What does “musical” mean? Audiogon takes a stab

[ahofer]

I violated my “don’t click on the Audiogon threads rule” to see what might be said.

A few posts in and we are still talking about amplifiers, “pace and rhythm” have entered the dialogue, and one falsifiable suggestion is made, that the distortion signature is “musicality”.

Audiogon Discussion Forum

Once in awhile, I hear the term 'this amp is more musical' for some amps. To describe sound, I know there is 'imaging' and 'sound stage'. What exactly i...

forum.audiogon.com

 

[Tangband]

I violated my “don’t click on the Audiogon threads rule” to see what might be said.

A few posts in and we are still talking about amplifiers, “pace and rhythm” have entered the dialogue, and one falsifiable suggestion is made, that the distortion signature is “musicality”.

Audiogon Discussion Forum

Once in awhile, I hear the term 'this amp is more musical' for some amps. To describe sound, I know there is 'imaging' and 'sound stage'. What exactly i...

forum.audiogon.com

One of the writers in the Audiogon nailed it:

”I have always felt this term to be equivalent to "emotionally engaging" and standing in contrast to analytical or accurate.

Does it pull me in and make me want to listen to the music and actively participate, or am I presented with a laboratory in which only the truth is heard? ”

—————

My comments on this is : chasing transparency with only 2 channel playback will sound less good and less believable because the stereo system in itself is seriously flawed , so there is no real accuracy to be had . If the ” real concert hall” is the reference, a transparent chain of dacs, preamp, poweramp and Harman correct measuring speakers will sound anemic and not at all like it did in the concert hall. This is because of the fault of the 2 channel stereosystem.

For a really good, believable kick-ass sound with only two loudspeakers in a room you probably need some nice colorations somewhere in the chain. This is often done traditionally in the preamp or with the speaker setup, with some late reflections from the walls the illusion can be rather good .

Because an illusion is all that it is - There are no accuracy to be had with only two channels.

 

[fpitas]

I think a "musical" sub may simply mean it's not a one-note wonder. Beyond there, I dare not go

 

[Tangband]

I think a "musical" sub may simply mean it's not a one-note wonder. Beyond there, I dare not go

Yes, and this is very easy for everyone to understand, Isnt it ? Everyone has experienced lack of articulation in the bass.
A one-note bass is a perceived bass tune thats not very pitch accurate for the brain to hear. One could almost call it ”unmusical” reproduction.

If I tell you that this lack of articulation is more than only about bass, its also often apparent higher in frequencies - would you believe me or not ?

 

[fpitas]

Yes, and this is very easy for everyone to understand Isnt it ? Everyone has experienced lack of articulation in the bass.
A one-note bass is a perceived bass tune thats not very pitch accurate for the brain to hear. One could call it ”unmusical” reproduction.

If I tell you that this lack of articulation is more than only about bass, its also often apparent higher in frequencies - would you believe me or not ? Or is it to much ?

Maybe with a woefully lacking speaker.

 

[ahofer]

So “musical” means “inaccurate in some way that interacted well pleasantly with the recording I happened to be listening to”?

 

[Deleted member 21219]

So “musical” means “inaccurate in some way that interacted well with the recording I happened to be listening to”?

Pretty much. I always thought that "musical" was to recording playback as "vivid" was to photographs, as in "The Kodachrome Effect".

I used to take pics of flowers for sales of seeds by a local nursery. If they were color correct, they looked good ... but not as good as saturated-color pics, which were the ones that more effectively sold seeds. And yes, the retailer said a few customers complained that the flowers they grew didn't look as nice as the ones in the catalog. The retailer would suggest a soil sample, or more fertilizer, or said that the customer watered too much, or didn't water enough, or whatever ... and then sold them more seeds.

See a familiar pattern?

