Synergy and recommended pairings

Why do you keep banging on about Linn? What has that to do with the 'something for nothing' wishful thinking underpinning 'synergy'?

FWIW I've never heard a Koetsu sound worth listening to for more than 30 seconds, but my experience of them is limited. Why is choosing the correct loading for an MC an example of 'synergy' rather than simply correct matching? FWIW I would expect that if a low output MC sounds better into 47k rather than the 100-500 it was designed for this is a symptom of something else being wrong.

Elsewhere on the forum you were suggesting that the deficiencies of cone in box speakers were necessary to your enjoyment of some types of music. This is an example of 'synergy' but it's not 'hifi'.

Paul
 
Copland & Sonus Fabers,

Alot of people use this combination,and they seem to gel very well together.
 
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
Bad equipment connected to bad equipment might be expected to sound bad. Why are you surprised?
Click to expand...
You could hardly call a full dCS front end (Verdi/Purcell/Elgar) "bad equipment" (even if it's not to your personal tastes) but it sounded like utter shite when hooked up (via an amp I don't remember) to the Overkill audio speakers. Since the speakers and amp apparently sounded incredible with the VPI turntable there must have been something odd going on.

Michael.
 
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
Why do you keep banging on about Linn? What has that to do with the 'something for nothing' wishful thinking underpinning 'synergy'?

Paul
Click to expand...

Because Paul, you state that all you need is well designed products throughout the chain. As I presume you would not consider your personal components to be badly engneered, certainly judging from the ease with which you seem to consider yourself qualified to dismiss other people's opinions, I am simply wondering why they don't reproduce recorded media any more acurately.

Elsewhere on the forum you were suggesting that the deficiencies of cone in box speakers were necessary to your enjoyment of some types of music. This is an example of 'synergy' but it's not 'hifi'.
Click to expand...

Again I feel you are maybe wide of the mark. I am talking about music that uses electronic rythmn sections, guitars and synthesisers. When reproduced live, these forms of music rely on dynamic transducers to reproduce the waveforms. Therefore I would suggest that doing the same at home will provide a more authentic reproduction. I have yet to see full range ribbon or Stat PA or club system after all.
 
Because Paul, you state that all you need is well designed products throughout the chain.
Click to expand...
I said 'good' which I suppose pre-supposes 'well designed' but well designed doesn't necessarily mean 'good'.

And I never stated that this was all you needed, what I dispute is the concept of 'synergy' also termed 'supercompatibility' at one time.

As I presume you would not consider your personal components to be badly engneered, certainly judging from the ease with which you seem to consider yourself qualified to dismiss other people's opinions, I am simply wondering why they don't reproduce recorded media any more acurately.
Click to expand...
I consider most Linn equipment to be well engineered, the old collection of bits I use also qualifies as 'good'.I don't have any experience of recent Linn components, so I can't specifically comment.

FWIW I'm not dismissing other peoples opinions, I'm challenging their assertions. This leads to debate. Convince me hifi synergy exists rather than telling me that my gear (which you've never heard) doesn't reproduce recorded media 'accurately'.

I am talking about music that uses electronic rythmn sections, guitars and synthesisers. When reproduced live, these forms of music rely on dynamic transducers to reproduce the waveforms. Therefore I would suggest that doing the same at home will provide a more authentic reproduction.
Click to expand...
How do you reconcile this use of 'authentic' with your earlier expectation of 'accurately'?

When I play Jimi Hendrix through my Quads do I not hear the authentic sound of Fender and Marshall? Why do I want to colour it up further?

Paul
 
At the low end, one of the well known synergies that has been known for a good few years is the B&W DM600 series speakers on then end of Rotel amplification. The centre of a fair few budget systems out there I imagine, and I enjoyed my (relatively brief) time with such a combo. However, the meadowlarks have shown the weaknesses that the 602s had, and unfortunately also they're showing the weaknesses of the 971 too...
 
