What does Musicality mean?

[mep]

Since Ron and Tim were itching for a food fight by asking Art to define what musicality means and Amir asked that if people wanted to discuss that to take it to another thread, I thought I would start the thread here. Amir doesn't want Art's expert thread to get derailed, so here we are gents. Let the fur and feathers fly.


Many people think that the word musicality is a nebulous term that really doesn't mean anything. To other people, it simply means that something sounds musical vs. amusical. We all know (or I hope we all know) what real instruments sound like live. We also know when a component allows us to hear a close approximation of the beauty of the sound of real instruments. If your system makes drums sound like cardboard for instance, no one would describe your system as having musicality.

So to me, the word musicality simply means your system sounds pretty damn good and is faithful to the sound of real instruments. By contrast, an amusical system sounds like crap and loses much of the beauty of the sound the instruments are reproducing.

Either way, I don't get my hair on fire if someone uses the term musicality to describe a component or system. I think I get what they are trying to convey.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This food has long been thrown with no conclusions reached. That is exactly why, since Art has stated that musicality and imaging can be mutually exclusive goals, he needs to define what he means by musicality. No renewal of the food fight is necessary. Clarity is.

Tim

 

[mep]

Save the amateur psychology for a more appropriate forum. I agree with Amir's post. My question and that of Terry's were not invitations to (re)examine anyone else's definition of "musical". My question was specific, as was Terry's. We are solely concerned with Art's definition of "musicality" so we may have a clearer understanding of HIS original post.

I moved Ron's clever response to this thread. I don't see how musicality and imaging and soundstaging are mutually exclusive. I can see how you can have a system with musciality (being faithful to the sound of real instruments being played) but you have mucked up the imaging and soundstage by not placing your speakers correctly in the room. I think that was the point that Art was trying to make, but of course I could be wrong. I don't practice amateur psychology by the way, but thanks for the compliment.

 

[terryj]

I moved Ron's clever response to this thread. I don't see how musicality and imaging and soundstaging are mutually exclusive. I can see how you can have a system with musciality (being faithful to the sound of real instruments being played) but you have mucked up the imaging and soundstage by not placing your speakers correctly in the room. I think that was the point that Art was trying to make, but of course I could be wrong. I don't practice amateur psychology by the way, but thanks for the compliment.

oops. dunno why I pressed quote!

Not directed at anything you said.

We wait till Art clarifies of course, but I was pondering HOW it 'might' be true that some optimise musicality at the 'expense' of imaging.

I find the following possible.

Take the guy who just wants to 'tap his foot'. So he auditions and buys what he finds pleasing to him. He takes it home and sets it up.

The hypothesis is that he will STOP at the point were he finds him tapping his feet. That situation I feel applies to the VAST majority of people who listen to music.

However, and this I feel is the thrust of Art's point, those of us interested in doing things to the max, ie anyone presumably who frequents an audio forum, will go further and try different positions, will try treatments and the whole nine yards. (Oh, BTW, is that some reference to american football? Just realised I have no idea of the derivation!)

So that to me to include all points. It is not that I feel they are exclusive in any way, just that often (perhaps because it is unknown to the average punter that such improvements are possible?) it happens that tweaking stops once the first goal is achieved and no thought given to the second one.

I of course only came to this AFTER posting in art's thread yesterday, and as a result of posting yesterday.

 

[Ron Party]

Since Ron and Tim were itching for a food fight by asking Art to define what musicality means and Amir asked that if people wanted to discuss that to take it to another thread, I thought I would start the thread here. Amir doesn't want Art's expert thread to get derailed

You're just flat out wrong. I'm sorry, but I did not understand what Art meant in the context of his post. I don't care how you, Holt, or anyone else defines it for the obvious reason that Art may have a different meaning in mind in the specific context of his post.

I fully agree with Amir. Art's thread is an inappropriate place to discuss anyone else's definition.

Itching for a food fight? Starting a thread as you have done and inviting members to let the fur and feathers fly...well, now that is not just itching, that is a specific request! Repeatedly mischaracterizing my posts and claiming you know more about my intentions than do I, that is itching for a food fight and a personal one at that. You were wrong the first time, you're wrong again in (needlessly) repeating the mischaracterization in starting this thread and, frankly, it is not well taken. As such you are specifically reminded to take the high road in your posting.

