What does the term musical mean?

[JackD201]

Not just voices either. Pretty much all popular instruments. I'm looking for commonalities tom.

I have some ideas, not enough to actually be called a theory. I definitely don't have the answer.

 

[JackD201]

No not really because seriously I'm not trying to be coy. There's so much information here at WBF that I have been trying to synthesize. Connecting ideas from the various points of view from various members from various threads. It could very well be the start of something but maybe not.

 

[JackD201]

Okay, to prove I'm not trying to lead anywhere with a lopsided agenda here's a bit of thinking I have so far.

The OP, Greg, asks a question. What does the term musical mean? I'm already on record as stating that I personally don't use the term because it means many things to many people. In an extended conversation however, preferably a non-adversarial one two individuals can easily come to an understanding of each other's definitions even without coming up with a common one. I stray though. As I pondered the question and tried to find words to describe what musicality means to me, I happened to wonder what makes people recognize music as music in the first place. In comes my keen interest in Sean's thread about cultural preferences since I am moderator of the world music forum and am of mixed caucasian, north and south east asian ancestry. I am a walking, talking example of what happens when east meets west. I can say from experience that what is music to someone may be just noise to another and that this isn't just an inter generational joke.

In Sean's thread it is pretty clear that cross cultural preferences do exist but so do point to some universal preferences. If there are universal preferences it points to a base level of appreciation and identification. Where one could come before another. Now what would that baseline be? What is it comprised of? I do not know. The fact remains as in the Sinatra example, a whole lot of people can identify him even through devices with low fidelity to the source on one extreme or little semblance of an imagined or constructed live event on the other.

It could be his tone, the timbre of his voice, his style and phrasing, association between him and the song being listened to or some other factor outside of those I've already mentioned. The only thing these have in common that even begins to answer the question is prior exposure and priorly being informed of his identity in association with a reproduction of his voice. The vastly varying levels of fidelity at initial exposure, a lack of a reference so to speak, does not seem to have hampered people being able to identify him.

Any ideas?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How to we recognize Sinatra? The subtle variations in frequency response in his voice, inflection, phrasing. We are picking up the subtle tonal variations that his lungs, throat, mouth, sinuses...I'm about to hit my limit of the understanding of the physiology here...create on the same fundamental tones that Tony Bennet or Vic Damone would put out when singing the same tune. How can we recognize it on low-fi devices? You've already answered that: because they are accurate enough, in the mid-band, to do the job. That part is really simple. What's interesting is how much of the music is in that band, how easily we could also recognize Clapton's Guitar, Miles' trumpet, Gadd's drumming, via pretty low-fi playback. Step it up to hifi, or even midfi playback of the midband only - good "full-range" driver systems or even the tiny Cambridge Soundworks satellites and (small, mid-bass) sub at my wife's desk and the amount of nuance revealed can be pretty startling. Are they full range? Of course not. Are they pretty accurate within their range? I doubt it. But they are good enough to make one -- whether one is in the musical camp or the accurate camp -- wonder what all the fuss is about.

Clearly, the millions of people thoroughly enjoying music every day on systems not as good as the ones described above do not understand the fuss at all.

In any case, it's the most interesting question in the thread, Jack. Thanks.

P

 

[JackD201]

Thanks too for the input P, I'm trying to figure out just what "accurate enough" might be. The flip side being how much filling in of blanks we actually do in the absence of the missing information. I think I said it in another thread that the baseline is actually rather low.

Any cognitive science experts or practitioners here at WBF?

 

[rsbeck]

When you have Cassandra in your basement, call me. But even then, you'll have a live reference for one singer and combo through one set of microphones in one room. It won't help with all of the rest of the recordings in the world. For them, the recording will still be your only reference, your system's only source. But it's ok. If you had the live reference and came to conclusion # 6 above, you would have discovered that accurate is "musical." Then you'd know if you heard anything that was not "musical" it would be the recording at fault, not your system.P

I see problems with both of your points of view.

Question: Isn't accurate also subjective? Since we don't have access to the master, how do we know when we have accuracy? Can't two speakers that measure similarly still sound quite different?

On the Cassandra Wilson argument, this is a hypothetical with all kinds of problems. How would Cass and her trio be recorded? If you want to make sure it will sound upstairs exactly like in your basement, it seems to me you will have a ton of work on your hands. Yet, in another sense, of course your recording of Cass and her trio will sound similar to the real thing -- it's a recording. So, I would argue that even if the recording sounds quite different from what you heard downstairs, it is likely that it will sound similar to you.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thanks too for the input P, I'm trying to figure out just what "accurate enough" might be. The flip side being how much filling in of blanks we actually do in the absence of the missing information. I think I said it in another thread that the baseline is actually rather low.

