What does Musicality mean?

[JackD201]

And so we return to where this discussion always ends: Equipment that's very purpose is to play recordings is somehow more "natural," more "musical" for reproducing less of the recording, less accurately than "clinical," "analytical" gear that plays more of the recording, more accurately.

Right.

You guys like it a little warm and fuzzy. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a preference. It's ok. You don't have to pretend it is somehow, mysteriously, superior. Just enjoy what you enjoy.

Tim

Personally I like calibrating my main system for good old neutral and not in the way neutral has been made out to be the last few years which is synonymous with clinical. Last night I had some LPs delivered. I started out with a closely miked Stacy Kent album. Typical of close miked sessions she was huge and took up a pretty big chunk of the stage. If one were to listen to my system playing this LP alone, you'd think I was a midrange freak. Next up was Krauss and Union Station Live. Krauss is much further back in the stage and nowhere near as large. If one were to listen to this album, one would think I'm a soundstage freak. So I change carts, an easy thing to do with two arms. Colored very nicely with the Koetsu, slightly darker tonal balance, some emphasis on instrumental textures and harmonics via some kind of pretty overhang. You'd think I was a euphonics freak. On to the Dynavector XV-1t and tones are clear as a bell, little of the overhang, slight emphasis on her violin and upper registers. I don't know what kind of freak I am at this point On to redbook. The Emm is very pro sounding, "ya hears everything". No surprise given its DNA. On with the Tentation, I still "hears everything" but the bugger isn't mechanical sounding. It just has smoother transitions. The difference is like between an amp with high class A bias and an AB amp with a whole lot of grunt. So yes, I'm inclined to agree that both warm and fuzzy and neutral can coexist. I just don't think it can coexist beyond what is normally recorded. Now, there are recordings out there that were maxed out for this, unfortunately (or fortunately) I'm not the audiophile label kind of guy. I'm more into the songs than the recordings so much so that I will easily overlook how badly a song was recorded for as long as I like it. I may be disappointed at the start but that feeling goes easily.

Don't work too hard Tim, yes you will be missed, and not just by the hardliners of both sides

 

[welwynnick]

Right.
You guys like it a little warm and fuzzy. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a preference. It's ok. You don't have to pretend it is somehow, mysteriously, superior. Just enjoy what you enjoy.
Tim

I’ve heard it said many times that musical systems are warm and fuzzy, but I don’t think that’s what it’s all about – nor do many on this thread. I don’t like warm and fuzzy – it just seems like I’m listening to a warm and fuzzy system that’s trying to tell me what to listen to.

You said yourself that a transparent system should be musical, and I think I agree. Fidelity means true to everything – not just to hifi qualities. No audio system is perfect, and each is less imperfect in different ways. Some equipment pursues low colouration, some great dynamics, some extended bandwidth, others good sound-staging.

I don’t know the recipe for good musicality, but I suspect that it needs a good balance of attributes, rather than an emphasis in one or two particular areas. It needs transparency, but no exaggeration of anything. Each element of the music needs to be replayed in the same way – not necessarily perfectly – but with an even balance of imperfections. Transients must be reproduced cleanly, but so must tones. Highs and lows, loud and quiet, you get my drift.

A year or two ago I owned a large number of amplifiers, and compared them to death. Two of them stuck out. The Arcam was a “musical” sounding amplifier, with lots of good hi-fi attributes, but it was also slightly warm and fuzzy. That sounded fine with that sort of music, but when you wanted something to get onto its feet a bit more, it was frustrating. The NuForce was more dynamic, and didn’t hold back telling you exactly what was going on. It was transparent as well, but in an uncompromising way, and tried to impose a different character on you. It was always starting and stopping, jumping up and down, but it didn’t let the music flow, and it couldn’t relax. Where the Arcam would reproduce a beautiful, mellifluous, bowed string, the NuForce would try to find detail that wasn’t there, and would latch onto the tiniest imperfections in the strings and exaggerate them, giving a harsh and discontinuous feeling. Equally, the NuForce was very good at making you jump out of your skin when called upon – where the music demanded, that’s what should be played. In comparison the Arcam tried to make Metal sound like MOR. Both were “good” amps, but neither really communicated right.

