Synergistic Research: SCAM

[Iving]

13 hours ago, botrytis said:

no one says in a thesis, this is so new it can't be measured

 

Perhaps not in a thesis - because a thesis presents a position for defence - knowing in advance that the challenge is by nature empirical - and that evidence shall be garnered for support of an as-yet-unproven argument. But Science as a discipline would have nothing to explore without mysteries. And as we know Science respects "testability" - or the possibility that (as a matter of fact or by weight of evidence) a proposition might be proven wrong. Added to this - we respect the possibility that the very act of measurement can disrupt a system that may otherwise by unaffected (including its effects).

 

These remarks do not promote speculation over proof or even common sense. Far less commercial charlatanism in Hi-Fi.

 

The essential notion that there are many, many things humans cannot (yet) explain - and that very much more than probably there are even more things we don't even know about - pretty bleeding obvious to ordinary, humble intelligence.

[Blackmorec]

15 hours ago, botrytis said:

Not true about thesis writing, all are based on previous knowledge, hence why they have a literature review, as that ties back to previous research. I should know as I have wrote 2 Theses in my time as I have an MS and a PhD.

 

Also, no one says in a thesis, this is so new it can't be measured. That is BS. Same with their arguments.

Surely, given that you have written 2 theses you are familiar with the concepts and practice of indirect measurement and observation? Very common in scientific research, especially in psychology, where direct measurement is often not possible, simply based on the nature of what one is trying to measure.  

[Blackmorec]

4 hours ago, Confused said:

Ah, OK. So this would be measured as a "signal to signal" ratio, as this noise is not noise.

 

So what are, say, the top three causes of the "noise" that that imbeds itself in music? 

Here are few sources of noise that will benefit SQ when cleaned up

 

Wi-fi devices close to sensitive audio components

SMPSs on the mains supply

Poor quality power supplies

Oscillators (phase noise)

CPUs and Switching chip activity

Circuit board SMPSs

General cable and component leakage

General EMI in the environment 

Network traffic

 

[Blackmorec]

17 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Deleted duplicate 

 

 

[fas42]

As an example of how pernicious this noise is, I replied to @Confused recently in the Edifier thread that I had an issue with the Edifiers, where the optical cable had squirmed out of position just enough to touch a hard object - with loss of SQ. I adjusted how that cable was sitting, SQ was back, and I made a mental note that I needed to improve the stability of this cable run. But of course I didn't get a Round Tuit, - and today I was feeling, after running several CDs, that there was an issue. Looking around, nothing untoward ... finally, was that cable still in place?

 

Had to squeeze around behind the rig, and, yep, sure enough, that bloody cable had moved, yet again. And was touching what it shouldn't have. So, this time(!!), I secured it properly - and, yes, good listening was back in the house ... .

 

Could such a tiny thing be so significant? Yes, indeed it could - the subtle vibration which that cable experienced was just enough to add a small amount of 'noise' to the link. And I could hear the impact.

 

Unfortunately, this is how fussy you might have to be - depending upon everything - it's the nature of the beast; and to tame it you can either buy into the SR thinking - or do careful testing, and DIY fixes ...

 

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

As an example of how pernicious this noise is, I replied to @Confused recently in the Edifier thread that I had an issue with the Edifiers, where the optical cable had squirmed out of position just enough to touch a hard object - with loss of SQ. I adjusted how that cable was sitting, SQ was back, and I made a mental note that I needed to improve the stability of this cable run. But of course I didn't get a Round Tuit, - and today I was feeling, after running several CDs, that there was an issue. Looking around, nothing untoward ... finally, was that cable still in place?

 

Had to squeeze around behind the rig, and, yep, sure enough, that bloody cable had moved, yet again. And was touching what it shouldn't have. So, this time(!!), I secured it properly - and, yes, good listening was back in the house ... .

 

Could such a tiny thing be so significant? Yes, indeed it could - the subtle vibration which that cable experienced was just enough to add a small amount of 'noise' to the link. And I could hear the impact.

 

Unfortunately, this is how fussy you might have to be - depending upon everything - it's the nature of the beast; and to tame it you can either buy into the SR thinking - or do careful testing, and DIY fixes ...

