What does Musicality mean?

[fas42]

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

Jack, we'll have to agree to disagree. As DaveyF said above,"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'.". From that point of view I would consider a crash cymbal to be musical: it may not have a pure note, but the overtones create a rich and powerful sound envelope which can be very, very easily badly reproduced. Some months ago I was listening to a grandson proudly showing off his skills on a beginner's drumkit, my ears were only a couple of feet away from the pretty rough and ready, decidely downmarket cymbals, in a bit of a cavelike room. The sound was intense, my whole body was shaking from the raw power of the sound, in spite of it being made on a cheap and cheerful instrument. Yes, the shimmer could have been "better", richer, but there was no way I would have called it harsh; what it most certainly had in spades was "bigness", the very thing missing from most systems ...

Frank

 

[terryj]

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.

An interesting point John.

It's true tho innit, an expose of the audiophile mantra.

I 'cop' it all the time! (to set the stage, personally I don't give a toss about amp sound 'quality', cables, isolator cones blah blah blah) and, only needing a digital out connection, I use the cheapest cd/dvd player I can get my hands on. Am talking max $100 or so from the best buy equivalent.

And, sure as rain, the knowledgable comments will follow...'you cannot get good sound (or in this case, musicality) from a cheap cd player, let alone a dvd player'.

Oh yeah? Ask earle.

Until of course the person hears it. (I am often deliberately 'provocative', so I would NEVER have anything 'better' now! haha as the look of confusion on their face is priceless).

They have simply bought into the audiophile myth. I never make the argument that I could NOT get 'better' sound with an expensive front end, but I know the return for the dollar is completely out of proportion, and any money spent there takes away from real, tangible benefits...room treatment, better subs, better speakers, better methods to integrate the two.

Oh, and any money left over can buy music.

The reverse?? Well, to be frank, I have heard mega buck systems that leave me cold, or a sense of bewilderment. THAT is the goal of spending all that money?

And the entire ball of string is scrambled by this type of talk...musicality. Yet another audiophile weasel word.

(synergy is still my favorite example of a completely useless word).

You just cannot fight the entrenched audiophile BS! It is so complete, ubiquitous and accepted that it sneaks in under everything written in the audiophile press. THAT it is SO fundamental is the reason it permeates everything.

One of the few audiophile 'rags' that has any cred with me still has it underlying all the words. There is/was a series on 'quality budget systems', in various price ranges.

Ie, fighting the trend to multi hundred thousand dollar systems as the 'only' way to achieve (in this case) musicality.

Excellent!

Then I am shocked and aghast to read a cabling recommendation!

****, was this NOT supposed to be about maximising return on the dollar? Man, go to your local electrical store and buy 14 guage speaker cabling for 30 cents per foot! Ten percent (say) of the budget for speaker wires??!! Get the wires from that electrical store, get an amp of sufficient power, and use that monetary saving to (probably) elevate yourself into the next higher rung!

So even when there is an attempt to fight the industry reality, it is still there, seeping and weeping it's way thru it all.

40% of the budget on amps?? (cause you need quality watts that SOUND good..)

Better leave it there I guess. I think my views should be clear by now.

But you are right. It is an all pervading miasma.

 

[DaveyF]

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".

Micro, is not the imaging in one's system also a visual clue? Can you not see if your system's imaging is exact enough, where the performers are on your re-created stage. A stage that hopefully extends between your speakers, and if your system is up to it- maybe even outside the edges of your speakers. I'm not even referring to depth here, which again if your system is up to it, should also be portrayed.

All of these aspects are undoubtably audible clues, but in some ways, IMHO they are also visual. ( ok, imaginary visual but still IMO valid)

 

[welwynnick]

What an interesting thread - I wish the "popular" forums would discuss this sort of thing, rather than the usual "can anyone help me decide", "look what I've just bought", "look what's just gone wrong" or "look how clever I am"......

Quantifying musicality may be doomed to disagreement, but I've been thinking about it and listening for it for many years. I was surprised that some people thought it was about making an instrument sound like an instrument. An instrument played badly will be unmusical, but it will still sound like an instrument. I think its what's being played that's more important, not so much what it sounds like.

