What does the term musical mean?

[JackD201]

Very well said rsbeck. I'm of the mind that it all really is an illusion and the challenge has always been to achieve consistent and extended periods of suspended disbelief. This is partly why I sometimes come down hard on absolutism. There is science, there is art. Let's not forget that this is show business! It's about entertainment.

The music is real. Music reproduction is trickery.

Uh-oh I've gone obtuse again. Where the heck are my DHA pills?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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."

And I still stand by it. many audiophiles, not all, use terms like "musical" to describe something they hear in their systems that makes them, in their opinions, more than accurate. I don't think this is even remotely controversial. I offered none of the thousands of examples from the boards, because I thought the truth in the statement was obvious. And I still have no problem with it until they imply that this "more" is somehow objectively better (see any discussion of tubes or vinyl for reference), that the alteration of the source signal is, somehow, higher fidelity. The question then, of course, is higher fidelity to what? For the overwhelming majority of modern recordings -- multi-tracked, assembled, enhanced, processed recordings -- the signal is not only the source, it is the only practical reference point.

It is an old argument; it is also the fundamental question that drives the hobby and the industry. It is difficult to review a product, discuss pro audio's place in the audiophile hobby, talk about recordings or discuss anything audio without touching on the sounds good vs. fidelity to the signal debate. It is the old argument.

P

 

[Gregadd]

I started this thread. I define its parameters. Subject to comment from my fellow members of course.
Phelonious I already know what you think about subjectivists. You tell me every chance you get. You are wrong. I still think you have plenty of reasons for your opinions that have little to do with music reproduction.
Yes music reproduction is in some aspects is an illusion.
Ideally I would like an aural and a visual holograph. I probably will not live to see it. But if the designers are so inclined they could do it.

I continue to say this is audiophile 101. it is a subject of continuing debate and I am not so naive to think I will settle it here. What I will do is remind people what musicality is. At least as i have come to understand it, Those who continue to argue that musicality is a euphonic, pleasant sound do so in support of their own agenda and not out of ignorance of the concept.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I started this thread. I define its parameters. Subject to comment from my fellow members of course.
Phelonious I already know what you think about subjectivists. You tell me every chance you get. You are wrong. I still think you have plenty of reasons for your opinions that have little to do with music reproduction.
Yes music reproduction is in some aspects is an illusion.
Ideally I would like an aural and a visual holograph. I probably will not live to see it. But if the designers are so inclined they could do it.

I continue to say this is audiophile 101. it is a subject of continuing debate and I am not so naive to think I will settle it here. What I will do is remind people what musicality is. At least as i have come to understand it, Those who continue to argue that musicality is a euphonic, pleasant sound do so in support of their own agenda and not out of ignorance of the concept.

Yes, your thread, your parameters. I'm sorry, I'll not go into the causes of the alternate language again, just what "musical" means. So far we have this from you:

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.

To which my initial response is still appropriate:

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!

And this from Holt:

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.

...which reduces it to a personal judgement regarding the realism of a false construct. Utterly subjective and leading to a different answer for every system and every listener, which brings us back to where we were in the first place. This language of the subjective review could be useful if it could be agreed upon, but evidently it can't. It's father gave it a set of rules destined to keep it completely personal and untranslatable. So to give my personal answer to the topic "What does the term musical mean?" without veering off into discussions of subjectivism and accuracy --

It means whatever each person wants it to mean. To the next person, it means nothing.

P

 

[Gregadd]

P feel free to make any comment that is reasonably related to the topic of the thread. I just don't want anyone to accuse me of being off thread.
When I say you are wrong of course that is IMO.
Forgive me if I don't address every point as I progress. Some of the points do not require rebuttal. I don't need to express an opinion on everything. Other points will be addressed as the thread proceeds.

Overall I think the process of review has worked. Comment on a products particular positive attributes and negative ones have allowed designers to address those issues and improve thier products.

Just preliminary- is there agreement on measurements and how they translate into a particular sound? I think you have to be logically consistent. What's your position-Objective standard based on measurements or subjective illusion based on listener preference? Whether you accept my definition or not I am trying to define mine. You are not limited to those to choices. You have the option of defining it in this thread. With all deliberate speed.

 

[JackD201]

P,

Now why would the source signal be the highest authority?

Jack

 

[Ethan Winer]

Although not formally named such you agree there are a lot of "audio skeptics" some more famous than you.

Fame is unrelated. This guy has stalked me in numerous forums using at least six different screen names. No need to discuss this further publicly unless others are interested. Or PM me for more. It's not pretty.

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.

But they'd have to offer some evidence to be taken seriously. Simply having an opposing opinion means nothing. You can take any idea, no matter how crazy, and find people that agree with it. I have a ton of evidence. Not only graphs and charts, but the entire scientific community that accepts such graphs as evidence. Versus anti-science subjectivists who have only "Because I say so." Huge difference, whether everyone understands that or not.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

Fame is only related to my perception of who he meant by audio skeptics. It appears he was referring to the whole group. I assume there are many.

This argument has gone on for at least a century in audio. Perhaps since man began to study what and how things happen. Opinions are important. You have graphs and charts. Scientific reports by people with credits behind their name and graphs and charts are discredited all the time. I would remind you there is a difference between sanity and intelligence. At least this article seems rational and logical.
Our evidence goes behind what say, It goes to what we hear. But then you don't accept that either. I just got an email from Dr. Gary Null a believer in homeopathic medicine. He conducts double blind studies, has graphs and charts Does that mean you are ready to change your opinion on homeopathic medicine?

 

[rsbeck]

I started this thread. I define its parameters.

Please do. I must be missing it. What's the motivation behind this thread?

 

[Ethan Winer]

Scientific reports by people with credits behind their name and graphs and charts are discredited all the time.

Sure, but that doesn't mean science is wrong. People are sometimes wrong. But in that other thread you admitted you were unable to discredit me. Does that account for nothing? So please try to discredit my graphs and explanations. And please define "musical" which as far as I can tell you never did.

I just got an email from Dr. Gary Null a believer in homeopathic medicine. He conducts double blind studies, has graphs and charts

I seriously doubt that he has anything remotely resembling credible evidence showing that homeopathy is effective for anything other than pain based on anything other than placebo effect. But sure, show me his data and I'm sure I can discredit it completely.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

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.

Sterophile magazine JGH

With respect to the other thread there is nothing to respond to. I see nothing that I can use to tell me about my systems speakers imaging charateristics. I have not tried to discredit you. I have been warned not to be rude to our experts. Please don't make me be rude to you. I value my status on this forum. I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Gregadd]

Please do. I must be missing it. What's the motivation behind this thread?

To define musicality and what it means to me. I saw no particular reason to respond to your post. I am not finished with the things I have to say. Please feel free to provide your own definition or disagree with mine.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

P,

Now why would the source signal be the highest authority?

Jack

Because the violin, the soprano, the trumpet, the guitar are not playing from your disc or file, and their sound is not coursing through your DAC, preamp, amp and to your transducers. The recording, quite literally FWIW, is. It is not the highest authority, but it is the only reference. The live reference ended the minute the musician stepped into the studio and the guy in the control room started listening through his microphones and monitoring system and crafting his recording based on that. You can say you know what a violin sounds like. But studios sound different from performance spaces (which all sound different from each other) and microphones don't "hear" like ears to. So once we enter into that process, all we have is the recording. No matter how natural, no matter how processed, it is the only functional reference. It is the only thing your high fidelity system ever "hears," the only thing it endeavors to be faithful to, not because it is the highest authority, but because that's what your system does: It reproduces the recording. It doesn't reanimate musical instruments or synthesize them somehow using a recording signal as a loose model, it reproduces the recording. To the extend that it deviates from that recording's signal, it errs.

P

 

[Gregadd]

There was a time we could know. Everything was printed right there on the album recording venue, microphone name, piano type and cutting lathe. If the source is our reference then we have no reference. You said we don't know. Of course there are live recordings. Maybe I was there. Like Blues Alley, I know what that sounds like.
And if a trumpet sounds like a trumpet over a wide rage of recordings to a wide range people on different systems I think we got it.

How do we convey emotions in real life. Our friends and love ones hear is laugh. Hear us cry. The shakiness in our voice and we cry out in anguish. Can't you tell on the phone when someone is nervous or sad. No reason that cannot be captured in a recording.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How do we convey emotions in real life. Our friends and love ones hear is laugh. Hear us cry. The shakiness in our voice and we cry out in anguish. Can't you tell on the phone when someone is nervous or sad. No reason that cannot be captured in a recording.

Of course it can be captured in a recording, but that recording is the sum of the cry and all of the equipment and acoustics used to record, process and play back that cry. It is not the cry, it is a recording of the cry. The cry is not the source, the recording is. The cry can be re-produced accurately enough to convey the emotion on a pocket cassette recorder. What is your point?