 

 

Why are your cables moving on their own? Stopping this from occurring would seem to be the better solution here.

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Here are few sources of noise that will benefit SQ when cleaned up

 

Wi-fi devices close to sensitive audio components

SMPSs on the mains supply

Poor quality power supplies

Oscillators (phase noise)

CPUs and Switching chip activity

Circuit board SMPSs

General cable and component leakage

General EMI in the environment 

Network traffic

 

 

Proof? Like measurements? In most cases, with sound measurements, our ears are not as sensitive as the measurement equipment (as this was how our ears evolved), same with electrical. Other senses, like touch, smell, taste, and sight, not so much as for example with sight, our eyes are more sensitive to blue light. The picture is a sample of the purified enzyme, I produced for my MS and PhD work. Even though you can see the blue plainly, the instrument (UV-Vis Spectrophotometer) is not as sensitive to these wavelengths as our eyes are. It is an old film pic from 1992-3, so the resolution is not as good, sorry, but you get my point.

 

 

 

[Blackmorec]

Hi Botrytis, 

Actually no I don't get your point at all. A UV/Vis spectrophotometer is usually employed to do absorbtion measurements based on shining monochromatic light from a source through a sample and a reference cell, one with and one without the solution to be measured and the differential is the absorption spectrum.  What does that have to do with the eye’s sensitivity to blue? 

[Racerxnet]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

recently in the Edifier thread that I had an issue with the Edifiers, where the optical cable had squirmed out of position just enough to touch a hard object - with loss of SQ.

 

37 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Why are your cables moving on their own? Stopping this from occurring would seem to be the better solution here.

I'd have to suggest that the "optical cable casing touching a hard object" is dubious at best. How are the light pulses being sent to the receiver being impacted and causing sound degradation?? Did you measure this in any way, or is it pure speculation with your Frankenears? 😁

[Racerxnet]

4 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Hi Botrytis, 

Actually no I don't get your point at all. A UV/Vis spectrophotometer is usually employed to do absorbtion measurements based on shining monochromatic light from a source through a sample and a reference cell, one with and one without the solution to be measured and the differential is the absorption spectrum.  What does that have to do with the eye’s sensitivity to blue? 

I think that Botrytis is saying that test instruments are much more sensitive to changes than the human eyes and ears. He gave an example which is being taken out of context, or people are disingenuous with statements by others.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why are your cables moving on their own? Stopping this from occurring would seem to be the better solution here.

 

Because this is all experimentation. The point is to understand what's important, and what is the simplest and most cost effective way to improve the integrity of the parts of the chain; it's equivalent to prototyping an electrical circuit, where electrical parts are soldered together in a bizarre sculpture, making it easy to change things, and reverse mods. Damping the movement of cables can be critical, in audio, and the type of materials used to do this have a tendency to creep - an equivalent in real products are speaker supports with damping; over time these settle, and no longer perform as they should.

 

This is the first time I've used optical cabling, in audio. It's learning for me, to see what is required to get it, "good enough".

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

I'd have to suggest that the "optical cable casing touching a hard object" is dubious at best. How are the light pulses being sent to the receiver being impacted and causing sound degradation?? Did you measure this in any way, or is it pure speculation with your Frankenears? 😁

 

Vibration control is key in many areas of audio. Speaker cabinets, component shelves are some obvious examples. In regard to digital links it's well accepted that jitter management is important - so at least one explanation is that the plastic material reacts to outside vibration by then resonating at some natural frequency mode; just enough to add extra jitter to the signal.

 

In audio you can either hear a change in the SQ, or you can't. If you can't then you might as well buy the cheapest possible, or if bling is your thing buy the most impressive, and hang the the relevance to SQ, . For me, the difference here was whether there was a 'digital' edginess to the sound, as compared to being able to relax fully into the music.

 

 

[Racerxnet]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Vibration control is key in many areas of audio. Speaker cabinets, component shelves are some obvious examples. In regard to digital links it's well accepted that jitter management is important - so at least one explanation is that the plastic material reacts to outside vibration by then resonating at some natural frequency mode; just enough to add extra jitter to the signal.

