What does the term musical mean?

[Phelonious Ponk]

No surprise that I disagree. I think a glossary of terms that allowed audiophiles and reviewers to describe what they heard. Manufactures then took those terms and descriptions back to plant and created the equipment we have to day. It is one thing to say you don't appreciate where we are and quite another to deny the path that was taken. Some may have been lost and gone astray. Others may have intenionally taken a different path. IMO Most of us made it pretty close to the "promised land."

I'm not saying they didn't create a vocabulary to review with, Gregg. I'm saying that the evidence of this thread says it wasn't adopted by audiophiles. Adopted by manufacturers who used it to create products? I'm sure some manufacturers respond to criticism in the press. Did they go off and change/develop products based on a glossary of terms created by one journalist and clearly not well understood by the (at least this one) audiophile community? I would hope that's not an accepted (non)engineering practice, but I'm sure it has happened.

P

 

[Ron Party]

I think I have read every post in this thread, and I think far too many posts are taking the topic at hand to absolute extremes. For every post there is a counter-post and then another counter-post, and for what? To prove that your interpretation makes more sense or somehow has more validity? This thread has 13 pages and none of you have come to any conclusion as to what the term "musical" means.

Evidently Stereophile's old attempt to establish a universal glossary of subjective audio terms didn't take: We have many meanings for what must be one of the most commonly used terms from that glossary (second, I would guess, to "warm"). And if it means something different to everybody, it doesn't mean much at all. It is certainly not a term that could be used effectively to communicate anything meaningful about a component's or system's performance.

P

A few months ago, another thread was started to discuss other Audiophile terms:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?213-Follow-Up-Question-What-Audio-Reviewing-Term-Makes-You-See-Red

In that thread, in addition to criticisms of other Audiophile terms such as *warmth* or *micro* and *macrodynamics*, we find this one in only the third post:

1. Musical. The term is ambiguous and doesn't convey anything specific to the reader other than "I enjoyed listening to music through this thing."

In a sort of egocentric, elitist pursuit, Audiophiles set out to try to establish an objective, one size fits all definition of a subjective term. That this term means something different to one or another is not surprising. Far from it, it is exactly what one would expect or, as Steve noted in the quote below, "obvious". The term is, after all, an adjective.

John

You couldn't have said it any better. I too have read very post in this thread and IMHO the term "musical" obviously means different things for different people

John hit it right on because for me what floats my sonic boat and that which "I" call musical is a "toe tapping experience and a smile on my face" nothing more, nothing less.

YMMV

Nevertheless, I included the rest of Steve's post here because his definition perfectly serves as an example of that which is sorely missing from any discussion on the subject, and certainly the discussion here in this thread.

A toe tapping experience and a smile on his face.

It is the human experience which Steve is describing. It is, for Steve (and of course for many others), a human response to the act of hearing and/or feeling *music*. A stereo system re-produces sound; it does not produce a human experience.

Moreover, missing from the discussion is an answer to the following question: what is music? Now if there is going to be a universally agreed upon definition of the adjective *musical*, one would think there necessarily must be a universally agreed upon definition of the noun *music*. Good luck, you won't find one, because there isn't. Indeed, there is no such word in many languages.

 

[Gregadd]

Rule 1 of the Socratic method: thou shalt not alter the hypothetical. If you do you will end up with an endless string of hypotheticals and never answer the question.
All hypos assume a competent actor faithful to the task. Anything else would force one to defend a stream of erroneous results. A completely untenable position.
A faithful transducer will exhibit fidelity to its source.
So the perfect camera will produce a mirror image of the subject. If it is true that we can never really know what the camera wrote on its storage medium, how then can we judge whether the camera made a mirror image of the subject. The subject must be our only reference. We can't compare the picture to the negative. We must compare it to the live subject.
The same applies to music. Real music must be our reference. The only other reference is the source. Unless those in this thread want to retract thier position, (that we can never know what the source sounds like) that is what we are stuck with. If we have a system that is perfect in-perfect out it logically flows that system is garbage in-garbage out. We will know it's colored, if both garbage and perfection come out perfect.

 

[Gregadd]

A few months ago, another thread was started to discuss other Audiophile terms:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?213-Follow-Up-Question-What-Audio-Reviewing-Term-Makes-You-See-Red

In that thread, in addition to criticisms of other Audiophile terms such as *warmth* or *micro* and *macrodynamics*, we find this one in only the third post:



In a sort of egocentric, elitist pursuit, Audiophiles set out to try to establish an objective, one size fits all definition of a subjective term. That this term means something different to one or another is not surprising. Far from it, it is exactly what one would expect or, as Steve noted in the quote below, "obvious". The term is, after all, an adjective.