Do you have Eva Cassidy's "Live At Blues Alley?" Do you hear the reverb that is on that recording in the reflections of that room? Do you hear the PA system that you listen to in that room on the recording? Do you hear the room ambiance from the table you sat at when you heard Eva perform? Of course not. The recording and the performance are two very different, separate events. The job of your playback system, having no other source, no other reference than the recording, is to reproduce the recording. It cannot reproduce the original event for you because it doesn't have the original event to reproduce, it only has the recording, a flawed and often manipulated reflection of the original event. Any attempt to re-create the original event from the recording and a hifi system would be as futile as trying to create the ambience of The Bottom Line by selecting that program on an AV receiver.

Let's make this simple: Take a picture of your face. A really good picture. The best you can get. Hold it in front of a mirror. Does it look like your face in front of the mirror or a photo of your face in front of the mirror? If it was a very high quality mirror made of the smoothest glass and the purest silver, would the reflection of the photograph look more like your face, or would it merely look like a more accurate reflection of the photograph?

You are trying to bend reality to support your argument, Greg.

P

 

[JackD201]

Alright, you didn't mean it was the highest authority, just that there is no higher authority than the source signal.

many audiophiles seem to think they report to a higher authority than the source signal

I hope I got that right this time. OK then, yours is a valid perspective. It is one close to that of the professional world. Simply put, remove as many variables as possible and listen to what's in the recording and what's in the recording only. It even shows in your chosen approach. You like listening with headphones and you like listening in the very nearfield as though you were sitting at a mixing desk. Ok fair enough. While you will actually never here what the engineer heard nor will you ever know what he intended, you did do away with quite a few areas that are often expensive to fix.

I know you can see it coming so I'll get right to it. First the revered signal while hewing as close to it as possible sadly exists in the machine and in the machine only. Viewed with even the highest resolution on a DAW what you will see is a representation of voltage swings. Upon transduction it has been totally transformed. It is no longer electricity it is now kinetic energy transmitted from transducer material to all air and solids around it. It's gone. What's left are (you'll love this my digital loving friend) analogous air pressure swings. I'd like to think I'm a pretty pragmatic guy.

Given these facts I find it difficult to subscribe to your assertion that the signal is the only reference. The same track could have been sent to replicating plants all over the world. Your CD of KOB proudly made in the USA is not the same as my humbly Philippine made one. I'm not knocking my country but I have heard both and one was clearly better than the other. Even at this early stage you and I have two different versions of the signal that must be revered. We haven't even gotten to our CD trays yet! Your rig is going to do something to that signal and it will be different from what mine does. Owing to the fact that neither of us have perfect rigs again we have two different versions. The irony is that we will never ever, ever, ever, ever, know if we've got it right because you can't hear a signal you can only ever here how it's been mangled by the amplification-loudspeaker-acoustic environment pyramid. Take a look at Ethan's treated FR vs non-treated FR graph if you need proof. So a big tsk,tsk,tsk to anybody that insists his way is truer to the signal than another.

It gets worse. The producer and engineers job is to come out with products that first of all work and second of all people will like enough to buy. If you examine the typical work flow for popular music and exclude for the moment "audiophile" recordings. You will find that they perform mixdowns on purposely dumbed down monitoring systems by virtue of using let us say "less than ideal" monitors. NS-10 and Auratones anyone? Why? They want to make sure it will sound as best it can with mass market speakers but ESPECIALLY in cars. Many producers actually go grab a dub and drive around before final approval. Ouch!

Wanna hear the inside scoop on the loudness wars? Well that's it. The greater majority of radio play is on the road. Radio play drives sales. That track had better cut through road noise if they ever want a return on investment. It is sad but true. Counter intuitive as it sounds, the headphone wearing iPod generation may actually help reverse the trend.

So while it is a valid perspective as well as one that is economical, I myself choose to report to a higher authority than the signal. Now if that makes me a subjectivist despite my obvious love for the technical aspect of music production, so be it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Alright, you didn't mean it was the highest authority, just that there is no higher authority than the source signal.

many audiophiles seem to think they report to a higher authority than the source signal

I hope I got that right this time. OK then, yours is a valid perspective. It is one close to that of the professional world. Simply put, remove as many variables as possible and listen to what's in the recording and what's in the recording only. It even shows in your chosen approach. You like listening with headphones and you like listening in the very nearfield as though you were sitting at a mixing desk. Ok fair enough. While you will actually never here what the engineer heard nor will you ever know what he intended, you did do away with quite a few areas that are often expensive to fix.

I know you can see it coming so I'll get right to it. First the revered signal while hewing as close to it as possible sadly exists in the machine and in the machine only. Viewed with even the highest resolution on a DAW what you will see is a representation of voltage swings. Upon transduction it has been totally transformed. It is no longer electricity it is now kinetic energy transmitted from transducer material to all air and solids around it. It's gone. What's left are (you'll love this my digital loving friend) analogous air pressure swings. I'd like to think I'm a pretty pragmatic guy.

