What does the term musical mean?

[Gregadd]

When we try to describe things we hear when we reproduce music through our audio systems we often find our vocabulary wanting. For the most part it does not matter when we evaluate or own systems, but it helps when we try to communicate to others what we hear or don't hear or how it contributes to an attempt to create the illusion of live music.

I'm afraid that if real music is not your reference this will not be of much value to you. J. Gordon Holt pioneered the field of qualitative review of music reproduction in Stereophile magazine. Harry Pearson of the absolute sound IMO is the all time great in translating what he hears into the printed word. I suggest anyone really interested in qualitative analysis of music reproduction equipment consult their work. I would think most of you have read tons of reviews and are acquainted with the term "musical"

Let's start out with some help from the good folks at PSB Speakers

The Frequencies of Music
Sound is air in motion — pushed, pulled, beaten, blown, plucked, talked, or sung into motion. Music is sound's highest achievement, a wonderfully varied mixture of patterned vibrations sent into the air by all kinds of instruments, from a cricket's hind legs to a massive pipe organ.

The frequencies of music, the various repetitions that make up the sound of instruments, are represented somewhat by the charts printed in equipment reviews in various audio/video magazines. But those charts look (and often are) so abstract that it's easy to forget that music is the point of it all. We are trying to remedy that here with the chart below, in which the frequency markings strung out along the bottom baseline are related to the frequency ranges shown above them of the various instruments in an orchestra.

If you've never had a chance to look at the way frequency response corresponds to the sound of instruments, you might want to note first that the divisions along the bottom line of our chart are anything but even. When most people first visualize the frequency range from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, they imagine a nice, linear, tape-measure span of measurement, on which the marked increments are as equal as the inch or centimeter markings on a ruler. But when you look at an actual response chart, the measures along the lateral line are definitely not an equal distance apart. In fact, the seemingly "small" span between 20Hz and 40 Hz is actually wider than the 6,000 Hz of difference between 10,000 and 16,000Hz. That's because the vibrations of the heavy-hitting bass instruments of music are ponderous and far apart, while the successively higher pitched instruments going up the scale vibrate faster and faster, and closer together. The frequency scale of music (and all sound) isn't linear but logarithmic — which is probably why mathematics and music often seem to go so well together.

Our chart, courtesy of Stereo Review, is fun. It will give you an idea (if you didn't have one already) of where musical instruments lie across the audible frequency range. And there are surprises. Who would have thought, if they hadn't already known, that the bottom of the harp's range went below a double bass's, or that the contrabassoon aced them both? Or that the top of the oboe's range edged out the soprano voice? Or that the piccolo's top note topped the violin's? Or that the same harp that went so low also went right up near the top of the violin's and piccolo's range? Or that the guitar's top note was under 1,000 Hz? Look around the chart for a bit, and we'll go further after that.


musical instrument frequencies - Ranges of the Fundamental Frequencies of instruments and voices

Copyright © 1980 by Hachette Filipacchi Magazines, Inc. Reprinted from Stereo Review, April 1980, with permission.


While the chart begins to provide a grasp of where instruments lie across the frequency range, it has some critical omissions. The pipe organ, for instance,which goes down into subterranean regions, isn't represented. Neither is the bass drum, which has lots of energy below 50 Hz. Most critically, however, the chart portrays only the fundamental tones that instruments generate. What it doesn't show is the overtones, the harmonic frequencies, that give instruments their characteristic sound — their timbre.

Harmonics are what let you tell instruments apart. Without them, similar instruments that played the same frequencies would sound the same. The harmonics are produced not by the notes, but by the method by which the musician sets those notes into motion and the materials used to produce the notes. The plucking of a string on a guitar, or the bowing of the string on a violin, is a lot different from the metallic resonance of a flute as air is blown through it by pursed lips, or the sound of a drum's membrane when it's struck by a hand or a drumstick. Everything counts — the "attack" frequencies at the onset of notes (which are tremendously different from instrument to instrument), the "decay" frequencies at the end of those notes, the various resonances set in motion by the materials used for instruments, the differences between media excited from outside (like the string or the drum) and those excited from inside, like the flute and the trumpet. And besides upper harmonics, there are also subharmonics. The world of music is incredibly rich and varied.