There are plenty of systems that are transparent and neutral to the n'th degree, but which don't sound musical. Here in the UK, when I was at university, Linn and Naim were very influential, and the foot-tapping abiltiy of a system was considered to be an important measure. In other words, was it easy to follow the rhythm of the music? Never mind the bass or the treble or the mid-range - what are the writer and the performer trying to do - what are they trying to communicate?

Its probably not about trying to plumb the deepest bass (unless you want to guarantee a top-ten hit) or the most sparkling treble, because just listening to sounds for the sake of it isn't very entertaining. I think its more about how the different sounds fit together in a sequence and over time - how the individual sounds relate to eachother - the temporal relationship (golly!). Like good comedy, I think timing is the key, how one note hands over to the next, and the next..... Each word or note or phrase has to start, stop, decay, pause, overlap or whatever the writer wants, and do it the right way. If a note lingers too long, its will muddle up the others. If it decays too fast, it will leave a gap before the next one, where it shouldn't.

Get it right, and the expressions and phrases of the music will be developed, replayed, maintained, and will be entertaining, so that you will want to keep listening. Get it wrong, and you might come away being impressed with the "sound" that you've just listened to, with its great tonal and dynamic ranges, and you pat yourself on the back for having golden ears, but then you go and do something else more interesting, wondering why that music ever been written in the first place.

Nick

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are plenty of systems that are transparent and neutral to the n'th degree, but which don't sound musical.

If the system is truly transparent and neutral, then, by definition, it is the recording that does or does not sound "musical."

Here in the UK, when I was at university, Linn and Naim were very influential, and the foot-tapping abiltiy of a system was considered to be an important measure. In other words, was it easy to follow the rhythm of the music?

It's difficult to believe that so many actually fell for this dumb marketing ploy (not to mention the upgradeable power supplies). Did they really find the rhythm of the music lost on non-Naim/Linn equipment? Really? 10th Avenue Freeze Out comes out of their clock radios and they just couldn't get the rhythm? Their feet wouldn't tap? PRaT - Pace, Rhythm and Timing. Really? The choice of electronic playback equipment actually changes the timing of the music it plays? Throw it the bin. As a musician who has tuned a guitar to recordings and learned the rhythm from them as well, on all kinds of audio equipment, I can tell you without hesitation that they only pieces of audio equipment I have ever owned that have had the ability to impact the pace, rhythm and timing of a recording were turntables and tape decks.

Tim

 

[mep]

I always disliked the term “PRAT,” but it sure gained wide-spread acceptance in the audiophile vocabulary. I get what you are saying about timing Tim. Unless your source components are turning fast or slow, they can’t change the inherent time signature of the music they are playing. However, the higher the fidelity is to the source, I do think that you can become more aware of the time signature being played (or hear it more easily). It’s kind of like turning a camera lens and having everything snap into focus.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I always disliked the term “PRAT,” but it sure gained wide-spread acceptance in the audiophile vocabulary. I get what you are saying about timing Tim. Unless your source components are turning fast or slow, they can’t change the inherent time signature of the music they are playing. However, the higher the fidelity is to the source, I do think that you can become more aware of the time signature being played (or hear it more easily). It’s kind of like turning a camera lens and having everything snap into focus.

I agree, Mark, but that "coming into focus" is simply a higher fidelity to the signal. There is nothing about it that is specific to musical pace and, in fact, has a much more dramatic effect on clarity, imaging and tonality than it does on rhythm. I think what we're talking about here was actually a marketing campaign that promoted a house sound that was actually less than accurate, and a bit hard to listen to over the long haul. I have admittedly limited experience here, but the bit of Naim I've heard reminded me of project studio monitors tweaked to sound "detailed" that were actually rather forward and aggressive. An interesting trick for a short listen, but I wouldn't want a regular diet of it.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I always disliked the term “PRAT,” but it sure gained wide-spread acceptance in the audiophile vocabulary. I get what you are saying about timing Tim. Unless your source components are turning fast or slow, they can’t change the inherent time signature of the music they are playing. However, the higher the fidelity is to the source, I do think that you can become more aware of the time signature being played (or hear it more easily). It’s kind of like turning a camera lens and having everything snap into focus.