Nevertheless, I included the rest of Steve's post here because his definition perfectly serves as an example of that which is sorely missing from any discussion on the subject, and certainly the discussion here in this thread.

A toe tapping experience and a smile on his face.

It is the human experience which Steve is describing. It is, for Steve (and of course for many others), a human response to the act of hearing and/or feeling *music*. A stereo system re-produces sound; it does not produce a human experience.

Moreover, missing from the discussion is an answer to the following question: what is music? Now if there is going to be a universally agreed upon definition of the adjective *musical*, one would think there necessarily must be a universally agreed upon definition of the noun *music*. Good luck, you won't find one, because there isn't. Indeed, there is no such word in many languages.

Consult Merriam Webster and you will see that most words have multiple meanings and even multiple spellings. Some even have multiple parts of speech. That does not mean they do not have a preferred usage. If the user does not intend to convey the preferred usage he can state the alternative usage.
Every theory or proof begins with some sort of premise. For example Evolution vs Creationism?It starts with th assumption that not only was God already he but he a whole civilization with a family and Satan. Evolution -Where did all the stuff the universe evolved come from? Again this why you don't fight the hypothetical.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Consult Merriam Webster

Now there's a good idea. We should have done that long ago:

Definition of MUSICAL

1
a : of or relating to music
b : having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music : melodious
2
: having an interest in or talent for music
3
: set to or accompanied by music
4
: of or relating to musicians or music lovers

Is there anything there that would help me describe the sonic difference between a Naim and a Lamm in a way that another human, not knowing my mind, could glean anything from?

P

 

[Gregadd]

I think there is a working definition of musicality that has been in placed for a long time. The problem is there are so many variables and so many players and limitations every body has to approach that goal from there own point of view. If we imagine a big circle and in the middle of that circle is musicality. We all approach the center from a different vantage point based on our financial and time commitment, the kind of music we like, what the recording engineers tried to accomplish and most importantly what factors are most important to us in creating the illusion of live music. What the membecrs seem to be saying is that those factors vary so widely no consensus can be had .That would be bad news for Sean Olive and Harmon Intl. I had hoped we could discuss the factors most important to creating that illusion. Musicality is a destination. We can have fun trying to get there. It seems maybe we never will.

 

[Ron Party]

Now there's a good idea. We should have done that long ago:

Definition of MUSICAL

1
a : of or relating to music
b : having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music : melodious
2
: having an interest in or talent for music
3
: set to or accompanied by music
4
: of or relating to musicians or music lovers

Is there anything there that would help me describe the sonic difference between a Naim and a Lamm in a way that another human, not knowing my mind, could glean anything from?

P

A rhetorical question, indeed. And, BTW, the dictionary definition you cited is a modern one to the extent it references a melody. For example, poetry was considered *music* and silence can be considered music.

No one time, nor culture, owns the definition, and there is no such thing as a preferred or generally accepted definition. Only an egocentric would answer the rhetorical question in the affirmative, particularly since what is or is not musical is akin to the question "what is art".

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Perhaps I'm hearing what I expect to hear, but it seems that the more we talk about it, the less "Musical" seems to have to do with hifi or sound, the less useful it is in this context. "Warmth" is shorthand. A bit lazy perhaps, but descriptive enough of a slight roll-off of upper mids to smooth out some common distortions, perhaps a slight boost of lower mids to create the illusion of greater bass extension. "PRaT," as ridiculous as it is, probably means the opposite - a lean bright presentation that is not smoothed but, rather, pushed forward with an emphasis on the sharp edges of the tones. Both are, IMO, better described the way I just did, or differently if you mean them differently -- better for audiophiles, better for critics, better for manufacturers -- but they do seem to have some meaning. But "Musical?" If this thread has accomplished anything it has served as a demonstration of the word's failure, in the description of hifi, to communicate anything universal. Someone could use it in the next thread, and after all of this, we would have no better idea what tangible characteristics they were attempting to describe with it. It could mean "warmth." It could mean "PRaT." It could mean something else altogether. It completely depends on who is saying it. All it really means is "I like it."

Those are my closing remarks, counselor. The floor is yours.

P

 

[Gregadd]

A Google search of "audiophile glossary" results in numerous hits. Not just one from Stereophile. I participated in this hobby for over thirty years and have taken these definitions for granted. For example if I wanted to know what PRaT is just take a trip to your local elementary or middle school. If they still have a school band or orchestra. You can hear the music drag because the students have not mastered thier instrument or the particular music. PRat is the opposite of that. The absence of PRat can be caused by things like wow and flutter and insufficient power supply.