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
FWIW I'm not dismissing other peoples opinions, I'm challenging their assertions. This leads to debate. Convince me hifi synergy exists rather than telling me that my gear (which you've never heard) doesn't reproduce recorded media 'accurately'.
Click to expand...

Paul I am all in favor of debate. However I find it difficult to do this with someone who just says "no" all the time. Much like a small child repeating the word "why" after each explanation. If you would allow yourself to be convinced (something I doubt), then you will need a demonstration rather than a debate. Even then, I doubt you would accept the findings of your ears, as your brain would not be able to process the contradictory data.


When I play Jimi Hendrix through my Quads do I not hear the authentic sound of Fender and Marshall? Why do I want to colour it up further?
Click to expand...

That depends surely. If you are listening to a recording miked in the audience for example, then your version would be accurate and authentic. Unfortunately, if the recording was taken from the mixing desk, we don't listen to that signal without it first going through a cone. In this case your representation is, IMO, less authentic. Were you to have been at the concert, the sound you would have heard would have been processed by a large rig.

Regardless of the rather boring theory I have been forced to put forward, I have yet to hear a full range electrostatic that produces the right effect. The drive the room differently for starters. This is noticeable to me.
 
If I place a mic in front of the Marshall stack then surely I want to reproduce that signal exactly, rather than further conify it? In principle anyway...

Even then, I doubt you would accept the findings of your ears, as your brain would not be able to process the contradictory data.
Click to expand...
You're very keen to think for others.

'Synergy' is a contradictory concept. It implies that I could improve a source and yet the performance would not improve because the previous source was 'synergistic'. What is wrong with my understanding?

Anyway, what synergy would you demonstrate?

Paul
 
Back to the orginal question, the following for me have serious 'gel' factor, based on personal and listening experianices

Wadia/Belcanto

Dcs/Spectral

Belcanto/Acoustic Zen speaker cables

Townshend Isolda/Monitor Audio Gr 20's

Meadowlark speakers/Belcanto

Monarchy Audio dac33/Belcanto

JM labs Mini Utopia's/Valhalla speaker cable (woke them up)

Densen B300/Neat Mystic's

Sonaus Fabor/£5k floorstanders with the 3 diver array/Advantage S1 cdp

Spectral/Egglestonworks Andra's

Blue Heron 2's/Nap 500's (brace) surprising good too

Arcam A32 & P32/GR 20's

Gryphon Adagio & Manley Stingray

Well Tempered & Manley steel head

some personal thoughts there. WM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
'Synergy' is a contradictory concept. It implies that I could improve a source and yet the performance would not improve because the previous source was 'synergistic'. What is wrong with my understanding?
Paul
Click to expand...

What do you mean by improving the source?

Maybe you could explain to me, given some of your comments, why you choose to use Briks?

Could you give me an example of recordings where the mike is placed directly in front of the marshall stack. Is this common? You might be interested to know that low distortion cones do exist.

Surely the mixing engineer has to balance the recording whilst listening through cones? But you would choose to play it back without this would you?
 
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
'Synergy' is a contradictory concept. It implies that I could improve a source and yet the performance would not improve because the previous source was 'synergistic'. What is wrong with my understanding?
Click to expand...
Paul,

That's not contradictory - it's real life. While I would agree with you in an ideal world, the fact is the world is not ideal. For example, nothing exhibits a perfect 8 ohm non-reactive load over the full frequency range. As I see it, "synergy" is where two components work with each other to counteract their respective non-idealities, rather than aggravate them. Audio-Note/Snell speakers are supposed (by the manufacturer if no-one else) to provide a load that complements the phase profile of their valve amps. IIRC, PMC use Bryston amps to test their speakers, so it would make sense that they sound best with the amps they were designed to couple (Bryston having a ramrod flat frequency response would also imply a good design philosophy too).

To put forward another well-known particular case (purely by hearsay - I've not heard the combo so I'm not verturing my own opinion), the boomy bass of the LP12 is compensated for by the leanness of Naim electronics ;) . I would agree though that this would seem to be a strange way of designing hi-fi!
 
