In-Depth Explanation of the Audio Term "Synergy"


Hello: I've read and heard the term "synergy" bandied about frequently since getting into audio. Just the other day, an audiophile friend of mine said in an email. "Regardless of gear brand, I feel synergy is the most important thing to try and achieve really." This term "synergy" gets thrown around often and very easily. Most often I've heard this term used in the phrase, "amplifier-speaker synergy is the most important element of an audio system." I've always felt that if you put together a system and it sounds good to you or sounds "right", you have a system with amp/speaker synergy. I also felt that if your amplifier works with your speakers as it is designed without straining, clipping, running too hot, remaining stable etc., and produces good sonics with your speakers, then you have achieved synergy between your amp and speakers. I do an awful lot of research on the internet for all things audio (much to my wife's chagrin) and I've read several articles that discuss synergy. None of the articles I've read give a definitive and in-depth explanation of what "synergy" between a power amplifier or integrated amplifier and the speakers connected to it actually entails. So, I'm asking other audiophiles: What does "synergy" between an amplifier and speakers actually entail? Does anyone really know, or is this just one of those generalities that audiophiles put out there? What elements are really involved when synergy exists between the amplifier and speakers? I've always been curious about this subject
foster_9

Showing 6 responses by inpepinnovations1e75

It appears that indeed this is turning into a discussion of semantics. BTW, what does semantics mean? The answer to that question will explain why I say that the use of 'synergistic' to describe certain characteristics of an audio system is the wrong use of that word.
With respect,
Bob P.
Me doubts that Fuller 'invented' the concept of 'synergy', since synergy isn't a concept but a word with a definition.
His definition, as used in math, is closer to the chaos and unpredictability ideas than synergy. At any rate, Fuller's use of 'synergy' certainly doesn't fit any audiophile's misuse of the word!
Bob P.
What most are describing is 'Complementary' not synergy. One component complements the other by making up for its partner's weakness or characteristics with its own weakness or characteristic.
Synergy is when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, which in a sense, for good equipment is an oxymoron!
Synergy is a very misused term in 'audiophilia' - most of the time people mean Complementary or 'compensates for'.
Bob P.
Mrtennis, that is not synergy, but again complementary or balanced. An example of synergy and also why I say that synergy is mostly misused in 'audiophilia' is, when a preamp boasts 0.01% H distortion and its mating amp boasts 0.01% distortion, but if we measure the total distortion of the preamp-amp system we come up with LESS THAN 0.01%, instead of the expected 0.02% distortion. This rarely happens (in fact it never happens). It is possible, however, that the preamp-amp combination sounds better than what we might expect from having tested each separately for sound. The whole exceeds the sum of the parts!
Bob P.
Yes Tvad, but is the meal considered to be a 'synergistic' accomplishment? Not usually, but usually defined or caracterised as 'cuisine' or just good chemistry.
Again, I submit that 'synergy' does not exist in audio systems, i.e. there cannot be a system that is greater than the sum of its parts. There can exist, however, a system where the combination of parts adds up to a more satisfying system than any one of the parts would leave one to expect - sort of the 'zero-sum' concept, when one deficiency is cancelled out by another's deficiency. But that is not synergy.
Bob P.
I thought that we were discussing what synergy means and how that applies to audio systems, not that people misuse the term 'synergism' to mean something else, such as 'perfect', 'I love it and it pleases me', 'great sound' or 'better sound than when I had other equipment combinations'! Perhaps I am being too literal or 'objective' in my use of terms.
Respectfully,
Bob P.