 

[fas42]

So to me, the word musicality simply means your system sounds pretty damn good and is faithful to the sound of real instruments. By contrast, an amusical system sounds like crap and loses much of the beauty of the sound the instruments are reproducing.

+1

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So to me, the word musicality simply means your system sounds pretty damn good and is faithful to the sound of real instruments. By contrast, an amusical system sounds like crap and loses much of the beauty of the sound the instruments are reproducing.

No one with a serious interest in audio reproduction, from the audiophile with the dedicated room to the music lover upgrading his iPod to good IEMs, would disagree with this definition. Which means it is as nebulous as "musicality." Pretty much everything below, now removed from Art's thread, applies to the "sound of real instruments" as well as it does to "resembles live music." The main limitation is the recording. Given a great one, the iPod with good IEMs will get closer to the "sound of real instruments" than a great system will get to it with a bad recording....

Euphony, musicality...and many narrower but no more substantive terms are all attempts to make the subjective into some kind of pseudo-objective. It is so conveniently undefined that one man's musicality can be the edgy upper mids of Naim, and another's can be the lower midrange syrup of SET and they can still speak together of musicality, of euphony. It is the great enabler of subjectivist internet audiophile discussion, but it simply can't have more to do with the sound of live music (real instruments) than the recordings at the source of creating it. How can it? That is the question that remains unanswered.

Now, with all of that said, while I enjoy "musicality" in a recording, it is not of primary importance. On a modern recording by Kenny G, a sax will sound much more like the "sound of a real sax" than it will on any of my Charlie Parker recordings. I'll take Charlie Parker and earbuds over Kenny G and what's best in high-end audio any day.

Tim

 

[fas42]

The key phrase is "faithful to the sound of real instruments". There are a number here who have said at various times that no hifi system is capable of that goal; only perhaps achieved for some instruments on some recordings, at some volume, in some environment. So one means of distinguishing the capabilities of systems as far as musicality is concerned could be compiling lists of successes for each setup.

"Crap" systems are pretty easy to pick: they're the ones where not a single limb twitches to the slightest degree while a musical event is being "imitated".

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"Crap" systems are pretty easy to pick: they're the ones where not a single limb twitches to the slightest degree while a musical event is being "imitated".

Frank

I would take the opposite view: Given the right music, if no limbs are twitching to the sound of a cheap clock radio, the fault is in the limbs, or the soul that burns so coldly beneath them.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

I would take the opposite view: Given the right music, if no limbs are twitching to the sound of a cheap clock radio, the fault is in the limbs, or the soul that burns so coldly beneath them.

Tim

+1 ...

 

[flez007]

Hard for me to say somethinG different that does not go in line with musicality = faitfull reproduction of the original instruments sound. I have found that when a system is labaled as "musical" one forgets about the components/gear/make/design and starts to talk about the musical performance rendered by such equipment.

 

[microstrip]

(...) "Crap" systems are pretty easy to pick: they're the ones where not a single limb twitches to the slightest degree while a musical event is being "imitated".
Frank

This aspect is also a cultural thing - when I was a child and started going to classical music events there was a rule that stated that following the rhythm with your head, hand or foot was a sign of good musical sensitivity but very bad manners and lack of politeness to others ... The conductor and the musicians were the only ones allowed to move.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Many people think that the word musicality is a nebulous term that really doesn't mean anything. To other people, it simply means that something sounds musical vs. amusical.
.................................................
So to me, the word musicality simply means your system sounds pretty damn good and is faithful to the sound of real instruments. By contrast, an amusical system sounds like crap and loses much of the beauty of the sound the instruments are reproducing.

Either way, I don't get my hair on fire if someone uses the term musicality to describe a component or system. I think I get what they are trying to convey.

Fine. I think it is a nebulous comment and, since it doesn't really convey any useful information, a term that should be avoided but isn't. It would be more useful if someone described what they hear in more specific terms since what is "musical" for heavy metal sure ain't "musical" for Fauré.

Every time I find myself writing the term "musical" in an equipment review, I tell myself it is a cop-out and, usually, I remove it.

 

[mep]

I think sometimes we need to stop and smell the roses instead of running them over with a lawnmower. The majority of people on audio forums aren’t professional reviewers and shouldn’t be held to the same standards that audiophiles *demand* from reviewers when they are attempting to describe what they are hearing from their stereo system. Besides that, the audiophile word police can’t agree on acceptable words and the meaning of those words. So where does that leave us? Using the word “musicality” in a professional review may or may not be a copout for a reviewer who should have found more descriptive words to describe what they are hearing. I personally don’t get offended. I think I “get it.”