We could go further, but what our chart does is give you a beginning taste of what "Hz" (cycles per second) really mean musically. There are charts that show the harmonics of instruments as well as the fundamentals, but we've never seen one that shows the varying harmonic intensities of all instruments in comparison with each other. (If you have, please let us know!) As we said earlier, the point is music. While we at PSB are intent on doing justice to the sound of crashing buses and dinosaur footfalls as well as flutes and violins and snare drums, it's the sound of music that keeps our juices flowing.

I try to follow the principle of KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Less anyone be offended-Stupid refers to the author.
Musical means exactly what the name implies. It sounds like music. It really is that simple. You've all heard music I assume and that is what music reproduction system should sound like. A well recorded piece of music when passed through a musical reproduction sound like uhm... music.
Now I know am not going to get off that easy. I'll have more later.

You can see chart better here:http://www.psbspeakers.com/audio-topics/The-Frequencies-of-Music

 

[terryj]

good start, thanks greg.

looking forward to this. One question, almost a definitional thing?, but how can you have sub harmonics?? I don't get that

that is if the lowest note is the fundamental, but if it's the lowest how can you have lower??

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Musical means exactly what the name implies. It sounds like music. It really is that simple. You've all heard music I assume and that is what music reproduction should sound like. A well recorded piece of music when passed through a musical reproduction sound like uhm... music.

So then if the recording is of music - not dinosaur footfalls or car crashes - the most accurate reproduction will be the most musical reproduction. We've agreed all along, Greg!

Seriously, you may think that music is musical and audio is reproductive, but I think many audiophiles who use the term "musical" have a bit more invested in it.

P

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

The chart you posted Greg has been one of the most indispensible tools I have ever used. I still use it at times.

John

 

[Gregadd]

From the Stereophile glossary:

musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant.

From JGH himself:

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary Bookmark and Share By J. Gordon Holt • July, 1993
Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures. This was a natural outgrowth of the 1950s high-fidelity "revolution," which spawned the notion that a component, and an audio system as a whole, should reproduce what is fed into it, without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it.

Traditional measurements of such things as harmonic distortion, frequency response, and power output can reveal many things a product is doing imperfectly, but there have never been any generally accepted guidelines for equating the measurements with the way they affect the reproduced sound. And there was strong evidence that many of the things people were hearing were not being measured at all.

Subjective reviewing simply skirts the question of how objective test results relate to what we hear, endeavoring to describe what the reproducing system sounds like.

But what should it sound like? The pat answer, of course, is that it should sound like "the real thing," but it's a bit more complicated than that. If the system itself is accurate, it will reproduce what is on the recording. And if the recording itself isn't an accurate representation of the original sound, an accurate sound won't sound realistic. But what does the recording sound like? That's hard to tell, because you can't judge the fidelity of a recording without playing it, and you can't judge the fidelity of the reproducing system without listening to it---usually by playing a recording through it. Since each is used to judge the other, it is difficult to tell much about either, except whether their combination sounds "real." But it can be done.

Even after more than 116 years of technological advancement (footnote 1), today's almost-perfect sound reproduction still cannot duplicate the sound of "the real thing" well enough to fool someone who has learned to listen analytically---a trained listener. But the goal of literal realism, or "accuracy," remains the standard against which a subjective reviewer evaluates any audio product design.

The casual audiophile hears reproduced sound as a whole, and judges its quality according to whether it sounds "good." Many reviewers never reach that stage of perception because---convinced by their measurements that all competing products sound "essentially the same"---they never make the effort to listen critically to reproduced sound. The reason a subjective reviewer hears more than the "objective" reviewer is not that his auditory equipment is superior. It's because he has accepted the premise that identical measurements do not necessarily ensure identical sound, and has trained himself to hear the differences when they exist.