 

In audio you can either hear a change in the SQ, or you can't. If you can't then you might as well buy the cheapest possible, or if bling is your thing buy the most impressive, and hang the the relevance to SQ, . For me, the difference here was whether there was a 'digital' edginess to the sound, as compared to being able to relax fully into the music.

 

 

Just as suspected, pure speculation without verification.

 

Happy Fathers day all!!!

[Blackmorec]

21 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

I think that Botrytis is saying that test instruments are much more sensitive to changes than the human eyes and ears. He gave an example which is being taken out of context, or people are disingenuous with statements by others.

Hmmm…so obviously you didn’t get the implication of what I wrote. 

When discussing the eyes’ sensitivity to blue light, it makes no sense to compare it with a uv-vis spectrophotometer, because a UV-Vis is used to measure either Transmission or Absorbance of light in a sample vs a blank,  and uses a very intense light source, which is then monochromated to the desired wavelength, so ‘sensitivity’ i.e the ability to detect low levels of blue light is not something that has any relevance to a uv/vis spectrophotometer. The closest you’ll get is the spectrophotometer’s ability to differentiate how much light is absorbed or transmitted by the sample vs by the blank….the differential being down to the actual amount of sample in solution.  In a UV/Vis sensitivity is basically ‘the differential sensitivity’ rather than absolute sensitivity. 

Now lets get back to audio.  

If you go back to my post listing sources of sound-quality-degrading noise, what Synergistic Research and a host of other vendors are doing is nothing more than providing mechanisms to mitigate some of that noise, with different products acting on different areas of the hi-fi chain and different types and sources of noise.  If your system is already very quiet, noise wise, then further small reductions will have a large impact on SQ, whereas if a system is swamped in all kinds of noise, a small reduction in one area is going to bring about very minimal changes. 

 

I just got back from a hi-fi show with >70 systems playing music and what was very noticable was that most systems shared the same problems, namely:

Lack of purity and transparency

Lack of really good imaging and sound stage depth

Lack of bass clarity 

Lack of detail, musicality and finesse 

 

For the most part one heard 2 loudspeakers and quite a lot of one-note boomy bass.  So was that because the equipment wasn’t good?  I doubt it as there were plenty of systems with really great reputations. What was almost certainly the reason for this universal below average performance was the incredibly ‘noisy’ show environment in which the systems were expected to play. 

Overloaded, clipped mains,  heavy vibrations though foot falls and multiple systems  playing loudly, huge amounts of power supply noise with USB chargers in almost every room, huge amounts of emi from all the wireless devices and mobile phones and of course unoptimized rooms, networks and installations.

 

Trying to successfully demonstrate anything in that environment was next to impossible…success defined as getting the best SQ possible from the equipment.  The only hope of success would have been to use a combination of comprehensive power treatment measures, especially well screened cables, exceptional vibration isolation measures, specialist earthing measures, network isolation, clean-up and retiming and some room treatment….exactly the type of stuff that Synergistic Research manufactures and sells. 

 

The bottom line in hi-fi, be it analog or digital is to deliver as close to a perfect, noise free signal or data stream to the DAC/amplifier. The closer to the ideal you come, the better the sound quality you’ll hear.  In analog, the law of diminishing returns applies in that it gets increasingly expensive to avoid adding noise for increasingly smaller gains, whereas in digital, the cleaner and closer to perfect the stream gets, the greater the impact of removing the last vestiges of noise and timing inaccuracies.  

 

So, in my opinion at least, Synergistic Research’s products generally make a solid contribution to improving sound quality by mitigating various types of noise in different area. Where I would agree with critics is that a lot of their marketing text is really high on the ‘hyperbole’ scale and low on scientific content and value.  I’m guessing the reason for this is their desire to conceal IP and a belief that the actual science lacks sufficient excitement and mystique…..the same reason Sushi isn’t sold as raw fish. 

 

 

 

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...sushi is raw fish? What have I been eating?!
 

Agree with you @Blackmorec for a number of audio companies: I wish there was more substance to the content, rather than, if you're lucky, hyperbolic and vague/mysterioso language.

Or no content at all. The only lifeline proffered is the 30 day return policy, which is "not nuthin" but is still a hassle. 

