allow each piece to live up to its stated performance, as expected by the specifications, rather than falling short by what is sometimes referred to as the limitations of the "real world"?

So, rather than exceeding it's limits, synergy could be thought of as the environment that allows the gear to approach, rather than falling somewhat short of the mark. Hitting the +3σ point, as it were.
 
I listen in near field in my vinyl room. Believe me, there is synergy between speakers, amps and preamps. Maybe all the way to the turntable and cartridge too.

If you believe that all amps sound a wee-bit different (to me, some sound way different), and that there is no such thing as "the prefect amp", synergy can play tricks on the listener, when evaluating components.

Some amps simply handle different speaker loads, well differently. Speakers certainly are not just a resistive load, their impedance changes by the frequencies they are trying to produce. Very reactive activity between the amp and speakers. Throw in some off color speaker cables with perhaps some higher then usual capacitance, and the world gets put on it's side.

In my studio, I have 4 systems, 3 with tables, one with just the FM as the source. Mixing stuff up from the way I have it set up now, will cause loss of low level detail. The devil is in the details.

Wayner
 
Some may call this a mismatch but let me tell you my Marantz 2385 running my 60's Wharfedale W90'S sound like a match made in Heaven:)
 
I have a pair of ADS L910s. I had a Sansui G9000DB hooked to them. Sounded nice but was just not doing it. I finally got a pair of B@K sonata series mono block amps 200 watts each. I use my Sansui AU9500 as a pre and man it all sounded matched together. Planty of power to push the speakers and such a tube like power and sound. For me it was something great call it what you want but it sounds great.
 
Mister Pig said:
Sorry I do not believe in synergy. I do not feel there is combination that allows two particular components to all of a sudden perform above their combined ability. That is what synergy is, when two or more devices, components, people, or things work in unison to create an output that is greater than what could be expected or calculated from their individual abilities.

Component interaction and pairing can be determined by an understanding of specifications and measurements, at least to a significant degree. I am not really a hard core spec kind of pig, but understanding input impedance, dampening factor in amplifiers, slew rate, noise floor, jitter rate, and so on goes a long ways to explaining "synergy".

Does that mean there are components that sound better than to be expected at their price point? Of course there are these, and these products are what the frugal audio hobbyist searches for. But this is not some magical event, that can only occur by throwing random pairings of components into a boiling cauldron.

Are there components that sound good together, that are inexpensive? Sure there are. But these pairings often have significant limitations too. They only work with a certain type of music or style of recording. Or perhaps they are limited to a certain type of room and set up, although yes all components have a particular set up regimen. But in this case, it is far less forgiving, and many may not be able to duplicate it. Finally, it may just come down to the preference of the owner, who declares "synergy" has occurred, while others who get to hear it may go WTF?

So I am not a fan of the idea of synergy, nor am I a proponent of the idea of giant killers. For if a component can kill a giant in our hobby, well its a giant in its own right then too.

Regards
Mister Pig
Click to expand...

Semantics/nomenclature aside, I've experienced synergy and lack-thereof on different occasions.

My Unicorn must've left the room when I swapped out my Infinity IRS for a pair of Legacy Audio Focus HD. Very dissimilar speakers, yes. But the system was very well balanced. I couldn't return to that tonal balance without finally swapping out my Joule Electra LA-100 MkIII preamp. Spec-wise, it had variable output impedance, which didn't bring the magic back. It is a well-regarded preamp and most of your other spec/measurements you mention are more amplifier related. So if there were an impedance mis-match, it was covered by trying the different output impedance options.

I ended up swapping the Joule Electra for my current Cary SLP-98p. BAM...it was back. The sweet, velvety mid presentation I had previously (that had gone to grating, thin and fatiguing) was back.

In my lexicon, I call that synergy. If there were a definitive measurement I could have taken with my 'scope, when sonics fell apart (and I could've gone down a list of possible components to purchase, to combat that issue); I would agree that spec/measurement wise I could have had the same end result.

Since I swapped in/out quite a few very good preamps before landing at the Cary, I stand by my use of the term Synergy. The end result may not please me when I swap out my next component/upgrade; and the Cary (or amps, or cables, or source, or dac, or speakers...) may need to be replaced to get back to the tonality I want and expect.

How I wish there were the "Big List of Measurements and End-Results". How awesome to be able to pick everything correctly, the first time around. I'd love a copy of said list if you have one.:D:thmbsp:
Maybe I'm just crappy at knowing what components should be mated...:scratch2:
 
JoeESP9 said:
A lot of posters here that have tried Class D amps would disagree with Mr. Pig.
Click to expand...

A bit more detail about this sweeping generalisation would be helpful in moving a discussion along.

Which Class D amplifiers are we talking about, and at what price point? Are we talking about Class D Audio, H2o Audio, or Bel Canto? Or are we talking about inexpensive chip amplifiers such as the Parts Express, King Rex, or Trends Audio, which are Tripath chip amps and not really Class D. Or are we talking about more expensive Tripath based amplifiers such as Audiozone or 47 Labs?