There are technical compatibilities (impedence matching, speaker sensitivity, cartridge loading and the like), everything else, with no exception, is personal preference. Not "synergy", but taste. Let's not pretend there's any more to hi-fi than that, because there isn't.

-- Ian
 
What do you mean by improving the source?
Click to expand...
Making it better?

Maybe you could explain to me, given some of your comments, why you choose to use Briks?
Click to expand...
Because I like them. Because they're cheap. Because a nice pair(!) turned up last year. Because they work in my room. Because I don't need 'subs' to shake the bathroom floor. Because I only need 80W amps to damage my hearing.

Surely the mixing engineer has to balance the recording whilst listening through cones? But you would choose to play it back without this would you?
Click to expand...
So, to follow your argument, we should be using the same speakers as the recording engineer in a control room environment? Is this another vote for active ATCs?

Paul
 
Audio-Note/Snell speakers are supposed (by the manufacturer if no-one else) to provide a load that complements the phase profile of their valve amps.
Click to expand...
This, if true, is a technical compatibility thing rather than 'synergy'. Although one presumes that any good amp can drive Snells, but Audio-Note amps cannot drive any good speaker.

the boomy bass of the LP12 is compensated for by the leanness of Naim electronics
Click to expand...
I think this is a myth. An explanation for early CD players sounding crap in good systems...

Paul
 
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
This, if true, is a technical compatibility thing rather than 'synergy'. Although one presumes that any good amp can drive Snells, but Audio-Note amps cannot drive any good speaker.
Click to expand...

Here's a few pedantic comments from me, unfortunately a little off-topic to WMs question.

It was earlier stated that valve amps happily drive the difficult to power apogee speakers. As Lee once told me, this is because valve amps are a current source which remains relatively constant - whether the speaker is 4 ohms, 6 or 8 etc. I hope Ive quoted him accurately.

This would infer then, that in the case of valve amplification, the usual rules of matching sensitivity to output of the amplifier in Watts frequently dont apply.

To the above quote then, perhaps (if the original comment is true (I dont know)) then audio-note amps can drive a variety of speakers including difficult loads, but have a characteristic in their sound which matches well with their own speakers.

---------------------

On the comment regarding Marshall amplification - well, from experience Marshall cabs have either 4 x 10 or 4 x 12 inch cones in them. A full marshall stack will have 2 cabinets one on top of the other, so we are talking about 8x 10 inch or 8 x12 inch cones. Essentially they are quite sensitive speakers, with valve amplification of between 50w and 100w (they are often mono).

So, a large quantity of large cones being driven by a not particularly powerful valve amp... Id suggest to recreate that, you need a (very) full range speaker being driven properly - either by a valve amp as per the marhsall stack or solid state. Deep warm bass is the order of the day..

I'd argue that electrostatics that I have heard do not possess the ability to 'move air' that a cone has - and cannot therefore recreate the energy of the original amplification. They do have a clarity that cones dont seem to have, but a marshall stack is more about punch than clarity IMHO

I dont know if Ive muddied the water or pissed people off? oh well!

press play on your CDP/TT and foget about it I guess :)

Chris
 
Chris I have a few Celestion AD 12 Subs kicking about, these are the drivers from the marshall 4 * 4 Cabs, they made great subs in their day, had a pair in a ported (twin 3 inch dia, 8 ich long flared pipes) .7m cubic box, They rocked rather well, with 1Kw of Genesis amplification on them.
Oh, This morning I went to Andy's for Timps 'x' over back, and listened to a class 'd' valve amp, now that wasn't very intresting, next time you over Chris, we'll go and see him, he just done a 'pre verison' too' Tone
 
Originally posted by bottleneck
So, a large quantity of large cones being driven by a not particularly powerful valve amp... Id suggest to recreate that, you need a (very) full range speaker being driven properly - either by a valve amp as per the marhsall stack or solid state. Deep warm bass is the order of the day.
Click to expand...
Sounds like we all need JBL K2's then :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top