@MattHooper has left those possibilities open as he qualifies the description he uses. Which is much better subjectivism. But without the authority, what is the point of a journal?
Yet now, in one sense, the word has meaning - he hears this: but in another it is in fact meaningless after all, because I can't know or place the property he is describing. Does that, er, make sense?
This gets in to some interesting territory and I'm curious about your thoughts on the following.
I've tried to at least plant a flag in the ground, or a line, separating the question of a word being "meaningful" vs "accurate." Where "accurate" means in this case "reporting something true, not imagined.
So for instance one can have a meaningful concept that is never actually accurate or true, like: Unicorn.
There's an actual definition in dictionaries for "unicorn" and mostly we know what someone is referencing. But if anyone reported seeing a unicorn, we would presume they are imagining it. In the same way, we need to separate the question of whether someone can supply a coherent definition of "synergy" (what they mean by the word, as an audio term) from whether they are "imagining the effect" or not.
I think I provided a reasonable sketch as an example here:
What you did (in the part I snipped) were not 'experiments' in any scientific sense. They were observations with no controls in place to elevate them to the level of experiment. And here comes the cognitive dissonance when considering becoming objectivist. Let's say one has 10, 20 years or...
www.audiosciencereview.com
But let's take your concern about the objective aspect of a claim. My claim was only anecdotal, but for the sake of argument, what if we could point to objective evidence.
Let's say we could point to measurements showing the tube amps are subtly/audibly altering the frequency response, rolling off a bit of highs at some point, some low Q rise in the warmth region, maybe less control over the woofers thickening the bass response, possibly some harmonic distortion sprinkled in there (again, for sake of argument).
What word will apply there and why?
It seems like it will depend on what one's goal is and/or what we are trying to get across.
I would think an ASR member inclined to keep to words like "compatible" is the type who would be disinclined to call that combination "compatible." That's because "compatible" to that person likely means an amplifier that would allow the speaker to produce the intended frequency response (and not introduce added distortion of it's own anywhere).
But that wouldn't account for someone else who likes or desires the result.
It seems to me the same person, when given these objective measurements, also wouldn't be inclined to use the term "synergy" either, for similar reasons. That is essentially a positive term, and it is not a positive combination for that person.
So, in that sense objective verification wouldn't necessarily establish the term as "useful" even to the "objectivist" seeking neutrality.
"Synergy" would, though, be a useful descriptor for someone who is seeking the sound produced by that combo (like me). And the reason "I" or anyone else might "like" it will necessarily be due to it's subjective effect. Which can be described in subjective language.
So what has been established is the fact there is a measurable/audible characteristics to the pairing. The usefulness of the term is still up for grabs.
And this is where communication comes in. You don't necessarily need to agree with or use the term "synergy" yourself to understand what someone is getting at.
If we go strictly from the measurements, I point to them and I say "I like this amp/speaker combo, I find the sonic character "synergistic" vs the speakers with a solid state amp, you could at least look at the measured effects and say "Oh, he likes a roll off here, a boost there, some distortion there, that's what he means by finding this pairing synergistic." But another way of understanding it is to understand the subjective descriptions OF those measurable effects - warmer, rich, more filled out, more body, smoother less sharp highs, thicker less tight bass tone, etc. And subjective-oriented audiophiles can "know what the other guy means by synergistic" and also communicate exactly "how" a pairing is synergistic by using subjective description. So...it's meaningful. The question can always remain if it's "accurate" or not. (And paradoxically enough, the people MOST inclined and able to find out if it's accurate, are the ones least inclined to understand or assign any meaning to the language).
Whew!
)
