What does the term musical mean?
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
There is no doubt that accuracy as an objective is a wonderful goal. However, the system components that I enjoy to arouse my musical senses is no where near the ability of other setups I've seen and heard. That does mean I cannot experience "musicality" because my system is lacking in comparison? I don't buy that for a second or even a milli-second. Musicality is attained when the emotional senses approve of the sounds reaching the ears and the mind.
John
It seems to me that JGH is mixing up a few terms and patting himself on the back needlessly.
You can certainly measure a room or a piece of gear and ascertain whether it measures audibly flat and you can certainly quantify different types of distortion.
But, what's funny to me, again, is that there is no consensus among audiophiles about the value of measurements.
However, if one wants a flat room response, wants to reduce slap echo, wants to correct for some hump, dip, unwanted room reflections, etc. experienced at the listening position, this is both a science and an art. Many audiophiles shy away from the science and prefer magic and mystery. I would think someone in search of a meaningful tweak might be more open to what science has to offer in the way of help, but to each his own.
So, JGH takes a logical and rhetorical shortcut through these issues, pats himself on the back and crowns himself with the notion that he holds the key to accuracy because he listens to live music. Voila -- he has sidestepped the issue of measurements, definitions, and terminology.
Of course, this is patently absurd for all of the reasons stated above.
Yes, it is nice to attend live music concerts of all types and to gather data points by listening in all types of acoustic spaces, from different distances, angles, different types of amplification, etc. etc. But, at the end of the day, these data points, along with all of the other ones, are a moving target and they bear little resemblance to a recording.
To employ your analogy from a previous post, it would something like saying, "I am an expert at photography because I go around observing reality with my eyes open." Maybe and maybe not, but it still will never make a photo identical to the real thing.
It's an illusion.
Knowing the difference between the real thing and a recording meant to be played back on a two channel stereo is probably just as important.
But, that wouldn't allow him to pat himself on the back and it would create uncomfortable issues from which he would have to squirm.
So, I don't find his statements either credible or useful.
IMO, posturing like this is what kills this hobby.
But -- hey -- that's just me.
You can certainly measure a room or a piece of gear and ascertain whether it measures audibly flat and you can certainly quantify different types of distortion.
But, what's funny to me, again, is that there is no consensus among audiophiles about the value of measurements.
However, if one wants a flat room response, wants to reduce slap echo, wants to correct for some hump, dip, unwanted room reflections, etc. experienced at the listening position, this is both a science and an art. Many audiophiles shy away from the science and prefer magic and mystery. I would think someone in search of a meaningful tweak might be more open to what science has to offer in the way of help, but to each his own.
So, JGH takes a logical and rhetorical shortcut through these issues, pats himself on the back and crowns himself with the notion that he holds the key to accuracy because he listens to live music. Voila -- he has sidestepped the issue of measurements, definitions, and terminology.
Of course, this is patently absurd for all of the reasons stated above.
Yes, it is nice to attend live music concerts of all types and to gather data points by listening in all types of acoustic spaces, from different distances, angles, different types of amplification, etc. etc. But, at the end of the day, these data points, along with all of the other ones, are a moving target and they bear little resemblance to a recording.
To employ your analogy from a previous post, it would something like saying, "I am an expert at photography because I go around observing reality with my eyes open." Maybe and maybe not, but it still will never make a photo identical to the real thing.
It's an illusion.
Knowing the difference between the real thing and a recording meant to be played back on a two channel stereo is probably just as important.
But, that wouldn't allow him to pat himself on the back and it would create uncomfortable issues from which he would have to squirm.
So, I don't find his statements either credible or useful.
IMO, posturing like this is what kills this hobby.
But -- hey -- that's just me.
And it is, unequivocally, that simple. It IS the connection or, as Steve described it, toe tapping with a smile on his face. It IS the human response to the sound coming out of an inanimate object. A stereo system re-produces or, as John correctly states, delivers sound; it does not produce or deliver a human experience. Humans do that all on their own. If only Audiophiles could acknowledge their own personal boundaries.
Until we can climb inside a listener's head with all of our various measuring devices -- and we'd have to agree which are important -- and measure what is taking place in the brain centers where the sensations from the audio system are landing in order to quantify what each listener is actually hearing, how can we form an opinion much less come to a conclusion about why a person prefers one sound over another?
It's almost like saying if your favorite color is blue, you have superior sense of color.
Uh, no. Not at all.
And, we would then have a big discussion about which shade of blue is true blue.
It's almost like saying if your favorite color is blue, you have superior sense of color.
Uh, no. Not at all.
And, we would then have a big discussion about which shade of blue is true blue.
Sure I have been to a show where the sound was so bad it ruined the performance. I have at least twice I can think of right away.
Any system can be musical if toe tapping is the criteria but not all systems are accurate. Me I want both, I want to hear all the voices in a harmony clearly or be able to follow different instruments at the drop of a hat. I also want the connection but for me the connection is the easy part. Getting a highly resolving system that lets you zone in on whatever it is you decide to listen too in the moment, when ever you want, is the hard part. To be able to do that and not distract you from the music is even harder.
Rob
Similar threads