Nick

 

[microstrip]

(...) You guys like it a little warm and fuzzy. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a preference. It's ok. You don't have to pretend it is somehow, mysteriously, superior. Just enjoy what you enjoy.
Tim

Tim,

If you had gone through the experiences I and others refer you would know it was not warm or fuzzy.

And the system only sounds natural when the relevant information is encoded in the recording, there is nothing mysterious about it. But some systems keep this natural , others destroy it.

And, yes, for many of us, this natural sound is superior to other types of sound, otherwise we would not be pursuing it and would not like to debate it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, this....

You guys like it a little warm and fuzzy. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a preference. It's ok. You don't have to pretend it is somehow, mysteriously, superior. Just enjoy what you enjoy.

...is a response to the idea that "musical" systems are "smooth" and allow the music to "flow," "naturally," as opposed to neutral or clinical or unmusical systems cutting the music up into sections to be observed and analyzed. We had a few variations on that theme in the last few pages. When I read that sort of thing, knowing that what the more neutral system does is play a less altered reproduction of the recording - by definition, no semantic playfulness here. I assume that to be smoother than the neutral system, a system must be doing some "smoothing" off some frequencies some perceive these as "etched." To be more analytical than the neutral system, the system must be pushing some frequencies that others perceive as "detail." These two extremes on either side of neutral, to my mind can mean many things, but in the simplest terms = a slight roll-off of upper mids (smooth)/a slight exaggeration of upper mids = faux detail. They could also speak to transient response, imaging, noise floor, distortion, etc, but the above is the bone-simple sort of net effect.

Now if some of you out there may have systems you are saying are musical, that would have trebles that would drive me out of the room, and some of you may have systems you're saying are natural that are warm and gooey on top and boomy on the bottom. I think you think I'm a fan of the pushed, etched trebles. I suspect, though I can't be sure, that that's what you mean by "clinical" or "analytical." Communication is hard, especially when we're leaning on borrowed and imprecise language. I'll try to do better -- I personally like the lowest noise and distortion, the highest revelation of detail and the most precise, almost visual, imaging I can get, all wrapped up in a balanced tonality (within the system's range) that pushes nothing, that is sometimes even perceived as "recessed" (I know where the volume knob is...), that makes the often radical differences between the styles and the quality of the recordings in my collection absolutely impossible to ignore. Why? Because I know if my system is helping my worst recording, it is hurting my best. And I know the best sound fabulous.

If that's analytical, I'll take it. All day, every day. But I think it is uber-musical.

Tim

 

[KeithR]

Tim- you are def a measurements guy. but here is an example.

i'm not sure you can compare the measurements of say a Playback Designs dac vs. Bryston---and not realize upon hearing them that the PBD is much more analog and natural sounding. The PBD is not rolling anything off either. my guess is that measurements of both are top 1% of anything made.

 

[JackD201]

To my mind it's simple. A system probably isn't neutral/true to the signal if it's warm and fuzzy all the time or analytical all the time. If it can be warm with one recording and cold with another that is a rough but assuring indication that it's adding very little of its own. The question is though, how does one REALLY know if the source component actually is or isn't being faithful by leaning one way or another? It's very easy with Analog. The presence of colorations are a given. When it comes to digital, 0s and 1s are supposed to be 0s and 1s but we've seen even the pros who work codecs like Amir or heavy EE stuff like Don tell us that the math can't be faulted but implementation is still some ways from the theoretical maximums. Past discussions on null tests turned out to be a bust as only Bruce came up with a workable null test that didn't entail contamination of the data.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim- you are def a measurements guy. but here is an example.

i'm not sure you can compare the measurements of say a Playback Designs dac vs. Bryston---and not realize upon hearing them that the PBD is much more analog and natural sounding. The PBD is not rolling anything off either. my guess is that measurements of both are top 1% of anything made.