Although I would not use the word myself, I have heard a few systems that I easily associate with PRAT and a few others I find lack PRAT. Perhaps there will be better ways of debating audio characteristics, but for many people this term has a defined meaning. Perhaps not very precise, but of use for many of us. As soon as I see the reference to components turning slow or fast I immediately understand that they come from someone not understanding what PRAT is - or not accepting the word. BTW, PRAT is not a component property - it is a system property. You have to experience it to recognize it, some people love it, some others are indifferent to it. But some components seem to be designed to enhance it.

My first real exposition for PRAT was with a system including a Linn Sondek, Naim tri- amplification with an active crossover and the Linn Isobaric speakers, playing jazz music at KjLeisuresound in London., more than twenty years ago.

A few years later I also felt it at Ricardo Franassovici (of Absolute Sounds UK) fantastic listening room. He has displaying some Etude Belgian speakers driven by Audio Research playing the LPs of Erik Clapton Double Trouble. Unforgettable!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Although I would not use the word myself, I have heard a few systems that I easily associate with PRAT and a few others I find lack PRAT. Perhaps there will be better ways of debating audio characteristics, but for many people this term has a defined meaning. Perhaps not very precise, but of use for many of us. As soon as I see the reference to components turning slow or fast I immediately understand that they come from someone not understanding what PRAT is - or not accepting the word. BTW, PRAT is not a component property - it is a system property. You have to experience it to recognize it, some people love it, some others are indifferent to it. But some components seem to be designed to enhance it.

My first real exposition for PRAT was with a system including a Linn Sondek, Naim tri- amplification with an active crossover and the Linn Isobaric speakers, playing jazz music at KjLeisuresound in London., more than twenty years ago.

A few years later I also felt it at Ricardo Franassovici (of Absolute Sounds UK) fantastic listening room. He has displaying some Etude Belgian speakers driven by Audio Research playing the LPs of Erik Clapton Double Trouble. Unforgettable!

I simply refer to it as precise. Or "good" will do. I've heard many systems that failed to deliver the attack characteristics of percussive sounds with appropriate speed and clarity, or the mid-bass with sufficient control and authority. That poor effect can be caused by many things from bad room acoustics to poor driver control to clipping and beyond. I suppose it is a systematic problem - aren't they all? - but a single component can cause the problem. I personally find it more useful to name the problem and call it sluggish, or boomy, or muted, etc. And rather than making up a term having more to do with the music than its reproduction, for the absence of the problem, I'd just call that absence competent. YMMV.

Tim

 

[welwynnick]

My first real exposition for PRAT was with a system including a Linn Sondek, Naim tri- amplification with an active crossover and the Linn Isobaric speakers, playing jazz music at KjLeisuresound in London., more than twenty years ago.

Small World. I used to work there while it was still called KJLeisuresound, and before I got a serious job. Had a good time and learned a lot. After a while I could identify what amplifier was playing from outside of the closed demonstration room.
Bought my first Sondek there too......

In spite of what I said, though, I wasn't a Linn/Naim fan. Yes, they could help with the communication of certain types of music, but they seemed to me to have a particular type of dynamic colouration that favoured some sorts of percussion. It was as if they wanted everything to have the "cowbell" sound - not tonally, but in the speed and decay of percussion. Also seemed to "push" the music through, rather than let it flow at its own speed. So.... very musical for some sorts of music, but not all. I think Arcam are "musical" in their own way as well - again as long as you like the sort of music that the people who developed the equipment liked.

What really impresses me is equipment that is true to the intent of all music. Not much passes that particular test, though IME Meridian are about as good as any.

Nick

 

[fas42]

I simply refer to it as precise. Or "good" will do. I've heard many systems that failed to deliver the attack characteristics of percussive sounds with appropriate speed and clarity, or the mid-bass with sufficient control and authority. That poor effect can be caused by many things from bad room acoustics to poor driver control to clipping and beyond. I suppose it is a systematic problem - aren't they all? - but a single component can cause the problem. I personally find it more useful to name the problem and call it sluggish, or boomy, or muted, etc. And rather than making up a term having more to do with the music than its reproduction, for the absence of the problem, I'd just call that absence competent. YMMV.

