If I'm allowed to be subjective and objective at the same time, in this very "hot" topic first thing we can observe is that we have duality which creates opposing teams, which in turn creates a problem.
So, no matter the quantification of "how many of us, or how many of them there are", at least we can all agree that if there's no less than "one" in any of the teams, the "problem" can still be recognized and as a result any of the claims cannot be proved nor disapproved beyond any reasonable doubt to any of the "teammates".
Still, let's say that we are reasonable enough not to settle a dispute by the means of "brute force" and are gentlemen enough to solve the recognized problem in absence of any "arbiter of truth".
Any of you who disagree so far, please don't bother reading any further...
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it”, Albert Einstein
For the sake of simplification, let's rename this more desirable level of consciousness into something like "better vantage point".
So, how can we put into perspective this better, or more favorable "vantage point"?
Well, for one thing, both teams could make an effort in recognizing the line of facts which can easily be proved and never "disapproved", right? This way both teams can easily deduce "what's left" that all of us can concur with.
Again, all of you who disagree, please do not continue reading, otherwise from now on freely tell me if I'm wrong. So here we go in stating some facts which are true to the best of my knowledge, but please tell me otherwise:
Things which electric, mechanical, acoustical and other properties we CAN measure, with disregarding any errors of the most current technology, simply because this is the best that's available, until further advancement in accuracy, and in particular order:
- microphones
- cables
- acoustics of the recording studio
- recording equipment
- recording mediums
- mixing equipment
- studio monitor loudspeakers
- whatever converters
- whatever playback equipment (everything included with regards to which recorded medium and sampling rate we use for reproduction)
- loudspeakers again
- headphones
- listening room acoustics
- noisefoors
- airconditioners
- hairdryers
- anything you plug into something...
Even if I left something out, let us at this point agree that there is not a single thing that we cannot measure individually, at least one at the time, with disregarding measurement errors.
So, then, can we have a single peace of measurement equipment which can be used to measure all of the above, all at once? And throw a graph of everything, or at least provide us a viable theory which all of us can rely upon, no matter if we can all understand it? If there is such a thing, we could all learn to read what it has to say, right? Let's just say at this point that a spectrum analyzer on measuring the playback equipment isn't good enough for this purpose.
Hold on to this thought and let's move on to the things we simply cannot measure with any of the electronic equipment:
- State of mind of any of the performers at the moment they are recorded at the studio, nor any of the people recording them.
- Sum total of the artistic expression provided by all the above mentioned.
But, let's say we can agree that, after a lot of trial and error, a certain level of synergy is attained, and the best possible performance is captured, mixed and produced to the best of technology, regardless of anyone's musical taste. Ok?
Now let us question ourselves, when nothing is being recorded, but we attend a live performance and, regardless of the venue acoustics, how many times we got goosebumps in awe of a great musical performance? What is that thing in general, which can communicate to us this moment, or event, if you will? Thing which we can rely on, which made us understand and during this single moment relate to all of the artistic expression, "in a heart beat"?
Let us now agree that there is such a thing, we felt it at least once in our lives in a live venue, and for further sake of an argument, and in absence of a better term or definition we describe it with a single word, synergy. And let us say that we can all hear it, feel it and do not know how to quantify it or measure it.
Now, let us get back to sound reproduction and say that in the final mix of the recording artist everything can be leveled out and this kind of "synergy" accomplished, and we have a great recording, that at least some of us can relate to, and finally, like it. Maybe we cannot "hear it" throughout the entire recording, but we are at least contented with getting this kind of feeling at least in one passage, ok?
Now we go ahead, sit in what ever listening room setup conditions we have and hit the "play button". We "hear" this "synergy" unfolded before us, we happily compute it, sit back and reflect on the experience. We continue to contemplate why is it that we get those "goosebumps":
Was it because of the artists? It must have been, they were the first ones to perform.
Was it the recording engineer? Yes, it must have been too.
Was it the good recording equipment? Possibly not in the right order of things, but sure it must have been good enough to capture the event.
Was it because of my playback equipment? Naturally, it must have been. But, what component of it?
Is it my DAC? Is it my amp? Is it my speakers, cables or maybe the way I set it up or my room acoustics? Or perhaps all of it.
If it's all of it, then why can't we say that this "synergy" was successfully communicated to us because our system all together possesses certain level of synergy as well, yes?
Now, let's get back to the thought I previously asked you to hold onto and try to objectively quantify this "synergy" in a playback system. In order to actually be more objective we must then rename this term and say that we can all agree that playback system in total has to be "neutral" in it's overall frequency response and be able to simply perform with repeatable results any day, anytime in order to be truthful to the recording we know exists.
But can it be "neutral" if any of the components is not a "match" to the others? Possibly, yes.
But just in case it is not, can we deduce by using measurement equipment which one of the components should we discard and replace with a better one? We certainly do, if we understand what to look for in any of the components.
But, just hypothetically speaking, what if they all pass with flying colors individually and still aren't "neutral" all together? What if this is to happen? Can a spectrum analyzer tell us more in what should we correct, other than something is wrong? Is there a DSP and room correction software that can get us out of trouble for certain? If there's a culprit which cannot be easily corrected. Then how do we know exactly what to replace?
Well, I think then we ought to remember what we said about disregarding errors in our measurements. Why? Simply because if we apply certain, infinitesimal margin of error to a measurement of any of the components, we multiply it by a certain factor in trying to attain a "better vantage point" to a sum of results. And we already said that there is no such thing yet which can measure and compute the entire playback end of the reproduction chain. Bummer, eh?
So can't we all just agree that we cannot measure "synergy", or even describe it properly in a short sentence without errors in interpretation? And if yes, can this acknowledgement make us feel any better about the problem? It should, if we at least agree that we now have a better "vantage point", which in turn may lead us to believe that we can move on, and that we are certain to come up with a solution of the problem in the future.
There, I've said it. For those who shouldn't but have nevertheless read it, feel free to throw eggs, tomatoes and potatoes and use me for target practice. Otherwise correct me where I'm wrong.