Actually I do have a Class D amplifier I like quite a bit. The TBI Audio Millenia is one of these new fangled amps, and I really like it on 12 volt battery power with single driver speakers. I have not owned a lot of Class D amplifiers, and I have not had the opportunity to live with the expensive ones like the Bel Canto, so my experience is incomplete. But the modestly priced Class D amplifiers I have heard do have a similar sound in some respects. The amplifiers are nicely detailed at their price point, but tend to lack that last degree of micro detail and realism that higher performance conventional amplifiers can attain. I suspect much of this has to do with the effects of the output filter circuit, as the switching arrangement of the output devices create artefacts that must be dealt with.

I have never contended that gear sounds the same, it certainly sounds different. So it stands to reason that there are beneficial and poor pairings of gear possible. Is this "synergy". Not in my opinion, but rather careful component selection. In terms of Class D amplifiers, most are not designs capable of swinging lots of voltage and current. So while speaker efficiency is not a major concern, impedance curves and cross over phase angles are, and it makes sense that certain speaker designs will match up better with Class D amplifiers, and others will not. A bit of research is all it takes to develop a short list of appropriate candidates.

So that is my take on it, and certainly there will be those whose disagree with my thoughts, and they certainly have valid points to their position. So I live and let live.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
There is a current thread about Class D amps where this is covered.
Here's the link
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=509294

See definition of synergy below.

syn·er·gy
[sin-er-jee] Show IPA

noun, plural syn·er·gies.
1.
the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; synergism.

2.
Physiology, Medicine/Medical . the cooperative action of two or more muscles, nerves, or the like.

3.
Biochemistry, Pharmacology . the cooperative action of two or more stimuli or drugs.
 
Last edited:
NumbDiver said:
Semantics/nomenclature aside, I've experienced synergy and lack-thereof on different occasions.

My Unicorn must've left the room when I swapped out my Infinity IRS for a pair of Legacy Audio Focus HD. Very dissimilar speakers, yes. But the system was very well balanced. I couldn't return to that tonal balance without finally swapping out my Joule Electra LA-100 MkIII preamp. Spec-wise, it had variable output impedance, which didn't bring the magic back. It is a well-regarded preamp and most of your other spec/measurements you mention are more amplifier related. So if there were an impedance mis-match, it was covered by trying the different output impedance options.

I ended up swapping the Joule Electra for my current Cary SLP-98p. BAM...it was back. The sweet, velvety mid presentation I had previously (that had gone to grating, thin and fatiguing) was back.

In my lexicon, I call that synergy. If there were a definitive measurement I could have taken with my 'scope, when sonics fell apart (and I could've gone down a list of possible components to purchase, to combat that issue); I would agree that spec/measurement wise I could have had the same end result.

Since I swapped in/out quite a few very good preamps before landing at the Cary, I stand by my use of the term Synergy. The end result may not please me when I swap out my next component/upgrade; and the Cary (or amps, or cables, or source, or dac, or speakers...) may need to be replaced to get back to the tonality I want and expect.

How I wish there were the "Big List of Measurements and End-Results". How awesome to be able to pick everything correctly, the first time around. I'd love a copy of said list if you have one.:D:thmbsp:
Maybe I'm just crappy at knowing what components should be mated...:scratch2:
Click to expand...


Perhaps what we ar discussing is a matter of semantics, and the points being discussed are more similar than they are different. I would wager to bet that you see synergy as the vehicle at which components are paired, while I see it as a description of a process in which people assemble a system. What I call careful component selection, you see as synergy. Perhaps I am wrong too, and you mean something entirely different. If so I apologise, and look forward to reading whatever you respond with.

I certainly do not believe that short list of specifications I listed is a complete body of work to determine what components should work together, but those were the ones I could jot down quickly before leaving for work at 5AM. But specifications do matter, especially to those who design components. This is how they design and evaluate gear, even though many use the ear as the final arbiter of the design. But component traits are another bit of knowledge that can help through the component matching process. Speaker impedance curves, cross over phase angles, efficiency, amplifier output devices, circuit topology, tube types, and many other things can help form a short list of what compatible components could be. If you ar going to use a pair of Celestion SL600 or Apogee Duetta, then a stout SS amplifier is a good candidate for the system. Whereas if you have a monitor type speaker with 89 or 90 dB of efficiency and a simple crossover, then a nice 30 WPC tube amp could be a viable choice. If you have an amplifier that needs 750ma of input signal to reach full output, then a passive pre amp could be used. There is nothing magical about making well thought out and deliberate choices. As far as a copy of a list of complete specifications that can ensure proper component matching, we both know that does not exist, and certainly is not a substitute for experience, knowing what a person likes, or knowledge in terms of what components are capable of doing what.