Given these facts I find it difficult to subscribe to your assertion that the signal is the only reference. The same track could have been sent to replicating plants all over the world. Your CD of KOB proudly made in the USA is not the same as my humbly Philippine made one. I'm not knocking my country but I have heard both and one was clearly better than the other. Even at this early stage you and I have two different versions of the signal that must be revered. We haven't even gotten to our CD trays yet! Your rig is going to do something to that signal and it will be different from what mine does. Owing to the fact that neither of us have perfect rigs again we have two different versions. The irony is that we will never ever, ever, ever, ever, know if we've got it right because you can't hear a signal you can only ever here how it's been mangled by the amplification-loudspeaker-acoustic environment pyramid. Take a look at Ethan's treated FR vs non-treated FR graph if you need proof. So a big tsk,tsk,tsk to anybody that insists his way is truer to the signal than another.

It gets worse. The producer and engineers job is to come out with products that first of all work and second of all people will like enough to buy. If you examine the typical work flow for popular music and exclude for the moment "audiophile" recordings. You will find that they perform mixdowns on purposely dumbed down monitoring systems by virtue of using let us say "less than ideal" monitors. NS-10 and Auratones anyone? Why? They want to make sure it will sound as best it can with mass market speakers but ESPECIALLY in cars. Many producers actually go grab a dub and drive around before final approval. Ouch!

Wanna hear the inside scoop on the loudness wars? Well that's it. The greater majority of radio play is on the road. Radio play drives sales. That track had better cut through road noise if they ever want a return on investment. It is sad but true. Counter intuitive as it sounds, the headphone wearing iPod generation may actually help reverse the trend.

So while it is a valid perspective as well as one that is economical, I myself choose to report to a higher authority than the signal. Now if that makes me a subjectivist despite my obvious love for the technical aspect of music production, so be it.

Jack, thanks for the reasoned, rational response. The truth is that the piece you quoted: "Many audiophiles seem to think they report to a higher authority than the source," was a bit of poetic license being taken. It really isn't about authority. It has to do with the simple reality that the recording is all your system has to work with. Regardless of the quality of the cds available in Manilla, or the horror of the mastering from the contemporary, or the old analog "loudness wars" of the 60s (listen to some Phil Spector recordings...) that cared more about cheap speakers and noisy environments than quality, regardless of the comb filtering or the boom in your room, or even the shape and response characteristics of your ears, when you sit down to spin that disc or load that file, all your playback system is capable of reproducing, all it has to work with, is the signal put into it. Sure, you can design DACs, preamps, amps that deliberately alter the signal, and it may sound better, just like a bit of judiciously-applied eq can, on some recordings. But if it's not eq, if it can't be reversed, it colors all recordings.

So, what could possibly be your "higher authority" other than a personal preference for a signature tone?

P

 

[Gregadd]

The whole point of having a reference is to avoid adopting a signature tone. The reference must be real music. The fact that we fall short of that reference is irrelevant for the sake of this argument.

One area where digital has prevailed is in photography. I have seen some hauntingly realistic pictures. So much so that film has been relegated to the professionals.

I don't try to bend reality. I do allow myself to submit to the illusion the recording is trying to create. It's like going to a magic show. I know he can't saw a woman in half. Yet I marvel at his ability to trick me.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The whole point of having a reference is to avoid adopting a signature tone. The reference must be real music. The fact that we fall short of that reference is irrelevant for the sake of this argument.

One area where digital has prevailed is in photography. I have seen some hauntingly realistic pictures. So much so that film has been relegated to the professionals.

I don't try to bend reality. I do allow myself to submit to the illusion the recording is trying to create. It's like going to a magic show. I know he can't saw a woman in half. Yet I marvel at his ability to trick me.

The system that makes one recording sound more like "real music" than an accurate reproduction of the recording, will make many others sound less like "real music" simply because the only reality your audio playback system knows is the recording. You may be bending that reality, whether you're trying to or not.

P

 

[Gregadd]

For the sake of argument.
1.I have a recording studio in my bsement.
2. I birng in Cassaudra Wilson and a jazz trio.
3. Upstairs I have assembled the most musically accurate system I can find.
4. I get a live microhone feed to my system.
5. I g odown stars and listen live. I go back up staris. They play it again and I listen again.
6. So live music is my reference. Now I know my system is both musical and accurate.
Now everything I play through that system will sound like the recording. Believe me I have recordings that are not good. Usually because I could not hear them before I made my purchase. Or becaue I like the artist so much, I don't care. For example-Phyllis Hyman was a gifted artist. Never made a decent recording in her entire career.