What does Musicality mean?
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
My vote would go to PRAT as being the most useless.
What we must continue to remember is that listening to music and the enjoyment (or lack of it) is a very personal experience.
If you don't think so, then tell me why two music critics can sit in the same concert hall, listening to the same music, played by the same orchestra under the same conductor at the same time and arrive at two very different conclusions about what they heard. Or why everyone with a $5000 speaker budget doesn't buy the same speakers.
There is a term that comes to mind every time I see a thread on different views of the sound of a piece of audio equipment or different views of audio technology - analog versus digital or solid state versus tubes, or cables make a difference or they don't or .............
And the first word of that term is "mental".
We can't even agree on the terminology !!!!!
... until you hear a situation where it's so obvious. I have a good "test" CD for this: Joe Williams, "Blues in My Heart". The first track on a "crap" system is a total disaster, it was just passable on my friend's system a year or so ago. Two days ago, with the system very heavily modified, the PRAT was really happening. The track? A big band, in a big acoustic, as a warmup for what follows, doing a straight instrumental, with everyone driving hard, hard, hard. Brass, drums, the works, propelling the beat with everything they have.
On a less than reasonably optimised setup, a distorted, headache inducing mess; with a system with good PRAT, you feel you almost cannot keep up, beating the floor in time with your feet, you are always playing catchup to the band's pace.
So, definitely "big" sound in the way microstrip conceives it, and musical, because harshness was very low
Frank
The dynamics are certainly there, to the limits of the volume control and the voltage rails of the power amplifier chips. Harshness is where the main work is still being done, it can slip in so easily, and of course the cheap speakers don't help here. The friend's system uses Naim amp and speakers, Quad CD player, so the intrinsic quality of his components is well, well above mine: the benefits of that have shown in the last couple of sessions, his CD sound on undemanding tracks is smooth, very smooth; violins, classical guitar: very nice tone. But he's still striving for dynamics: up the volume control and it falls apart far, far too early.
Frank
You see, Jack, that's what I don't get. For me, a teddy bear system is the simple radio that Tim mentioned that allows the limbs to twitch, playing the music that's got the message: it works because of the omissions it makes. An adventurous, ambitious system that has everyone locked rigid because they are trying to cope with the unpleasantness of the sound for me is a "crap" setup because it's trying too hard, and getting too many now audible things wrong. So, sorry, a truly musical system should get the cymbals at 110dB right -- they should be intense, confrontational, in your face dynamic, the shimmer should run right through your body. The last word that should be used is harsh ...
Frank
Last edited:
I have my flame suit on now so here's what I think.......
I believe that any stereo system is musical, why, because all sounds that a system can produce are capable of providing the audience with a pleasurable feeling tied to the music being played.
IMHO, Musicality or musical is not a very good descriptive term in relation to how a specific audio system is able to mimic the sound of the 'absolute sound'. What i believe we are all trying to accomplish with our systems generally speaking encompasses two goals...
1) A sound that 'fools' us into thinking that we are in the presence of the performers that we are listening to, and
2) A sound that will allow us to relax and enjoy the performance, which is as close as possible to what was originally recorded onto the medium that we are listening to.
If you play an instrument or attend a live musical event, almost all of the sound that you are going to hear can be considered 'musical'. As an instrumentalist, I personally have a gauge as to how musical I am sounding on any particular occasion, but that isn't what's being discussed here
I believe that any stereo system is musical, why, because all sounds that a system can produce are capable of providing the audience with a pleasurable feeling tied to the music being played.
IMHO, Musicality or musical is not a very good descriptive term in relation to how a specific audio system is able to mimic the sound of the 'absolute sound'
. What i believe we are all trying to accomplish with our systems generally speaking encompasses two goals...1) A sound that 'fools' us into thinking that we are in the presence of the performers that we are listening to, and
2) A sound that will allow us to relax and enjoy the performance, which is as close as possible to what was originally recorded onto the medium that we are listening to.
If you play an instrument or attend a live musical event, almost all of the sound that you are going to hear can be considered 'musical'. As an instrumentalist, I personally have a gauge as to how musical I am sounding on any particular occasion, but that isn't what's being discussed here
I have my flame suit on now so here's what I think.......
I believe that any stereo system is musical, why, because all sounds that a system can produce are capable of providing the audience with a pleasurable feeling tied to the music being played.
IMHO, Musicality or musical is not a very good descriptive term in relation to how a specific audio system is able to mimic the sound of the 'absolute sound'
1) A sound that 'fools' us into thinking that we are in the presence of the performers that we are listening to, and
2) A sound that will allow us to relax and enjoy the performance, which is as close as possible to what was originally recorded onto the medium that we are listening to.