Obviously you found something that works for you in the speaker swap example. That is what is interesting about this hobby. We are using gear that is developed by an applied science, engineering, to recreate an artistic performance that has already fallen into history. This is an imperfect hobby, where compromise and limitations begin at the mic and follow through the recording process to the encoding, and finally through our gear. To compound things there is no objective measurement of success, skill, accuracy, or authenticity. In sports you have an elapsed time for a race, and there is no subjectivity to it. Or a counting of strokes on the golf course. Or scoring more points than your opponent in basketball. In audio we have very littel objective measurements, except what is on a test bench or measured with gear in the listening area. So ambiguity permeates this hobby. Which means that there is more than one way to have success and satisfaction at this hobby, which is fine with me.

Getting back to this pre-amp example. now the amplifier is not mentioned, but I am guessing it is the Levinson in your signature line. Now this is my opinion, and certainly others may not agree with me. But I would put forth that the only pre-amp that will relay what the designer intended his amplification system to sound like, is the matching Levinson pre-amp to that amplifier stack. One could also say that Levinson pre-amps that are built to mate with that circuit, whether it is an earlier or later version would also be appropriate. One could also propose that a pre-amp with appropriate output impedance and voltage output can be successfully used with the amp. But if we agree that components sound different, including pre-amps, then the only component that would make the Levinson amplifiers sound like the designer intended is the matching Levinson pre-amp. So when another pre-amp is used in its place, the gear owner now becomes the designer for the sound is altered to what they want to hear. Not what the original designer intended. So I would say that you selected components that had a presentation that was pleasing to you, that is all. Which is fine, for we build systems to please out senses, but I still do not see that as synergy.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt "synergy" exists and probably not that elusive an occurrence.
Probably happening on some Ak'ers systems but they don't trust the "synergy" as it's supposedly so dang elusive:)
 
JoeESP9 said:
There is a current thread about Class D amps where this is covered.
Here's the link
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=509294

See definition of synergy below.

syn·er·gy
[sin-er-jee] Show IPA

noun, plural syn·er·gies.
1.
the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; synergism.

2.
Physiology, Medicine/Medical . the cooperative action of two or more muscles, nerves, or the like.

3.
Biochemistry, Pharmacology . the cooperative action of two or more stimuli or drugs.
Click to expand...

Sorry I went through all six pages of that thread, and found it to be a luke warm endorsement of Class D at best. there were positive comments out there for the Bel Canto amplifier, the W4S, and the $15K Spectron. While owners said they enjoyed their amplifiers and the sound, there certainly was no plethora of statements saying that the sound quality far exceeded what was possible at their price points.

The definition that you list, the first one seems to be the best fit for how the term is used in the audio hobby.

the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; synergism.

In that thread i did not see a consistent references to any events that could be referred to as synergy. Yes there are some, but not what I would recognise as overwhelming. or even abundant.

But I have nothing against Class D, I like the Millenia amplifier, to me it redefines what is achievable at an affordable level.

But I do not believe in the term synergy, although I do believe in care component selection and assembling a carefully thought out system.


EDIT: What I got from the linked thread is that there are those who enjoy their Class D amplifier, there are those who had disappointing encounters with the technology, and some who are interested in it. Whcih seems to me to be the same for all other types of audio gear. Some like tube gear, some don't. Some like vinyl, yet others do not. Some like digital and solid state, yet others do not. So to me, the thread is par for the course in terms of this hobby.
Regards
Mister Pig
 
Last edited:
Seems like this thread has become a debate over the existence of synergy in matching audio equipment, rooms, and other factors that influence an audio system's sonics.

It doesn't have to be. Even if you only mean to define synergy as componants that are well matched. There is a phenomenon that occurs, (perhaps it is perceptual phenomenon) when you put two pieces of equipment together and suddenly they sound better than your previous experience with said componants in other pairings. In fact, it sounds so good, that it redefines your expectations of the componant.

This is the phenomenon I refer to when I talk about synergy in this hobby. And it has happened often enough to make finding it part of the fun.

I should add that the end result is sometime so good that it upends contemporary notions of value and worth in hifi gear. As I have also found that sometimes very fancy and expensive gear can sound quite mediocre.

In this thread, some are saying that it has something to do with impedance matching. How does one do that? Match impedences. Is it something that you can measure for, or is it something you find by accident?

When I am on the hunt for synergy, I look at complimentary frequency response. For example, I used to own a Pioneer SX-980 and a pair of PSB Image bookshelf speakers. The PSBs were rather dark in their presentation. The SX 980 was always unpleasant in the high mid frequenecies area. To me it sounded glassy. But together they made a very satisfying combination. To me this is an example of synergy.

I am sure that there is no magic involved. I don't believe in magic. This is not magical pursuit. But it may be that the variables are not easily captured.
 
Last edited:
Synergy is a fun topic. Many of us (myself included) have been startled by something that sounded "special". The question is, how much was placebo, the room, or the equipment and source material? Generally I am a skeptic when it comes to "magical" explanations, but there have been a couple of times when I was at a loss to explain what happened. Keeps one humble to accept we may not understand what is happening. If I have to doubt something, I'll doubt my brain and hearing first, the room second and the equipment third. Unfortunately most of our measurements only do the last two reasonably repeatably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom