• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

"Things that cannot be measured"

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
And who is that person? It's not everyone who experiments with things like power cords. Most who do probably don't have the opportunity to set up truly controlled double blind tests like that.

Additionally, there's another factor to consider in the whole "controlled listening" setting.

My RME ADI2 Dac has a variety of filter options that do measurably produce different output. However, I'm not persuaded that I would always be able to detect a difference in a controlled A/B test. Sometimes I've changed the filter and forgotten to change it back to default (SD Sharp), and don't notice for awhile. Yet, there is a measurable difference in frequency or impulse etc.

So not being able to detect a difference in a controlled listening test is also not proof that no difference exists.

If you fail often enough, that asymptotically approaches 'absolute proof'.

And that's the best we've got. For anything. Including the existence of unicorns. Still, science marches on.

The relation between probability and science is maybe something you should look into.
 

Robert394

Member
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
66
Likes
18
Except, your 'noticing' is tainted by your 'knowing'.

Unless you deny all results of research on perceptual/cognitive bias.

Your post doesn't show any evidence that you even acknowledge it.

Of course the experiments with power cables are tainted by my knowing. I'm completely aware that my evaluations are flawed in that regard. That said, if you notice what I said earlier, I'm only trying to meet a standard of "do I feel this is actually better and if so, am I willing to pay for it." I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone else.

I've sent back quite a few cables and other gadgets and kept a few also. I maintain also that my own listening tests have led me to the conclusion that speakers are really 90 to 95% of the equation, with Dac quality at around 5-10% and cables and such making a difference at the margins, but enough IME that I will still test various brands.

If I were saving for a new system now I'd spend 100% of my current budget speakers and fill in the rest of the system after that, Dac included.
 

Robert394

Member
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
66
Likes
18
If you fail often enough, that asymptotically approaches 'absolute proof'.

And that's the best we've got. For anything. Including the existence of unicorns. Still, science marches on.

The relation between probability and science is maybe something you should look into.

It's better to stick to the ideas being debated than to get personal which is especially pointless when it's on the internet.

When you make this comment about "if you fail often enough, you asymptotically approach absolute proof" -- what exactly are you talking about? Is anyone aware of even one published scientific study on something like power or analog cables and differences in sound quality from a measurable or controlled listening standpoint?

I haven't really looked but I'm not aware of any real studies that show anything one way or the other.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
Is anyone aware of even one published scientific study on something like power or analog cables and differences in sound quality from a measurable or controlled listening standpoint?

I haven't really looked but I'm not aware of any real studies that show anything one way or the other.
That should give you an idea of just how preposterous the notion is.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
[QUOTE="Robert394, post: 745931, member: 15788"Is anyone aware of even one published scientific study on something like power or analog cables and differences in sound quality from a measurable or controlled listening standpoint?

I haven't really looked but I'm not aware of any real studies that show anything one way or the other.[/QUOTE]

There’s this, which makes a lot of dumb excuses, but yields the predictable result. https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

Despite the special pleading, nothing in those results suggests a departure from randomness. They did a lot better on one musical selection, and one guy got 70%. Actually, you might expect more than that.

There’s also this http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/02/measurements-do-power-cables-make.html
 

KeithPhantom

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
641
Likes
658

JuliaCoder

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
43
Likes
74
A Thousand Brains Explains Jeff Hawkins theory of intelligence for lay readers. He stresses the brain interprets sensory information to fit its models of the world. One example is a checkerboard with part of it in shadow. He shows 2 adjacent squares are exactly the same shade and knowing that, we still can only see them as one light and one dark because we know that's how checkerboards are. He also goes into how the brain is predicting what will follow every sensory input and reacts differently if the predictions aren't confirmed. Recognizing slight differences is important so it would follow that 2 sounds that look 99.99% identical to an instrument could sound different to us.

Jeff Hawkins talks to IEEE about the brain
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
A Thousand Brains Explains Jeff Hawkins theory of intelligence for lay readers. He stresses the brain interprets sensory information to fit its models of the world. One example is a checkerboard with part of it in shadow. He shows 2 adjacent squares are exactly the same shade and knowing that, we still can only see them as one light and one dark because we know that's how checkerboards are. He also goes into how the brain is predicting what will follow every sensory input and reacts differently if the predictions aren't confirmed. Recognizing slight differences is important so it would follow that 2 sounds that look 99.99% identical to an instrument could sound different to us.

Jeff Hawkins talks to IEEE about the brain

If they do sound different, then we should be able to demonstrate that with controlled blind testing, right?

Rick “then we can figure out how to measure it” Denney
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
Perception of sound quality is user dependent.

yes, good clarification- the appropriate Bayesian inference is that we can measure everything that can be distinguished by the human ear alone. What the other senses contribute to perception of audible phenomena is less susceptible to measurement.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
It's better to stick to the ideas being debated than to get personal which is especially pointless when it's on the internet.

When you make this comment about "if you fail often enough, you asymptotically approach absolute proof" -- what exactly are you talking about?

In science, nothing is ever 'absolutely' proved or not. All its findings are provisional, pending new data. You can fail and fail and fail to find evidence for a hypothesis being correct, yet, the possibility remains. It approaches zero but never gets there. Yet science doesn't 'behave' as if nothing is effectively proved or disproved. It couldn't advance otherwise. Absence of (good) evidence, contrary to folk wisdom, certainly counts as 'evidence of absence' in science. Provisionally.

There is a non zero probability that all the air molecules in your room could compact themselves into a corner, leaving you gasping for breath. But there's very good reason to expect it won't. Ditto, scientists aren't particularly worried about the so-far known properties of cables and human ears and human bias being overturned by evidence like yours.

Is anyone aware of even one published scientific study on something like power or analog cables and differences in sound quality from a measurable or controlled listening standpoint?

I haven't really looked but I'm not aware of any real studies that show anything one way or the other.

Your respect for science is such that you'll post unscientifically-grounded claims about hearing cable sound...discount explanations for them that are well-grounded in physics (the measurable properties of cable) and psychoacoustics (the limits of human hearing, the role of sighted bias in audio comparisons)...and then evince a need for 'even one published study' that suits *you*.

I recall one JAES paper discussing speaker/cable combinations that would prove audible (unless I am misremembering...it's an old paper). I can think of a few audio magazine articles and some tests conducted by audio hobbyists and reported online. The findings are as for 'amp difference'. In both cases, we can predict that, if components in a signal chain are mismatched badly enough, or defective enough for the intended purpose, there are audible effects. And by golly in the case of cables, if you skimp on cable thickness and length, or use crappy terminations, or don't shield them as necessary, those predictions prove true! In blind tests. The measurements show us why. There is no mystery about it.
 
Last edited:

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,292
Likes
3,880
In science, nothing is ever 'absolutely' proved or not.
Unless you are talking about mathematical theorem's. For example the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is proven, and nothing is going to change that. Just wanted to point that out, because there are still people out there that think its wrong.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,632
Likes
10,206
Location
North-East
In science, nothing is ever 'absolutely' proved or not.

In science things can be absolutely "disproved". It requires just a single, properly conducted experiment to disprove an assertion. Which is why, it's up to the subjectivist/believer in power cable sound differences to disprove that all such cables sound the same, and not up to the objectivist to prove the opposite, that being impossible to do in the absolute.
 

Robh3606

Active Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2016
Messages
132
Likes
123
What is the composition of water? There are many things that are undisputed facts. So to say nothing in science is proven doesn't ring true.
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
It's a formalism to say that you cannot prove that hypotheses are true, only disprove them.

Often, the real question is how far you can generalize off of any given experiment. e.g you test a drug and it shows great efficacy - but did you test on males and females? different ages, ethnicities? etc.
 

audiofooled

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Messages
530
Likes
588
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.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,700
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.

Well I am glad we cleared that one up.
 

JustJones

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
1,726
Likes
2,391
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?

This doesn't make sense to me. If we can measure individually then together they will measure as good as the least component. So if separate they pass with flying colors so to together.
 

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,554
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
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.


There is a clinical term for it. They call it "word salad":

WordSalad2.jpg


..while some go even further and call it "word diarrhea".
 
Top Bottom