A Google search of "generally accepted or preferred meaning of a word" resulted in almost 6 million hits! This is one of them:

Since definitions are user contributed, they can be personal to the user and do not always reflect generally accepted definitions for words. See generally http://www.urbandictionary.com/tos.php (last visited June 10, 2009). In fact, Urban Dictionary acknowledges that "ts content is frequently presented in a coarse and direct manner that some may find offensive." See http://www.urbandictionary.com/tos.php (last visited June 10, 2009). Moreover, Urban Dictionary readily admits that it "cannot control all [c]ontent posted by third parties to the [w]ebsite, and does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such [c]ontent." Id. Furthermore, Urban Dictionary concedes that it "does not and cannot review all [c]ontent posted to or created by users accessing the [w]ebsite." Id. Thus, Urban Dictionary allows, if not encourages, users to invent new words or attribute new, not generally accepted meanings to existing words.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A Google search of "udiophile glossary" results in numerous hits. Not just one from Stereophile.

For example if I wanted to know what PRaT is just take a trip to your local elementary or middle school. If they still have a school band or orchestra. You can hear the music drag because the students have not mastered thier instrument or the particular music. PRat is the opposite of that.

A Google search of "generally accepted or preferred meaning of a word" resulted in almost 6 million hits!

Since definitions are user contributed, they can be personal to the user and do not always reflect generally accepted definitions for words

.

I've changed my mind; I'd rather have your words for my closing remarks. I rest my case!

P

 

[Ethan Winer]

Why do you meet me with jokes every time I ask you anything serious?

I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. I replied to everything you asked being serious, and as clear as possible.

--Ethan

 

[JackD201]

Hi Ethan,

I just asked you if your personal target was perceived flat or measured flat in-room. You answered "Maybe". It looked like you were pulling my leg.

Jack

 

[rsbeck]

So the perfect camera will produce a mirror image of the subject....We must compare it to the live subject.

First thing you'll notice is that the photo is two dimensional while the subject exists in three. So, the photo, too, is only creating an illusion of reality -- and we accept it because we have enough data points stored in our memory to suspend disbelief. "Looks just like the real thing!" Uh....no. No, it doesn't. It's just a very good photograph.

The same applies to music. Real music must be our reference.

Real music is everyone's reference and so is pre-recorded music along with everything else we've ever heard. They are all data points in an ocean of data points and we draw on these when we hear pre-recorded music enabling our systems to help us suspend disbelief.

By the way, this isn't really that difficult. It seems that when people used the very first crappy telephones, they were known to exclaim, "it's like having him right here in the room with me!" So, in some ways, that's actually the easy part.

The only other reference is the source.

The source? You mean the when individual musicians entered the studio and laid down their tracks so an engineer could assemble them later? The orchestra that was recorded with strategically placed microphones resulting in a recording representing a performance that could never have been experienced from any seat in the house? You're going to recreate that in your listening room? Really? You've got a symphony hall at your house?

It's all illusion.

But, a very enjoyable one.

 

[terryj]

there was an earlier post that grabbed my attention but did not quote it, so I may misrepresent it slightly...apologies if so.

anyway, what it led me to wonder was 'once at a certain threshold in a system, do the terms 'better or worse' become meaningless'?

We are all 'arguing' about what musicality means, and how to achieve it. Many paths to the one destination as it were. The framework within which this 'argument' is taking place is, of course, the systems we listen to to achieve that state of musicality.

I have long believed that once we reach that threshold (whatever THAT is haha!) then, as I said, better or worse in terms of system performance actually become meaningless. The most we can say is '....different....'.

When others listen to our systems, often they (naturally) may be reticent in being completely honest about what they hear or whether or not it floats their boat. BUT, once that threshold has been reached there is no more 'that is bad but this bit is good' etc, rather it has become the 'complete musicality delivering package', just of a different flavour than the other.

But, where that threshold is (if it exists) is another matter Maybe some would even disagree with that premise, dunno. It is very real to me however.

And, I would imagine there are many systems on this forum that have reached that threshold.

 

[Gregadd]

First thing you'll notice is that the photo is two dimensional while the subject exists in three. So, the photo, too, is only creating an illusion of reality -- and we accept it because we have enough data points stored in our memory to suspend disbelief. "Looks just like the real thing!" Uh....no. No, it doesn't. It's just a very good photograph.

The actual picture you hold is 2d. The photo itself has depth of field and is 3d

Real music is everyone's reference and so is pre-recorded music along with everything else we've ever heard. They are all data points in an ocean of data points and we draw on these when we hear pre-recorded music enabling our systems to help us suspend disbelief.

I prefer one big data point that includes the things you talk about

By the way, this isn't really that difficult. It seems that when people used the very first crappy telephones, they were known to exclaim, "it's like having him right here in the room with me!" So, in some ways, that's actually the easy part.

I thought it was simple also. You seem to be the only one who agrees with me.