Any cognitive science experts or practitioners here at WBF?

I think we fill in a lot, frankly, but obviously not enough to tell the difference between Frank and Tony if the playback system isn't good enough to communicate the appropriate details.

P

 

[Ron Party]

Jack, one theory is that the act of hearing is a lossy process such that, e.g., based on the need for survival, some sounds need to be rejected in order that other, more important sounds can make it through and be etched in long term memory. A parent will sleep through the night, even if a loud truck drives in front of the house at 3:00 a.m., but that same parent will awaken when the baby starts crying.

Where is our resident expert Kal?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Question: Isn't accurate also subjective? Since we don't have access to the master, how do we know when we have accuracy?

For me, no. What I've been talking about is fidelity to the input signal, the only reference I have to be true to. Nothing subjective about it that I can see/hear, at least until Cassandra moves into my basement.

Can't two speakers that measure similarly still sound quite different?

In the same room, they shouldn't if you get enough measurements. It is, however, a pretty daunting task to get enough measurements to understand if, indeed, they do measure similarly in the same room. Simple on-axis response in an anechoic chamber would be easier, but then they could definitely measure similarly and sound different. But speakers are tough. They're also the weak link in the chain, the one where some level of coloration is unavoidable. For that reason, I personally think they (and eq) are the place to choose your color, the place to season to taste. But ahead of the transducers, I don't see any advantage to anything less or more than fidelity to the input signal and generous headroom for the load to be driven.

But of course YMMV.

P

 

[rsbeck]

For me, no. What I've been talking about is fidelity to the input signal, the only reference I have to be true to.

How can you be certain you've achieved fidelity to the input signal?

 

[rsbeck]

But speakers are tough. They're also the weak link in the chain, the one where some level of coloration is unavoidable. For that reason, I personally think they (and eq) are the place to choose your color, the place to season to taste.

I agree with your here, but to the extent that one can achieve "coloration" in other parts of the chain, why should that be considered any more nefarious than at the speaker.

Also, do you think people are knowingly adding color or do you agree with me that people are seasoning until the result sounds right to them and thus "accurate."

 

[Gregadd]

I see problems with both of your points of view.

Question: Isn't accurate also subjective? Since we don't have access to the master, how do we know when we have accuracy? Can't two speakers that measure similarly still sound quite different?

On the Cassandra Wilson argument, this is a hypothetical with all kinds of problems. How would Cass and her trio be recorded? If you want to make sure it will sound upstairs exactly like in your basement, it seems to me you will have a ton of work on your hands. Yet, in another sense, of course your recording of Cass and her trio will sound similar to the real thing -- it's a recording. So, I would argue that even if the recording sounds quite different from what you heard downstairs, it is likely that it will sound similar to you.

rsbeck:
I assumed I could get a live feed through my system. No recording. Although we could playback a master tape. Maybe I should turn that around. Casaundra upstairs, me in the basement.
Getting Cass in my basement without the use of duct tape would be the real problem.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How can you be certain you've achieved fidelity to the input signal?

In electronics? By measuring, or short of that, by using equipment known to have very low noise, very low distortion, very flat frequency response within the audible range and very generous headroom for driving the transducers at hand. If I did this and it didn't sound good to me, would I persist? No, of course not. But that's not the case, I've always found that the best recordings in my collection sound best through the electronic gear that fits this description. YMMV and that's fine with me.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree with your here, but to the extent that one can achieve "coloration" in other parts of the chain, why should that be considered any more nefarious than at the speaker.

This is my personal approach, not a declaration of the "right thing," but I want to avoid coloration wherever it can be avoided, even in transducers. I assume they are colored and choose what I believe sounds balanced, in my space. Because measurement is typically so inadequate for speakers, I refer to this as "choosing color," even though it is an attempt to choose not to color.

Also, do you think people are knowingly adding color or do you agree with me that people are seasoning until the result sounds right to them and thus "accurate."

Yes. I agree with everything in that statement but the "thus accurate" part. "Sounds right to them" does not equal "accurate." Deliberately coloring, and/or seasoning to taste is fine if it finds your bliss, but assuming the results are "accurate" is, well, really odd and presumptuous IMO. Heck, I don't assume my results are accurate and I am systematically avoiding color and seasoning whenever I can.

YMMV, MHO and all of that. Honestly. I have very strong feelings about this stuff but I'm trying to avoid strong language, because it's all about pleasure and wherever you find your audio pleasure is ok by me. It's just that in my experience, the most balanced, coherent systems to listen to inevitably are made of measurably accurate components. Your experience may vary too. A new one: YEMV.