So, unless and until the audiophile word police can come up with an approved vocabulary and approved definitions for the words in that vocabulary, we are stuck wandering around the desert trying to make other people understand what we are hearing. And don’t sit on a picket fence waiting for consensus on an approved audiophile vocabulary. Audiophiles can’t seem to agree on much.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think sometimes we need to stop and smell the roses instead of running them over with a lawnmower.

Yeah, me too. But to not put too fine a point on it, when I read "musical" or "euphonic" on audiophile boards what it says, far too often, is "yes, perhaps my roses are measurably faint in scent, pale of color and not a particularly good reflection of breed standard, but they are more roseical. And good strong color, form and fragrance is not really the point, as the more roseical rose is more truly, naturally rose-like."

Put in a completely different context, perhaps it will sound as nonsensical to you as it does in this context to me.

Tim

 

[mep]

Yeah, me too. But to not put too fine a point on it, when I read "musical" or "euphonic" on audiophile boards what it says, far too often, is "yes, perhaps my roses are measurably faint in scent, pale of color and not a particularly good reflection of breed standard, but they are more roseical. And good strong color, form and fragrance is not really the point, as the more roseical rose is more truly, naturally rose-like."

Put in a completely different context, perhaps it will sound as nonsensical to you as it does in this context to me.

Tim

Your response shows why we are doomed to failure in coming up with a common vocabulary. Euphonic is the opposite of neutral. Some people don't like neutral. They want a heaping helping of euphonics in order to tailor the sound to what they like. If someone tells me a system sounds euphonic, I get the general concept. What the word euphonic doesn't tell you is what is causing the euphony. Is it an overipe mid-bass, a suck-out in the lower treble region, or an emphasis on upper frequencies? Why do you even care? If you know a particular piece of gear has been labeled as euphonic by several people who you have come to trust their ears, you are probably going to steer a wide berth from it.

Personally, I think audiophiles are like the Tower of Babel. We all are speaking different languages and I don't see it changing. We do love to poke and pick at each other though. If everyone was just as smart as each of us are and could understand that we really know what's going on amid all of the babble we would all be better off right? Come on! Get with the program and see things my way will you? I've got all of the answers. No, wait-you say you have them all?

 

[DonH50]

I don't have a good definition, and I am not sure I could even think of one in words (text) that is not unambiguous. One of those words "felt" and the definition is different for all. Here's mine:

Musicality:
1. In performance, playing the music, not (just) the notes; and,
2. In playback, hearing the sound (music), and not the speakers (gear).

Sort of a higher-level view... - Don

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Your response shows why we are doomed to failure in coming up with a common vocabulary. Euphonic is the opposite of neutral. Some people don't like neutral. They want a heaping helping of euphonics in order to tailor the sound to what they like. If someone tells me a system sounds euphonic, I get the general concept. What the word euphonic doesn't tell you is what is causing the euphony. Is it an overipe mid-bass, a suck-out in the lower treble region, or an emphasis on upper frequencies? Why do you even care? If you know a particular piece of gear has been labeled as euphonic by several people who you have come to trust their ears, you are probably going to steer a wide berth from it.

Euphonic is not the opposite of neutral. It is one of a constellation of ways of not being neutral although it is, by definition, a subjectively pleasing way. Like musical, it stands for an undefined subjective response rather than one that depicts the vector of departure from neutrality. Is it harsh and how harsh? Is the treble smoothed, how much and where? Numbers and/or descriptions are needed. Otherwise, there is no communication.

Personally, I think audiophiles are like the Tower of Babel. We all are speaking different languages and I don't see it changing. We do love to poke and pick at each other though. If everyone was just as smart as each of us are and could understand that we really know what's going on amid all of the babble we would all be better off right? Come on! Get with the program and see things my way will you? I've got all of the answers. No, wait-you say you have them all?

Right.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi
"Musicality" along with "PRAT" could well be the most useless yet overused terms in the Audiophile lexicon ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Euphonic is not the opposite of neutral.

I didn't say neutral, I said natural. In the vocabulary of the high end, they are seldom the same thing. Neutral is sterile, analytical, cold. Natural is the sound of the system that belongs to the audiophile who is speaking.

Tim