[botrytis]

22 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Hi Botrytis, 

Actually no I don't get your point at all. A UV/Vis spectrophotometer is usually employed to do absorbtion measurements based on shining monochromatic light from a source through a sample and a reference cell, one with and one without the solution to be measured and the differential is the absorption spectrum.  What does that have to do with the eye’s sensitivity to blue? 

 

As I explained, our eyes are more sensitive to blue colour than the instrument is, meaning the colours that come through are yellow and green which we are more sensitive to and makes even small amounts of blue easier to see with the naked eye.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

If you go back to my post listing sources of sound-quality-degrading noise, what Synergistic Research and a host of other vendors are doing is nothing more than claiming to provide mechanisms to mitigate some of that noise, with different products acting on different areas of the hi-fi chain and different types and sources of noise.

 

FIFY. There is no scientific explanation, measurements, or, in fact, blind tests to demonstrate that they are doing any of the above. How do you reckon they developed this new science with no known measurements or repeatable, objective testing? How do they validate that the product actually does anything at all, or, in fact, how do they do quality control?

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...well, these companies ask you to listen to their product, and on some level, I get that. But it's limited and sometimes feels like the angler fish wiggling that funny bit of flesh on his "nose" before he eats you whole.
 

But realistically, I'm sure not going to go through the palaver of listening to every product that someone says is wonderful. Although I do at times give consideration to forum members here and elsewhere that I think are sincere, thoughtful and have a track record I have followed.

 

Personally, I really want the technical/scientific/engineering content to make the first cut for my interest level, or whether I think a product might be net-positive in my system.  
 

I haven't usually identified a problem I'm trying to solve, but I am open to learning about improved solutions, or even adherence to best practices/audio hygiene. 

I am probably in the middle somewhere: not strictly requiring hard-data/measurements at all times, and open to new ideas that may lack the detail I wish it had. 
 

And frankly, absent the details, I would be more likely to "not" try a product. 

[DrT]

MarkusBarkus, there's nothing wrong with being content with whatever you have. In fact, you're lucky. We have friends, both affluent professionals, that have a Bose Wave radio; and they love it. Years ago I gave them a pair of Apogee Slant 6s, a Velodyne sub, and a Golden Tube integrated amp, and they've never plugged them in. Who are we to say they're wrong? They listen to their Bose Wave, are content, and like what they hear.

As per scientific measurements, how many speakers are out there that measure perfectly but sound bad? Many. Why do tube amps in general measure poorly but sound beautiful and why do most solid state amps (particularly when compared to tubes) measure perfectly but sound flat & two dimensional? There's an intangible, unmeasureable aspect to sound, our hearing, and how we process it that defies scientific measure. Pertaining to Synergistic Research and those that say it's a scam, I think most have a) never given it an open-minded chance either due to either its price or questionable explanation, b) never actually auditioned it except in maybe a poorly situated audio show listening room, or c) have never actually tried it in their system in their homes. In our case, it's the best thing we've ever done for our system; it truly made an amazing improvement. 

[Confused]

16 minutes ago, DrT said:

Why do tube amps in general measure poorly but sound beautiful and why do most solid state amps (particularly when compared to tubes) measure perfectly but sound flat & two dimensional? There's an intangible, unmeasureable aspect to sound, our hearing, and how we process it that defies scientific measure.

Is this mysterious? In many respects tube amps tend to measure quite well. They might have more measurable distortion than solid state, but this is typically harmonic distortion. Harmonic distortion is generally euphonic, so from a scientific and measurement point of view, a well engineered tube amp should sound great. Nothing intangible to see (hear) here.

[Confused]

On 6/19/2022 at 12:40 PM, Blackmorec said:

Here are few sources of noise that will benefit SQ when cleaned up

 

Wi-fi devices close to sensitive audio components

SMPSs on the mains supply

Poor quality power supplies

Oscillators (phase noise)

CPUs and Switching chip activity

Circuit board SMPSs

General cable and component leakage

General EMI in the environment 

Network traffic

 

No doubt much of the above stuff matters to some extent. As an example, it is well established how much noise some SMPSs can drive back into the mains.