Well, Keith, I'm a numbers guy in that I seem to believe that measurements can be indicative of sound more than most around here. Many high-end audiophiles do not seem to accept that at all. But I own no test equipment, and while I do read the numbers and take them pretty seriously as an indicator of what I should bother to listen to, listening is allways the final arbiter. What separates me most from capital A Audiophiles, though, is not what I believe about numbers, but what I hear, and you've given me a good example. Almost every time I've been pointed to a system or component that was reported to be "musical" I've come away thinking it either A) was a bit soft and unresolving or B) I had no idea what was meant by "musical," because it just sounded like great audio to me, with more in common with great audio deemed "analytical" than not. Every time I've listened to a DAC that reportedly sounded "more analog," I heard A. With that said, I have not heard the PBD. Does it have tube in it? I'll paraphrase a popular saying from a few years ago to provide insight into my feelings there: A DAC without a tube is like a fish without a bicycle. A guitar amplifer is a place where I will always insist on tubes. A digital source is the last place I would allow them in my system.

Tim

 

[mauidan]

Well, Keith, I'm a numbers guy in that I seem to believe that measurements can be indicative of sound more than most around here. Many high-end audiophiles do not seem to accept that at all. But I own no test equipment, and while I do read the numbers and take them pretty seriously as an indicator of what I should bother to listen to, listening is allways the final arbiter. What separates me most from capital A Audiophiles, though, is not what I believe about numbers, but what I hear, and you've given me a good example. Almost every time I've been pointed to a system or component that was reported to be "musical" I've come away thinking it either A) was a bit soft and unresolving or B) I had no idea what was meant by "musical," because it just sounded like great audio to me, with more in common with great audio deemed "analytical" than not. Every time I've listened to a DAC that reportedly sounded "more analog," I heard A. With that said, I have not heard the PBD. Does it have tube in it? I'll paraphrase a popular saying from a few years ago to provide insight into my feelings there: A DAC without a tube is like a fish without a bicycle. A guitar amplifer is a place where I will always insist on tubes. A digital source is the last place I would allow them in my system.

Tim

If you don't have any test equipment, how do you know if your system is neutral?

What DACs have you tried in your system?

FYI, the the PBD gear doesn't use any tubes.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If you don't have any test equipment, how do you know if your system is neutral?

In absolute terms, I don't. In practical terms, I know the electronics measure very neutral; I know the speakers measure relatively neutral (this could be said about all of the "neutral" speakers in the world); I know I'm getting a little room gain and a LOT more direct than reflected mids and highs; I know a handful of very experienced studio pros who've used this system and declared it pretty neutral. And then, of course, there's what I hear, which is very snug, well-controlled mid bass (it's not full range; there is no deep bass), no tizz or glare, no midbass hump, no "forward" vocals, none of the common colorations of speakers, when playing very well-recorded material...I think Jack said this better than I am...

A system probably isn't neutral/true to the signal if it's warm and fuzzy all the time or analytical all the time. If it can be warm with one recording and cold with another that is a rough but assuring indication that it's adding very little of its own.

I think he hit that nail dead on the head. I think if his electronics measure low and flat, his room is pretty quiet, he's dealt with his speaker placement and bass issues well and that's what he hears, it is a great indication of a neutral system. I think he needs to give his analysis a bit more credit. And this is exactly what I hear from my system: Shelby Lynn's modern analog dream "Just A Little Lovin'" sounds warm and lush and analog. Herbie Hancock's modern masterpiece "River: The Joni Letters," is clear and open and taught and incredibly precise, Springsteen's brickwalled "Magic" is loud, harsh, sibilant...unlistenable. If your system makes that one sound good it's not euphonic, it's sloppy.

What DACs have you tried in your system?