The experienced listener does not just hear the totality of reproduced sound. He hears into it, observing how the component or system handles a variety of sonic attributes which make up the whole. Instead of simply "all the highs and all the lows," he may hear a coloration that his experience has shown to indicate a treble peak. Or he may hear a lengthening of normally brief bass notes which he has learned to equate with a low-frequency resonance or a lack of woofer damping. Of course, both these problems would be revealed by measurements, but equating their measured severity with their adverse effects on the sound is another matter. To do that, we need words to attach to these effects. Those words are what we call subjective terminology.

The language of subjectivity has been around since before Edison. Musicians have long been familiar with terms like "mellow," "strident," "rich," and "euphonic," but the advent of reproduced music introduced new kinds of sonic qualities for which new descriptive terms were needed. The 1953 Radiotron Designer's Handbook---for its time, the "bible" of electronics design---listed more than 70 terms, most of which are still in use today.

Stereophile magazine, launched in 1962, was the first to review audio products on the basis of their sound rather than their measurements. Stereophile and other like-minded magazines have expanded subjectivity's working 70-word vocabulary to over 300 terms, all of which are listed and defined in this series of articles.

Most subjective-audio terms that are not drawn from everyday usage (such as "strident") fall into three categories: 1) Onomatopoeia---words that sound like what they describe; 2) Imagery---words that evoke a mental image; and 3) Sensories---words that relate things we hear to more-familiar things we see or touch. For example, the term "boomy" is onomatopoeic, because a bass peak sounds like the word "boom." The term "airy" elicits an image of expansive openness, like a large, high-ceilinged room with lots of big windows, to describe treble extension that seemingly has no limit. And the sensorial term "gritty" will have immediate meaning to anyone who has ever chewed lettuce with sand in it.

Some terms listed here are not descriptive at all, but designate certain things that are of concern only to audiophiles who listen carefully. Examples are resolution and soundstaging, which are two of the sonic characteristics used for judging system performance. Other terms---descriptive and otherwise---relate exclusively to reproduction from vinyl LPs, which are still favored over Compact Discs by many audio perfectionists.

Different subjective terms often have the same meaning, and some have more than one meaning. Don't be put off by this. Subjective terminology can never be as precise as the language of physics. But imprecise or not, it's still a much more meaningful way of describing reproduced sound than just saying, "It sounds fine."

Now that this glossary is available, there's no longer any excuse for an audio reviewer saying, "I can hear a difference, but there's no way of describing it." Now, there is a way.

I am indebted to Old Colony Books, of Peterborough, New Hampshire, for permission to excerpt extensively from my book, The Audio Glossary (footnote 2).


Footnote 1: Thomas Edison's patent for the phonograph was dated 1877.

Footnote 2: The author's complete Audio Glossary, containing definitions of almost 2000 audio and audio-related terms, is available from Old Colony Books, P.O. Box 24, Peterborough, NH 03458. Single copy prices: $9.95 paperback or $17.95 hardcover, plus $1.75 S&H. Check or VISA/MC.

JGH clearly stated that his reference was live unamplified music. Yes Phelonius in a perfect world accurate and musical would mean the same thing. That is to say an accurate music system would pass the source material unchanged. Unfortunately the audio world split in two. Politics became involved. Name calling ensued. Also money was involved. Not to mention egos.The standard you accepted determined who got your money.
Let me get back to defining musical.( While Phelonious gloats) We all know what music sounds like. If you don't, I don't know why you are an audiophile? So for a system to be musical, a trumpet should sound like a trumpet, a violin like a violin, and whatever instrument the play live in hip hop or rap should sound exactly like the live event.
Somehow we got off the track. On one side we have the measurement is everything crowd and the other we have the listening will tell me everythng crowd. Clealry JGH our founder never intended that.

The mark of intelligence is not the ability to make simple things complex, but to make complex things simple.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I find this quote:

The mark of intelligence is not the ability to make simple things complex, but to make complex things simple.

...at the bottom of that complex Stereophile treatise on semantics to be quite ironic. But the problem, of course, with the subjective movement that took over the hobby a couple of decades ago is not a semantical one. If enough people can come to a precise enough agreement on what all these words mean in the context of audio reproduction, they can be quite useful as supplements to measurement, to describe what the measurements mean in more human terms. It's that there is not broad agreement and that the words are, instead, often used to displace or deny measurement. The problem is that while the author says this:

Even after more than 116 years of technological advancement (footnote 1), today's almost-perfect sound reproduction still cannot duplicate the sound of "the real thing" well enough to fool someone who has learned to listen analytically---a trained listener. But the goal of literal realism, or "accuracy," remains the standard against which a subjective reviewer evaluates any audio product design.

...many audiophiles seem to think they report to a higher authority than the source signal, that their equipment somehow becomes a part of the art, that their equipment's job is to enhance the signal, to somehow make it "more." I have no problem with this; it is simply a choice. But this choice, and what it means, seems to be is the gist of the old argument. Enhance. It's your choice. Do it with valves or vinyl or cables or equalization (the reversible and, therefore, wiser choice IMO). Describe it with whatever language suits you. Even believe it is more "natural," that your reference is the real sound of the instrument that may never have been on the recording in the first place if you must. Color all recordings, regardless of their quality, with the same brush. It's your brush. But what you're talking about isn't "high fidelity," it is tone, it is preference. If you must insist that a deliberate alteration of the source signal creates superior fidelity, I must object.

And the old argument begins again...

I'm off to the mountains for the weekend. I'll argue with all of you again on Sunday night .

P

 

[Gregadd]

To put it bluntly I include the quote on intelligence (not sure whether I made it up myself or heard someone else say it) because despite having read hundreds of reviews I still can't write one. So I have the utmost respect for those who can. I think the Glossary does simplify the task of describing what reviewers heard. That terminology assisted manufactures in the design of their equipment, recording engineers in making recordings and ultimately audiophiles in selecting equipment.

I hope you don't read this until you finish your trip. I would not want to ruin it for you. You unwittingly provide an example of what's wrong in high end discourse.Your comment is political, dogmatic, conclusory and accusatory.

To imply that subjective reviewers like JGH ignored measurements is just incorrect. Whenever you evaluate someones performance you have to at least start out believing they were faithful to their task and competent to perform it .

 

[Gregadd]

I'm not sure what the musical resolution of your computer is. This video that

I have posted before gives an idea of musical versus less musical. I am reluctant to say any system has no muscality. We can see and hear that dynamic compression takes us away from the real thing.

 

[Gregadd]

On the question of accurate vs musical and what they mean in the absolute sense. These words eventually took on different meanings. So if the reviewer thought it sounded bad or mediocre but measured perfectly they would say, well iit s extremely accurate. Most audiophiles knew what that meant. OTOH a product that sounded good but had some performance abnormalities was said overall it is very musical.

 

[Gregadd]

On second thought I think this this article is required reading for this thread. Even though someone else has chosen the term "The Audio Skeptic" and expressed views contrary to those held by Ethan Winer also self proclaimed audio skeptic it is not intended as a personal attack on him.
http://www.theadvancedaudiophile.com/the-audio-skeptics-faq/index.html

 

[rsbeck]

I have my own definition;

I've heard some systems, brands shall remain nameless, where I find myself admiring what they achieve. I find myself thinking, "man, listen to all of that air around each instrument, what an immense soundstage, listen to the intricate detail!" But, there's a problem. Music that I know as music, that I know as music that gets me involved, isn't getting me involved. I'm too busy admiring what the gear is doing.

I've heard other systems where there is air around the instruments and all of the rest of the audiophile goodies, but in this case, my head is bobbing and I am involved in the music. I would call this type of system "musical" because it retains the element that is most important in what is being reproduced.

Sometimes, IMO, and this might be controversial around these parts, I don't know, you can have too much of a good thing; too much air around each instrument, detail that might let you hear things you never heard before, but is also too etched and fatiguing, a soundstage so deep and wide, it's actually bloated and the instruments no longer relate to one another. When that happens, IMO, it is no longer music.

I like a system that when you are playing music, makes music.

Rather than one that dissects the music and displays all of its various disembodied parts for your admiration.

I call that type of system, "clinical."

 

[Gregadd]

A musical system is not based on harmonic distortion or an attempt to make the music pleasant sounding.
music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant.
musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music
Many suggest that the notion of real music as reference is naive. Even JGH agreed. However In making an an evaluation one has to assume"a competent actor faithful to his task'" To do anything else would introduce so many variables as to make the whole exercise futile. Certainly we can all agree there are some excellent recordings out there. No we were not present at the recording. We can however acquaint ourselves with the sound of voices and the instruments being used.

Seehttp://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1082-An-Example-of-a-Component-Audition-at-a-Dealer-Applying-My-Method-and-Afterthoughts/page2

I would expect that a musical system would have good imaging.
That is to say the the image wold be 3d. It should not bunch up on the speakers. There should be depth, width, and height. There should be air around the vocalists. In the case of mass violins, you could hear the sound of multiple violins instead of them all blended together. So that in vocals backup singers would be adequately positioned.
Boz Scags-Lowdown
He is being interviewed. They are sitting next to each other. Her on my left. Him on my right. The guitar his vocals are in the middle and two female backup singers slightly behind to my right.
Carol Kidd with full orchestra.
She is out front with the violin section to my left. Instead of that massed together steely sound of violins you can hear separate violins with the full resonant body of a violin
BozyIIMen singing the Beetles Yesterday Acappella.
As usual the lead singer is out front. They move around exchanging lead positions also they alternate as back up singers and as solo.
Manhattan Transfer- Acappella God Only Knows
Similar situation to BoyzIIMen
'
I could go on but there is nothing new here

The difficult part about imaging is not so much positioning the artist, but keeping the sounds separate and articulate. On less resolving/musical systems they tend to mass together.




If you read reviews

 

[Ethan Winer]

http://www.theadvancedaudiophile.com/the-audio-skeptics-faq/index.html

LOL, ah yes, my forum stalker. I'm surprised he hasn't shown up here yet.

Anyway, nothing there is remotely convincing or even logical. That guy believes in every magical tweak that comes down the pike, no evidence needed. He once started a thread at the Stereophile forum where he claims he improved the sound of his stereo system by adding fluoride into the water of a house plant that was in another room. 'Nuff said.

--Ethan

 

[Ron Party]

That guy believes in every magical tweak that comes down the pike, no evidence needed. He once started a thread at the Stereophile forum where he claims he improved the sound of his stereo system by adding fluoride into the water of a house plant that was in another room. 'Nuff said.

--Ethan

ROTFLMAO! That is precious! But what happened to the plant?

 

[Gregadd]

As moderator: Again it was not intended to address you. I had no idea who he was in relation to you. Although not formally named such you agree there are a lot of "audio skeptics" some more famous than you.
As member of WBF: I suppose subjectivist could say the same for some of your positions on DBT, measurements, 16 gauge cable and the notion that all you need in an amplifier can be had for $1000.00. As for logic I suppose that is in the mind of the thinker.

...[H]e claims he improved the sound of his stereo system by adding fluoride into the water of a house plant that was in another room. 'Nuff said.
Furthermore as you pointed out in telling me you your "JBL was shouty" not everything is to be taken seriously.
Now proffessor I'll return to your homework assignment.

 

[Gregadd]

Here is an excerpt formthe article. judge for yourself whther it is logical and rational.Q. "EVERYTHING can measured! If it can't be measured, guess what? It doesn't exist!"

A. It's funny how the perpetual skeptic always wants to measure things. Give him a measuring tool and he's happy. Tell him that, while measuring tools in audio may have their place under some conditions, he's unable to use measuring tools to measure everything the human ear can hear, and suddenly he's no longer happy. An unhappy skeptic is an argumentative one. An argumentative skeptic is an irrational one. If you tell him it can't be measured, his knee will jerk immediately, and he'll respond with "then it doesn't exist and you are fooling yourself to think otherwise!".