 

That said, there is one point I made earlier that nobody has a (sensible and logical) answer to. In my system I can reduce the level of the music by -60dBFS (which is a lot) run my system at full volume (which normally would be ear shattering SPLs), and hear nothing but very faint music. When reducing the HQPlayer volume level by 60dBFS, the ONLY thing I am reducing in volume is the 1's and 0's that make up the music file. SMPS noise or anything else is not reduced by a software digital volume control.

 

I am not saying that there is no benefit from anything in your list, but I think the -60dBFS experiment must tell us something about what matters, where, and by how much.

 

I think the more the we can understand the exact mechanisms, the better we can focus out time and money on what matters. It is about knowledge and understanding.

 

And as an aside, when people say "trust your ears", I trust mine to a degree, but when we are at the very small change to SQ level I do not fully trust my ears. The problem I have with my ears is that they are connected to my brain, which is something not to be fully trusted I can assure you. (other brains might vary)

[DrT]

Thanks Confused; you're obviously a learned audiophile. But... why do solid state amps that measure well often not sound good? Is it because they lack that lovely harmonic distortion, and if so, why haven't the years of solid state development figured out how to produce that? To wit, we recently had an expensive ($22,000) Rockna Wavedream SE & a ($12,000) Rockna Wavenet - highly acclaimed ultra-modern solid state - that was blown away by a $9000 Art Audio tube preamp w/$9000 Wavelength Pelham tube DAC. It wasn't even close. The Rocknas sounded flat, compressed, 2D; uninvolving;  whereas the old-tech measuring poorly & 'distorted' tubes... gorgeous. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Euphonic distortion is the hallmark of high end audio.  This is especially true when it comes to phono rigs.  Tonearms with very low resonance (for example) just aren't as "fun" is others.  Look at what Fremer discovered with the VPI printed tonearm.

 

Just because some people are willing to shell out big bucks for euphonic distortion in their rigs doesn't mean euphonic distortion is universally desirable.  I personally want to hear is close as I can get to what the master tape sounds like.  That's why I prefer headphone rigs.  YMMV, of course.

 

 

[Blackmorec]

22 minutes ago, Confused said:

No doubt much of the above stuff matters to some extent. As an example, it is well established how much noise some SMPSs can drive back into the mains.

 

That said, there is one point I made earlier that nobody has a (sensible and logical) answer to. In my system I can reduce the level of the music by -60dBFS (which is a lot) run my system at full volume (which normally would be ear shattering SPLs), and hear nothing but very faint music. When reducing the HQPlayer volume level by 60dBFS, the ONLY thing I am reducing in volume is the 1's and 0's that make up the music file. SMPS noise or anything else is not reduced by a software digital volume control.

 

I am not saying that there is no benefit from anything in your list, but I think the -60dBFS experiment must tell us something about what matters, where, and by how much.

 

I think the more the we can understand the exact mechanisms, the better we can focus out time and money on what matters. It is about knowledge and understanding.

 

And as an aside, when people say "trust your ears", I trust mine to a degree, but when we are at the very small change to SQ level I do not fully trust my ears. The problem I have with my ears is that they are connected to my brain, which is something not to be fully trusted I can assure you. (other brains might vary)

The SMPS noise isn’t noise you can hear directly….its far too high frequency. The SMPS noise has some sort of modulating effect on the conversion of the digital stream to an analog music signal so what you hear isnt SMPS noise per se, its the SMPS noise’s effect on the creation of the analog signal. The SMPS noise interferes with the conversion of digital stream to analog signal so what you hear has been subtly changed by the SMPS noise. You don't hear the SMPS as separate noise, you hear it as a loss of fidelity.   

 

 

[Confused]

10 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

The SMPS noise isn’t noise you can hear directly….its far too high frequency. The SMPS noise has some sort of modulating effect on the conversion of the digital stream to an analog music signal so what you hear isnt SMPS noise per se, its the SMPS noise’s effect on the creation of the analog signal. The SMPS noise interferes with the conversion of digital stream to analog signal so what you hear has been subtly changed by the SMPS noise. You don't hear the SMPS as separate noise, you hear it as a loss of fidelity.   

Thinking about this. My headphone system uses a SMPS powered RME ADI-2 DAC fs. I also have a Paul Hynes SR-4 sat on a shelf doing nothing.

 

So there is an easy enough subjective experiment I could try here when I have some time.