The DAC, and the preamp, are integrated into the system and are deadly clean and precise, so although there are analog inputs, there isn't much reason to play around with DACs. I have, however, had a Benchmark here to compare. Switching back and forth blind, I was unable to differentiate between them. Good enough for me. YMMV. I've heard other DACs in other systems, however -- a Weiss, a Scott Nixon, a couple of Apogees, a Lynx, an RME, quite a few more pro DACs...plus lots of cheap ones built into consumer audio products. I remain convinced that when they're competently executed, if you hear a difference, you'll find it in the analog output, not the DAC. I'm further convinced that it is neither an economic or engineering challenge to get a signal up to line level and keep it quiet and flat in the process, so if there is a significant difference between DAC output stages, one, or both of them, are screwing up the job; in my view, a DAC with a "voice" is a mistake. YMMV on that as well.

FYI, the the PBD gear doesn't use any tubes.

Good to know.

Tim

 

[mauidan]

In absolute terms, I don't.

Mahalo

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mahalo

You're welcome.

 

[microstrip]

Well, this....



...is a response to the idea that "musical" systems are "smooth" and allow the music to "flow," "naturally," as opposed to neutral or clinical or unmusical systems cutting the music up into sections to be observed and analyzed. We had a few variations on that theme in the last few pages. When I read that sort of thing, knowing that what the more neutral system does is play a less altered reproduction of the recording - by definition, no semantic playfulness here. I assume that to be smoother than the neutral system, a system must be doing some "smoothing" off some frequencies some perceive these as "etched." To be more analytical than the neutral system, the system must be pushing some frequencies that others perceive as "detail." These two extremes on either side of neutral, to my mind can mean many things, but in the simplest terms = a slight roll-off of upper mids (smooth)/a slight exaggeration of upper mids = faux detail. They could also speak to transient response, imaging, noise floor, distortion, etc, but the above is the bone-simple sort of net effect.(...)

Tim,

You love to fantasize about the hypothetical sound properties of non-existent Audiophile (with capital A) imaginary systems. I would like to read a review written by you of some of the top systems in excellent rooms, such as Steve or Jack fantastic systems, if we believe in other people that have listened to them and reported about in WBF. You could use you favorite recordings and give us an objective report of your comparative findings with your system. Perhaps then I could understand what you do not like in Audiophile (with capital A) sound reproduction.

 

[fas42]

Springsteen's brickwalled "Magic" is loud, harsh, sibilant...unlistenable. If your system makes that one sound good it's not euphonic, it's sloppy

This is where I would say there's a "problem": such a recording may come across as "loud", but "harsh, sibilant" -- I don't think so. Do you think it would have sounded such for the recording engineers on their pro monitors at the time: if it did, why would they have released it in this state, unless they were ordered to do so by a higher authority or they were totally incompetent ...

A good system should make such a recording sound aggressive, intense, very in your face confronting, but you shouldn't have to use words which imply distortion.

Frank

 

[mep]

Tim,

You love to fantasize about the hypothetical sound properties of non-existent Audiophile (with capital A) imaginary systems. I would like to read a review written by you of some of the top systems in excellent rooms, such as Steve or Jack fantastic systems, if we believe in other people that have listened to them and reported about in WBF. You could use you favorite recordings and give us an objective report of your comparative findings with your system. Perhaps then I could understand what you do not like in Audiophile (with capital A) sound reproduction.

We should all chip in and buy Tim a round trip ticket to MikeL's place and have Tim report back on what he heard. Would Tim still think digital sounded better than Mike's LP setup and/or Mike's tape system? It would be interesting...

I'm in for $100.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

You love to fantasize about the hypothetical sound properties of non-existent Audiophile (with capital A) imaginary systems. I would like to read a review written by you of some of the top systems in excellent rooms, such as Steve or Jack fantastic systems, if we believe in other people that have listened to them and reported about in WBF. You could use you favorite recordings and give us an objective report of your comparative findings with your system. Perhaps then I could understand what you do not like in Audiophile (with capital A) sound reproduction.

And your fantasy seems to have something to do with taking what I clearly stated as assumptions based the language that is written here, not the systems I haven't heard, and to make it into something altogether absurd and different, but very easy to sneer at. The very definition of the straw man argument, quite personal, and extremely rude and presumptuous.