If you play an instrument or attend a live musical event, almost all of the sound that you are going to hear can be considered 'musical'. As an instrumentalist, I personally have a gauge as to how musical I am sounding on any particular occasion, but that isn't what's being discussed here
No need for flame suit .. You are absolutely correct...
Call it what you will Frank, sitting front row and center from an eager drummer is closer to harsh than sweet and distortion free. It's a piece of wood hammering on a piece of metal except that piece of metal is not a chime, a tubular bell or a tuning fork. It deforms unpredictably and the result is not a pure sweet tone. A look at a cymbal strike waveform will show just how ragged the vibrations are. In my view if a loudspeaker or the electronics smooths this out too much it's no longer a matter of fidelity. When that strike is meant to illicit a strong primal emotional response and instead you get sweet and shimmering, I find it a disservice to the artists that made the music. While my teddy bear system can make me all warm and cuddly, I want my main system to deliver whatever feelings a piece is supposed to convey. That means I want the scary and the angry along with the happy and the melancholic.
Dave,
Although I understand what you mean, the expression "thinking that we are in the presence of the performers" is too strong. IMHO, we need to recreate the same kind of pleasure we get from the performers, not imagine them in 3D like in a real concert - this would be needed "to be in the presence". Duplicating the exact experience is not possible - you are recreating perceptions, not duplicating the physical conditions. Here we have to enter the sound preferences. Surely many of the clues that make the event pleasurable are just those we perceive at live performances. However at live performances we also have visual clues, that are non existent in audio.
A sound as close as possible to what was originally recorded onto the medium is a very nice sentence - but as we know every system sounds different from another - which one is the closest? What is your criteria for "the closest" ? Usually this is the source of many disagreements.
So true ... Jack! Stop making sense!! ..
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Tim
This has been one of my favourite threads to read these last few days, so I thought I'd chime in and give you some of my thoughts on the word "musicality", and if it is something that even belongs in the lexicon of audio-speak. Personally I don't think it does, and I almost find it's usage somewhat derogatory as I sense some feel this can only be attained (possibly) by systems/components that are geared towords those with deep pockets. That pretty much is the death-knell for 90% of audiophiles as we can never hope to come even close in finding some sort of musicality in our systems. I (obviously) vehemently disagree with such a defination or suggestion, and I can assure you that regardless of dollars laid out, my system sounds very good and I think it is very musical.
This brings me to asking where the "musicality" comes from. Is it the system or the media? I suspect it's a combination of both. A crappy recording might even sound crappier on a high-end system then it would on mine, no? Maybe I have an advantage there! And then, of course, we have ourselves. We each have our own personality, observations, expectations and moods. Sometimes my media doesn't sound very involving, because I'm just not in the proper headspace for enjoying it. Other times it blows my mind. So while I think that my vintage/low to mid range system sounds very good...it can also sound unmusical when I'm disinterested and sublime when I am open and receptive.
Maybe the word needs to be redefined!
This brings me to asking where the "musicality" comes from. Is it the system or the media? I suspect it's a combination of both. A crappy recording might even sound crappier on a high-end system then it would on mine, no? Maybe I have an advantage there!
And then, of course, we have ourselves. We each have our own personality, observations, expectations and moods. Sometimes my media doesn't sound very involving, because I'm just not in the proper headspace for enjoying it. Other times it blows my mind. So while I think that my vintage/low to mid range system sounds very good...it can also sound unmusical when I'm disinterested and sublime when I am open and receptive.Maybe the word needs to be redefined!
Maybe we just need a new word. I vote for "good."
- My system is not full range, but it sounds "good" to me.
- My system is not expensive, but it sounds "good" to me.
- My system doesn't have the lowest noise and distortion, but it sounds "good" to me.
Recordings can be really good at capturing music. Playback systems can be really good at reproducing recordings. Music is "musical."
Tim
Micro, does your system image?
Please re-read my first post.
Dave,
Sorry, I can not understand what my system imaging ability has to do with my remark.
+1 (add zeros to your heart's content).
That's how I got into the hobby...the music, not the other way around.
No need to be confused - F. Toole addressed this issue in his book "Sound Reproduction". It is a question of statistics. Single events do not make a good system. But if a system systematically blows in your mind you are in a the good way! A good system will increase the probability of having a great musical experience and the quality and scope of the experience.(...) This brings me to asking where the "musicality" comes from. Is it the system or the media? I suspect it's a combination of both. A crappy recording might even sound crappier on a high-end system then it would on mine, no? Maybe I have an advantage there!
Maybe the word needs to be redefined!
Similar threads