This is actually an old debate among "measurers" and "listeners" in the audiophile community. It's the difference between, say, "The Audio Critic" and "The Absolute Sound". By far, it is not solely an artifact of advanced audio products. For years, amplifier designers gave us horrible sounding, truly treacherous amplifiers. They looked good on paper though. The engineers followed measurements and specifications. Blithely ignoring the fact that the human ear can hear all sorts of distortions or aspects of the musical reproduction test instruments can't pick up on. The better sounding amplifiers were created, at least in part, by designers who actually listened to their product during the design stage, and based the designs on that. This is why we say audio is part science, and part art. The rest, part of the audiophile "objectivist" group, lauded their horrible sounding spec-centered amplifiers that couldn't even get Ginger Rogers to tap dance, on the argument that they were "accurate", because that's what the specs "proved".

The human ear is actually a lot more complex than many seem to think. Because it is part of the human hearing mechanism, which is part of the human brain. And the human mind is one of the most complex things on earth. People don't just hear things objectively, as a test instrument might. There is a lot of processing going on, and what they hear is dependent upon many factors, including how much tension they are under at the time. Complicating that further, there is often a discrepancy between what they can hear with their ear/mind combination, and the conclusions they make with their mind. So what they interpret in the final result may well be different than what their ears/minds registered.

Measurement-happy skeptics cite this complexity of the human brain as the reason why everything in audio should be measured. Except it can't be. Test-happy skeptics cite this as the reason why everything in audio should be double-blind tested. Except that has its own pitfalls...





Q. "The solution is simple. Double-blind test everything in sight, that will tell you if its real or not. After all, you shouldn't need to see fancy labels to tell you which sounds better".

A. <Sigh>. If only the real world were that simple.... Advocates of the double-blind audio test, particularly the ABX test, at least on the net, are something of an audio cult unto themselves. Extremist skepticism at its best, really. There is ample empirical evidence, both in my studies and those of others, that shows when you impose "blind conditions" upon the listener, you disorient the listener. You can't call yourself a scientist and dismiss all that evidence in favor of theory, that doesn't work. Now you may not need to see the device under the test, but the rigid structure imposed by the blind test will more often than not, yield results that are inconclusive at best, false at worst. It isn't just me saying that, it's thousands of audio hobbyists who've undergone such tests. Including John Atkinson of the audiophile magazine Stereophile, who during a debate at a high end audio conference, explained how he had led himself to trust in the credibility of the double blind test.

The test was between a tube amplifier and a solid state model, and even the most extreme of the extremist anti-audiophile brigade have always agreed that there is and should be differences between tube and solid state sound. Yet, JA, professional audio journalist, could not pick them out in an ABX test. That led to him selling his amplifier, and getting one that scored no worse in the test. This was alright for those who purport to follow the so-called "rational and scientific method", except it wasn't alright for his enjoyment of music. Which he learned months later, after learning the lesser amplifier simply did not satisfy on a musical level, as his former one did.

JA's been quoted as saying that the double blind test produces a null result, even when real differences do occur, and is more of a test of the listener, than whether the device itself is valid or not. I would tend to agree. It's really not easy to pass a DBT to the statistical significance required by staunch, so-called "objectivists". I've often read where audio skeptics say they heard differences between A and B, but when a double blind test was performed, those differences disappeared. Well no wonder! If you actually look at the overall results of audio DBT's, you'll find that most conventional audio gear that has undergone double blind tests also show no differences! Sometimes, people have even failed DBT's involving speaker trials, and you won't even find the most extreme audio skeptic arguing there is no audible differences among speakers.

John Curl, the celebrated designer of many great high end audio amplifiers, found that at the end of a series of DBT trials, he could not reliably hear differences between one of his own designs, the preamp stage of a Mark Levinson JC-2, and that of a Dynaco PAS-3X. Yet had no problem hearing them under casual listening conditions. Based on his reading of the book "Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain", Mr. Curl hypothesized that the stresses of performing well in an ABX test causes the right brains of many participants to shut down, or skip a synapse or two. May Belt, of PWB Electronics, refers to this as "going under tension".

Despite what the extremist DBT advocates would like to believe, there are clear differences between casual sighted listening, and being put through an unnatural double blind test. In the case of PWB's products, all of them are claimed to work at reducing tensions that humans react to in our modern environments. Other advanced audio products, such as the Clever Little Clock or the green CD edge treatment markers, may in fact work on similar principles. This being the case, the DBT would compete against the beneficial effect these products purport to have. So it would be entirely the wrong solution to testing them out.