The source? You mean the when individual musicians entered the studio and laid down their tracks so an engineer could assemble them later? The orchestra that was recorded with strategically placed microphones resulting in a recording representing a performance that could never have been experienced from any seat in the house? You're going to recreate that in your listening room? Really? You've got a symphony hall at your house?

To quote HP in the Q&A section Part 4 of the interview I posted on this site. He was asked the same question'"I can't account for individual recording techniques. Although some of them are interesting."

I have heard the Klipschorns and the Avantgarde Duos do an excellent job of portraying a full orchestra, My goal is to create the illusion of a jazz trio or quartet. I want to have a neon sign made that says club gregadd to put in my room. My CLS will not do a full orchestra. At least not in my room.

It's all illusion.

But, a very enjoyable one.

Yes it is an illusion. I close my eyes and try to help the illusion along. Like HP said there is an absolute sound by which we judge things. Everything fails in its attempt to recreate the absolute sound. It's your call what equipment does it for you.

 

[Robh3606]

I have never understood the term musical applied to describe an audio system. The simple reason being a transitor radio is quite capable of being musical. Especially if the context is "toe tapping". All you need is the correct state of mind and you are there. To me a system that is musical is not anything out of the ordinary. That's what they all do, they connect you with the music, from the least expensive clock radio to a $500,000 system. Once you are there the system sound quality really is not that important.

Rob

 

[Ethan Winer]

You answered "Maybe". It looked like you were pulling my leg.

Not at all! Different people have different tastes, and what works in an auditorium may not work as well in a small to medium size living room.

--Ethan

 

[JackD201]

Never mind Ethan, throughout this thread I think I got a pretty good handle on the perspective of Ponk, Greg, Tom, rsbeck and many others. Since you apparently are a person who has helped many people better enjoy music in their homes (I have read in many a testimonial) I suppose I wanted a glimpse of your perspective, your philosophy if you will, within your environment. If you're saying your frame of reference changes on a case to case basis personal taste included, as this latest reply implies, then fine.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I have never understood the term musical applied to describe an audio system. The simple reason being a transitor radio is quite capable of being musical. Especially if the context is "toe tapping". All you need is the correct state of mind and you are there. To me a system that is musical is not anything out of the ordinary. That's what they all do, they connect you with the music, from the least expensive clock radio to a $500,000 system. Once you are there the system sound quality really is not that important.

Rob

+1. It's the "connection" that moves people, not the delivery vehicle.

John

 

[Gregadd]

...To me, the biggest threat to what we call high-end audio right now is the idea that realism doesn't count at all---that the only thing that counts is, does it move you musically? Does it give you an emotional, a musical, experience? Of course that's important, but so is accuracy.

Stone: The dichotomy between the perfect and the real is one of the problems in high-end stereo systems: accuracy vs idealized bel canto.
Holt: Accuracy vs musicality. You can't argue it. I'm certainly not going to sit here and say, "No, you can't buy this system because it doesn't sound real, even though it makes you love the music." I mean, if it does that to you, that's basically what it's about to begin with. A home stereo system, or home music system, is about you. If the way it reproduces music leaves you unmoved, then it doesn't matter how "accurate" it may be, it's not doing it. But it seems to me that's only half of it.

The other half requires combining that with accuracy. It can be done. I mean, do you know of anyone who'll come back from a live concert and say the sound was unmusical?

Stone: But again, it sounds like there's still a dichotomy between musicality and accuracy. It's like the dichotomy between what a professional listener wants---accuracy---vs what a recreational listener wants: musicality.
Holt: You're right. There is a dichotomy there, but there doesn't need to be. Well, as I said earlier, the musicality end of it is a slippery slope---once you say there's no standard for what something should sound like, then anything goes. As I said before, many years ago when I was working for another magazine, the publisher once told me, "I don't care if you play the damn thing with your fingernail, if it sounds good."

Stone: But at that point, there's no need for the High End.
Holt: That's right. Many, many of the things high-end people want are things that you do hear in live music. Things like detail, resolution, imaging, soundstaging, and so forth. But when it comes to spectral balance, which is very often a thing that's the first to go in a "musical" system, no one seems to agree.

Stone: We talked a little about the emphasis on soundstaging vs harmonic accuracy, and the tendency of many reviewers and many people in the high-end industry to make soundstaging, not harmonic accuracy, the raison d'être. And how that leads to systems that are not accurate.
Holt: I think one of the reasons for this is that fewer and fewer people have the inclination to attend enough live concerts to know what realism actually sounds like. I find this trend more than a little depressing. I've read that some concertgoers are starting to be bothered by the fact that what they're hearing live doesn't sound enough like what they hear at home from their stereos, and they want the concert management to do something about it...


JGH Interview Sterophile magazine

http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/66/index8.html