I'm sure Steve and Jack's systems sound wonderful. And Mike's too, Mep. Though I wouldn't bet on my preferring the analog sources.

Tim

 

[Ron Party]

And your fantasy seems to have something to do with taking what I clearly stated as assumptions based the language that is written here, not the systems I haven't heard, and to make it into something altogether absurd and different, but very easy to sneer at. The very definition of the straw man argument, quite personal, and extremely rude and presumptuous.

I'm sure Steve and Jack's systems sound wonderful. And Mike's too, Mep. Though I wouldn't bet on my preferring the analog sources.

Tim

The fantasy, as you call it, also is based on an easily debunked presumption of non-existent Audiophile imaginary systems.

Moreover, I have been afforded the good graces of Steve to thoroughly enjoy his system many, many times over the past decade. That is sounds outstanding is not legitimately in dispute and if he would give me his I'd throw mine away (although I would change out his amps). That it emphasizes the midrange also is not legitimately in dispute. And for those like me who prefer to listen at high SPLs, well...

 

[FrantzM]

Hi Adding to the chorus: I also have heard Steve's system and it is as good as they get ... Find myself extremely satisfied with his Playback Design though and in agreement with Ron ... I have heard other comparable (and similarly priced and as well put together systems) and continue to find myself staunchly in the digital camp... I haven't yet made side by side comparisons of the exact same master in analog vs digital .. Same master not versions of the same works...
I hasten to say that the analog vs digital debate is not one I am inviting people to. I remember a thread or post here in WBF where some people preferred the sound of tape at 15 ips to that of a live feed.. from which the recording on the 15 ips was made .. A case of preferring the copy to the original .. There is not much discussion one can have a preference .. As has been said here you like what you like ... Now, using the word "superior" is what lead to the discussions. "I prefer item a over item b" usually requires no proof .. OTOH "Item a is superior to item b", usually does...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The fantasy, as you call it, also is based on an easily debunked presumption of non-existent Audiophile imaginary systems.

Moreover, I have been afforded the good graces of Steve to thoroughly enjoy his system many, many times over the past decade. That is sounds outstanding is not legitimately in dispute and if he would give me his I'd throw mine away (although I would change out his amps). That it emphasizes the midrange also is not legitimately in dispute. And for those like me who prefer to listen at high SPLs, well...

This would make sense and I'd be apologizing if I had presumed anything about Steve's, or anyone else's system. My post was about the language of "musical" and "clinical" and what it might mean. In other words, it was on topic. Let me repeat:

a response to the idea that "musical" systems are "smooth" and allow the music to "flow," "naturally," as opposed to neutral or clinical or unmusical systems cutting the music up into sections to be observed and analyzed. We had a few variations on that theme in the last few pages. When I read that sort of thing, knowing that what the more neutral system does is play a less altered reproduction of the recording - by definition, no semantic playfulness here. I assume that to be smoother than the neutral system, a system must be doing some "smoothing" off some frequencies some perceive these as "etched." To be more analytical than the neutral system, the system must be pushing some frequencies that others perceive as "detail."

I'm missing the part where I imagined the sound of anyone's system. Seems to me I just expressed what I take from some of the language being thrown about here. But hey, the mouth's right here. You boys want to put some more words in it, have fun.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As has been said here you like what you like ... Now, using the word "superior" is what lead to the discussions.

Or "natural" or "musical," which seem to me to just be subjectivist substitutes for superior.

"I prefer item a over item b" usually requires no proof .. OTOH "Item a is superior to item b", usually does...

Or in the absence of proof, a little evidence more compelling than personal opinion.

Tim

 

[fas42]

I'm missing the part where I imagined the sound of anyone's system. Seems to me I just expressed what I take from some of the language being thrown about here. But hey, the mouth's right here. You boys want to put some more words in it, have fun.

I've got some words here, that I picked up from somewhere or other:

You guys like it a little warm and fuzzy. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a preference. It's ok. You don't have to pretend it is somehow, mysteriously, superior. Just enjoy what you enjoy.

Frank