The audio skeptics often confuse audio DBT's with double blind tests in other scientific domains, such as the medical industry. Yet the two are not comparable, for any variety of reasons. Including the fact that audio systems were meant to be evaluated on a purely subjective basis. Trying to do otherwise infringes upon the scientific range rule, which invalidates any such test as unscientific. Moreover, the hypocrisy of audio DBT advocates is evident in this simple observation by one forumer: So-called "objectivists" in audio dismiss any and all subjective inquiries that are not part of the DBT experience, citing that the ears can be fooled. But these same doctrinaires also admit that the eyes can be fooled, by slight of hand, by illusionists, and other "trompe d'oeil". However, when guaging whether to apply the brakes on their car to avoid hitting the car in front of them, they don't ever seem to have a problem with using subjective measures to do so. Even though the eye can be fooled by subjective measures.

By the way, I have sometimes gone to visit these audio skeptics at their homes. Their audio systems are some of the worst I've ever heard, not even approaching the sound of my system. I guess it's all what you get used to. Their systems were boring as all get out, and appeared to be designed to reproduce sounds, not music. It is a sobering lesson that makes me repeat this to my fellow audio hobbyists:

Don't let ideology get in the way of good music reproduction!

It's already responsible for millions of kids across the globe, thinking that mp3 is about as good as you need to get. If for no other reason than the love of good music reproduced well in your home, that's why you should always carry an open mind with you wherever you go.

 

[RUR]

ROTFLMAO! That is precious! But what happened to the plant?

It had fewer cavities.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I hope you don't read this until you finish your trip. I would not want to ruin it for you. You unwittingly provide an example of what's wrong in high end discourse.Your comment is political, dogmatic, conclusory and accusatory.

To imply that subjective reviewers like JGH ignored measurements is just incorrect. Whenever you evaluate someones performance you have to at least start out believing they were faithful to their task and competent to perform it .

Let's review:

But the problem, of course, with the subjective movement that took over the hobby a couple of decades ago is not a semantical one. If enough people can come to a precise enough agreement on what all these words mean in the context of audio reproduction, they can be quite useful as supplements to measurement, to describe what the measurements mean in more human terms. It's that there is not broad agreement and that the words are, instead, often used to displace or deny measurement.

Where, exactly, did I say anything at all about JHG or his use or lack thereof of measurements? Where did I say that "reviewers" ignored measurements? Plenty do. You could easily find a dozen examples of recent reviews on the net that are completely subjective and contain no measurements other than the manufacturer's specs if you wanted. But that was not what I said. What I said was that these terms, like musical, are often used to displace or deny measurements. You could come up with plenty of examples of that as well, some without leaving these pages. Give it a couple of days and you may even find a few in this thread. But there was nothing about anyone personally in my statement nor did I attack the entire profession of audio criticism.

Really, Gregg, before you accuse someone of being "political, dogmatic, conclusory and accusatory," it would be a good idea if you actually read what they wrote and responded to that, instead of being political, dogmatic conclusory and accusatory. I'm sure whatever it is that you imagine I said would be much more fun to argue with, but I didn't say it, and I don't believe it, so it is likely to be a short, unsatisfying debate.

P

 

[Gregadd]

Perhaps I spoke to strongly. I said before all my arguments assume a competent actor faithful to his task. I cannot account for the casual reviewer who perverts his cause. I respect your opinions or I would just ignore your comments. I sometimes poke fun at them. What is life without the occasional humor?

My comments were based on this portion of your post:

...many audiophiles seem to think they report to a higher authority than the source signal, that their equipment somehow becomes a part of the art, that their equipment's job is to enhance the signal, to somehow make it "more." I have no problem with this; it is simply a choice. But this choice, and what it means, seems to be is the gist of the old argument. Enhance. It's your choice. Do it with valves or vinyl or cables or equalization (the reversible and, therefore, wiser choice IMO). Describe it with whatever language suits you. Even believe it is more "natural," that your reference is the real sound of the instrument that may never have been on the recording in the first place if you must. Color all recordings, regardless of their quality, with the same brush. It's your brush. But what you're talking about isn't "high fidelity," it is tone, it is preference. If you must insist that a deliberate alteration of the source signal creates superior fidelity, I must object.