Tim

"Sluggish" is a good term to apply to the absence of PRaT, but just saying a system is competent vs. incompetent gives another person very little clues as to the area in which the system is failing. I once heard a description of drumming styles and techniques and was very taken by the terms, "driving" and "trailing" drummers. The meanings of these are fairly obvious, and the examples played to demonstrate the difference were quite fascinating: with the driving approach you always felt the rest of the band were having to work hard, playing catchup to the drummer, and there was a strong sense of musical tension and dynamism, Australian rock bands very often have this element; trailing drummers always seem to be following the beat, just dawdling along to fill in the gaps, perfect for "cool" jazz and suchlike.

Obviously a good system should reproduce the musical essence of these two approaches correctly: "hot" sound should be such, "cool" likewise. If the system always give the impression of being sluggish, and you feel like you want the musicans a kick up the bum and tell them to get a move on, then you know the system can't do PRaT and, yes, it's incompetent.

Why it is "incompetent" in this way is a whole different area of debate ...

Frank

 

[welwynnick]

If the system is truly transparent and neutral, then, by definition, it is the recording that does or does not sound "musical."

That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

I suspect it comes down to the meaning of fidelity - should a system play what's on the recording, or should it play it how the producer intended?

When a recording is made, it will be produced to sound right using the high quality monitor equipment in the studio. Suppose - at home - that you have equipment that is more transparent, more revealing, than even the studio equipment. Suppose its so analytical that it disects the music into its individual elements, but doesn't have the slight warmth or softness or muddle (call it what you will) that the studio equipment does. That very imperfection may be what gives the recording its cohesion in the studio, what makes it sound right in a musical sense.

Without that cohesiveness, it will be reproduced as a series of accurate but nonetheless independant sounds. Here's a sound - stop - here's another sound - stop - here's a sound - stop. Each sound at any instant may be very accurate, the frequency response may be perfect, but if they don't join-up together then they won't sound cohesive or musical. I think its an electronic equivalent of a concert hall with a decay time that's wrong. If the reverberation goes on too long, everything will be muddled-up and confusing. If the reverberation is heavily damped, the performance will sound flat, dry and sterile.

I believe electronics tend to do the same thing. If you try to design to objective perfection, you may end-up with a system that is clean and uncoloured, but will not be as enjoyable as one that's developed with listening tests as well.

I don't think this is THE explanation for musicality, or the lack of it, but its just a few thoughts for disucssion. Obviously I have in the back of my mind various pieces of equipment that I found dry and sterile - good hifi maybe, but not so good just to listen to. The first was pointed out when I visited Linn products for the first time, and I remember it very well. They compared an Audiolab 8000A with a humble NAD 3020A. The Audiolab was dynamic and had more control over the speakers, but it was the NAD that made the music sound more like music and less like test signals. Since then I've heard similar characteristics in TAG, Bryston and ADA equipment, to name a few, and I tend to steer clear of them.

Nick

 

[JackD201]

Very good thoughts indeed Nick, very good.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Yes. It does.

Suppose - at home - that you have equipment that is more transparent, more revealing, than even the studio equipment. Suppose its so analytical that it disects the music into its individual elements, but doesn't have the slight warmth or softness or muddle (call it what you will) that the studio equipment does.

This is inconsistent with my experience, in which studio monitoring systems are almost always the more revealing, the most transparent of the two, but I'll suppose for awhile...

Without that cohesiveness, it will be reproduced as a series of accurate but nonetheless independant sounds. Here's a sound - stop - here's another sound - stop - here's a sound - stop. Each sound at any instant may be very accurate, the frequency response may be perfect, but if they don't join-up together then they won't sound cohesive or musical.

I think we may be separated by a common language. This isn't even possible in a literal sense. In a figurative sense, how do you suppose distortion of the frequency response joins the sound together into something cohesive and musical?