P

 

[rsbeck]

I mean to say that it would sound right to the and thus also accurate to them. In other words, I suspect people adjust the sound until it sounds right with the idea that when it sounds right, it also sounds like what they believe is accurate.

I have always followed a similar path to yours. My first goal is to get all of the signal from the disc, but then I try to get the rest of the system to sound "right." Right, to me is how it "should" sound.

However, I have also been to Steve Williams and Grellman's houses. Those guys are all tubes, all the time. I'm sure you could measure enough distortion from their tube gear to fill a notebook, but damn if those systems don't sound amazingly right, too.

 

[Ethan Winer]

What if the gear is producing 5-10dB peaks and dips at the mixing engineer's listening position?

Well, that's the room, not the gear. My comment was in reply to the opinion that "pro" quality gear usually sounds bad, which seems (forgive me) uninformed.

I recently addressed the importance elsewhere of mixing in a flat room, but I'm too lazy to look it up. If I come across it I'll edit this post with a link.

Edit, here it is:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-Audiophile-Gear&p=15437&viewfull=1#post15437
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-Audiophile-Gear&p=15442&viewfull=1#post15442

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I've never heard Sinatra live, neither has his millions of fans even those born after his death. Despite the fact that all of us hear differently even for purely biological reasons, why can we all be pretty much sure it is him singing within a few seconds even over low fi devices?

That's pretty easy. One important "fingerprint" of a person's voice character - aside from pronunciation and inflection and phrasing etc - is the formant frequencies of their vocal tract.

--Ethan

 

[rsbeck]

There is something ironic and funny about this hobby and some have touched on it already;

It is also my experience that low end audio gear seems to have no trouble reproducing music without taking the music out of the music. That's why I am happy to listen to music in my car or even on my boat.

In my experience, it has only been certain "high end" audio gear that has had the capability of sounding "clinical" and "unmusical."

It's hard to come up with understandable terms for all of this stuff.

Music on a boat can sound shrill, incomplete, and the wind and water slapping at the boat adds all kinds of distortion, but I can still enjoy it if the music is good.

I see an interesting correlation to animation.

It's interesting to me that Pixar seems to have pushed the realism of their animation about as far as it can go. So, what has been the next step? Interestingly, it has been to actually move towards impressionism (Wall-E) and painterly effects (everything since).

It seems to me that there's a point where hyper detail and huge sound stages begin to make you more aware of the fact that you are not listening to a real performance, or in the case of Pixar animation looking at real life. In Pixar's case, it's funny because you're looking at a cartoon, but their intention is to make you suspend your disbelief and anything that shakes you from the dream like state is counter productive.

Maybe we need some kinds of distortion in the chain?

In my opinion, we certainly need to know when enough is enough. Like how much detail is enough, how big a soundstage, how much bass.

I don't know the answers to any of this, but I find it curious that most of us probably have speakers that add tons of distortion.

OB and Grellman seem to have speakers with very, very low distortion and then they add distortion with thir tube gear and damn if it doesn't have me suspending more disbelief than ever.

It's enough to make me question and question some more.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Isn't accurate also subjective?

No, because it can be established mathematically and/or statistically.

Can't two speakers that measure similarly still sound quite different?

Not if everything is measured properly! Now, that may be a tall order, but that's very different from believing that everything about a loudspeaker's character cannot be measured. Or that measurements can somehow be "wrong" and/or miss an important audible quality difference.

--Ethan

 

[rsbeck]

No, because it can be established mathematically and/or statistically.

Interesting. How would one go about doing that?

Not if everything is measured properly! Now, that may be a tall order, but that's very different from believing that everything about a loudspeaker's character cannot be measured. Or that measurements can somehow be "wrong" and/or miss an important audible quality difference.

I would say this; Suppose I trust that if you measure enough aspects of a speaker's performance and get it to match another speaker so closely that you could not distinguish them from one another, wouldn't you most likely simply have another identical speaker? My anecdotal evidence tells me that when I take a trip to my audio boutique, all of the speakers sound pretty markedly different from one another.

I don't see any consensus around any set of speakers wether from objectivists or subjectivists that any one set of speakers represents 100% fidelity to the signal.

This leads me to believe that everybody, no matter the philosophical stance, chooses the "colors" that sound like "accuracy" and it is (almost) always based on a subjective listening test.

I say almost because I have run into guys on audio forums that tell me they buy gear based on specs and if the specs tell them they should like a piece of gear, they find no reason to disagree. Although, I don't recall talking specifically about speakers.