You would agree that you make some accusations, you make some assumptions, you do make some conclusions, and maybe not you, but others have used this to be political. You are right you did not mention JGH in particular. You were however talking about subjectvsts in general of which JGH is the father. Even though I characterized your comment as such does not mean that I characterize your whole philosophy that way.

The purpose of me starting this thread is to try to put that very idea to rest. Just because I am not locked into measurements or a so called objectivist position does not mean I ,or those who beleive something similar,am in fact a signal processor, as the first of line of your quote would suggest. We assume we have some divine right to do so.

IMO the fact that some reviewers don't mention measurements in thier reviews is meaningless. We have been at this for so long it gets boring and redundant. I see no point to it for the most part, unless there is an aberration or some new ground where the reviewer can correlate what he hears with the particular measurement.

 

[rsbeck]

I had thought the idea behind this thread was for everyone to share their definition of the term "musical" to see if we could either arrive at a consensus or agree that it is too ambiguous, subjective, and personal to have any meaning that we could all hold in common.

Personally, I believe no two sets of ears are alike. So, IMO, it follows that each audio enthusiast will set up his or her system to sound right to his or her ears.

I hear a lot of people talk about how your system should sound like live music.

Personally, I think that is subjective, too. What does it mean to sound like a live performance? Do you mean a live performance in your living room, the local nightclub with awful acoustics and muddy sound? And from which seat?

When I go to a live music performance, I always listen to see if I hear holographic imaging, wide sound stage, infinite detail, and air around each instrument. I seldom do. In my experience, even in the finest acoustic environments, instruments blend and weave together. In fact, I think it stands to reason that this is the intention of the musicians. You can hear each individual violinist in the symphony? Tell that to the conductor and he would soil his tuxedo trousers. I'm quite sure that's not what he wants. A singer may sing into a microphone in the center of the stage, but that doesn't mean his or her voice will image there.

In many ways, no system will ever truly sound like a live performance. You're asking a speaker to sound like drums, horns, strings, etc. But, in other ways, I absolutely want my system and the recordings it reproduces to sound "better" than live performance. I want it to put me in the theoretical best seat in the house where I can hear deep into the music. I want the singer to image somewhere between my speakers. I want some "air" around the instruments. I want to hear detail, I want focus and though many, many live performances have left my ears fatigued, I certainly don't want my system to be fatiguing.

I do believe each person is the "conductor" and should assemble his or her system to perform like he or she thinks it should.

In fact, I believe that's what everyone does, but some people will always pat themselves on the back a little harder than others and will always make proclamations about how his or her preference is the correct way and thus superior to other ways. But, in reality, you can read these audio forums 'til you die and there is no real consensus. If a speaker measures flat, there are those who will jump up and say measurements are flawed and we should only trust our ears. If a speaker sells well and someone measures and finds it has a mid-bass hump, there are those who will jump up and say the speaker is flawed because it is using the mid-bass hump to play a psycho-acoustic trick on the listeners, who are being duped. Guess the ears aren't trustworthy after all.

Mostly, when someone on one of these audio boards says, "trust your ears," it seems to me they really mean, "trust my ears."

Nobody has a system that sounds exactly like a live performance. To the extent it does, it is always due to psychoacoustic tricks being played on you by the recording engineer and gear designers. I think we would all agree that we want holographic imaging, but that, too, is a psychoacoustic trick. It's almost an audio "caricature", if you will, and just like many visual caricatures, sometimes the exaggerations make it seem more real than real. There are some popular "high end" speakers with upper frequencies tipped up to give the illusion of increased detail and others with mid-bass humps and some systems create sound stages that could never and would never exist on a real stage.

Everyone picks their flavors, which tricks he or she finds acceptable, which ones sound real to his or her ears and which ones don't.