If you try to design to objective perfection, you may end-up with a system that is clean and uncoloured, but will not be as enjoyable as one that's developed with listening tests as well.

A colored system may be more enjoyable to some people, that's simply called "preference." The latter half of this statement, that accurate audio equipment is developed without listening tests, is a false assumption.

I don't think this is THE explanation for musicality, or the lack of it, but its just a few thoughts for disucssion. Obviously I have in the back of my mind various pieces of equipment that I found dry and sterile - good hifi maybe, but not so good just to listen to.

Everybody has preferences. Preferences are good. But when your preferences lean away from accuracy toward the soft and less precise, it's good to understand that and accept it instead of rationalizing it into a belief that your preference is more "musical," supported by an elaborate fantasy in which your system electronics somehow manage to create a more honest presentation of the producer's artistic vision than what he actually heard in the studio when recording.

The first was pointed out when I visited Linn products for the first time, and I remember it very well. They compared an Audiolab 8000A with a humble NAD 3020A. The Audiolab was dynamic and had more control over the speakers, but it was the NAD that made the music sound more like music and less like test signals.

They told you what you were going to hear, and you did. It is the oldest trick in the book. Think it through logically. How can flatter dynamics and less driver control possibly be more "musical?" It can only be more distorted.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"Sluggish" is a good term to apply to the absence of PRaT, but just saying a system is competent vs. incompetent gives another person very little clues as to the area in which the system is failing. I once heard a description of drumming styles and techniques and was very taken by the terms, "driving" and "trailing" drummers. The meanings of these are fairly obvious, and the examples played to demonstrate the difference were quite fascinating: with the driving approach you always felt the rest of the band were having to work hard, playing catchup to the drummer, and there was a strong sense of musical tension and dynamism, Australian rock bands very often have this element; trailing drummers always seem to be following the beat, just dawdling along to fill in the gaps, perfect for "cool" jazz and suchlike.

Obviously a good system should reproduce the musical essence of these two approaches correctly: "hot" sound should be such, "cool" likewise. If the system always give the impression of being sluggish, and you feel like you want the musicans a kick up the bum and tell them to get a move on, then you know the system can't do PRaT and, yes, it's incompetent.

Why it is "incompetent" in this way is a whole different area of debate ...

Frank

A reasonable post that still gives too much credit to system electronics in my opinion. Keith Richards has a tendency to rush the beat with some of his rhythm guitar parts. He uses it to great effect. I've been hearing it since I was a boy, on everything from car radios to studio monitors. Those car radios had enough PRaT to communicate that subtlety. Anything that does not is less competent than a 60s car radio. When people speak of PRaT, I don't think they're really talking about Pace, Rhythm and Timing. I think they're talking about transient response and indulging in the typical audiophile penchant for wild overstatement.

Tim

 

[Kal Rubinson]

They compared an Audiolab 8000A with a humble NAD 3020A. The Audiolab was dynamic and had more control over the speakers, but it was the NAD that made the music sound more like music and less like test signals.

I am afraid that I find the second part of this statement completely uninterpretable.

 

[welwynnick]

I am afraid that I find the second part of this statement completely uninterpretable.

Does the expression "hifi sound" mean anything?

 

[FrantzM]

While we, audiophiles, debate about most things and use terms that no one can truly understand, including those using these ... They seem to have an agreement on one thing: Bose. No audiophile would dare say that Bose is audiophile-worthy... I am curious about how they would describe a Bose system ? No PRATT? Only Signals? Mechanical (I have used this one myself ), Warm? Dry? Cold? Sterile? Euphonic?
While I was in Haiti last month .. aside from my headphones/Ipod Touch my main music system was a Bose Wave Radio .. I heard some interesting pieces on it and they were music ... with all the attributes of music

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Does the expression "hifi sound" mean anything?

It can but that was not what I was responding to.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Does the expression "hifi sound" mean anything?

Yep hifi is short hand for high fidelity. There is only one thing for it to demonstrate a high level of fidelity to: The recording. All the rest is personal preference, often for lower fidelity, pretending to be some kind of standard.

Tim
Tim