Jim

 

[DSJR]

I always 'followed the tune' and sang along to favourite songs ever since I was able, so being shown the 'tune dem' courtesy of the high-ups at Linn forty odd years ago was merely conscious confirmation of something I always did! The realisation that some acoustic unamplified live music doesn't always sound 'tuneful' came later and the 'soul and swing' was a factor of the musicians rather than always the 'sound' if that makes sense to you... I can't sing now as my voice is also all but totally shot, but I hum along in private

Listening to music via an audio system is ALWAYS going to involve compromises compared to the live event or the recording session, so gear/speakers which puts the melodies and harmonies first always appeals to me, but in later years what DOESN'T appeal is this 'flavour' swamping the recordings making everything sound the same. I remember some 5* lower cost reviews of amps by Arcam and Marantz in the past, said amplifiers basically stripping the sound bare, giving a tuneless, one note snappy rhythm (hardness/ringing, high odd order distortion, take your pick). Foot tapping yes, but fatiguing to me long term (maybe this is only a UK-centic thing, so apologies if readers from other markets don't understand at all). I've heard cheap REL subs thumping along but not reproducing bass synth tones properly, but I've heard larger REL subs doing the 'tune' thing in the bass effortlessly.

Thankfully for me at least, I started attending more live unamplified music and my brain got to assimilate the correct proportions of 'tune' vs' rhythm and using that as a reference in reproduction gear (speaker especially) choices. I don't bother now as I really appreciate neutral honest sounding audio gear that lets as much of the recorded sound through unimpeded as possible.

Just my take, but may be difficult for some to comprehend as many human males are apparently tone deaf (I believe research has been done to confirm this).

 

[DVDdoug]

It's just one of the many-many nonsense terms that "audiophiles" use when they can't explain the sound clearly-scientifically. And probably 90% of the time (or more) they couldn't hear it in a proper blind listening test.

if they can't explain with scientific-engineering terminology (like frequency response, noise, and distortion, etc.), I roll my eyes and ignore it.

 

[Chr1]

I am curious as to whether there is an equivalent scientific musical term, which is the audio equivalent to colour "saturation" in photography?... Probably not.

 

[Keith_W]

OK then, i'll take a stab at it.

I started off in this hobby as a subjectivist. I even still have the overpriced speaker cable to prove it. After years mingling with them, I am familiar with the terminology.

After I switched to a more science-based approach to listening, and taking a lot of measurements, I started to realize that most of these audiophile terms directly correlate with the frequency response. For example:

- "Warm" = boost in lower midrange to mid.
- "Dark" = shelf cut in treble above 1-2kHz
- "Cold" or "Analytical" = a straight downwards shelf starting at 20Hz and -4dB to -6dB at 20kHz.
- "Fat" = too much upper bass / lower midrange
- "Hollow" = too little upper bass / lower midrange

My definition of "Musical" = a "fun" frequency response that varies with taste in music which corresponds with no known target curve. For example, any system that sharply rolls off at 60Hz is said to be "musical for vocals". The reality is - this system can't play anything except for vocals. Conversely, any system with a pronounced upper bass hump is "musical for rock". This is why subjectivists disagree on which speakers are "musical" and which are not, it's because that "fun" frequency response only flatters their taste in music and nobody else's.

Anybody with a PEQ can quickly turn your "analytical" and "cold" system into something "musical" by twiddling a few knobs. Try it, roll off the bass on an "audiophile approved" female vocal track (say, Rebecca Pidgeon) and suddenly her voice pops out with more clarity than ever before. If you want to make her sound even softer, try rolling off the treble above 6-7kHz. Voila, your system is now "musical".

I haven't elaborated on other terms, such as "sibilance" or "boominess" because usage of these terms is common with objectivists. Everyone understands that these correspond to pronounced upper treble and too much reverb respectively.

 

[Leporello]

One of the writers in the Audiogon nailed it:

”I have always felt this term to be equivalent to "emotionally engaging" and standing in contrast to analytical or accurate.

Yet this is just as vague and subjective concept as "musical". It does not clarify the issue at all, just changes the vocabulary.

 

[ahofer]

One of the commenters gets into toe-tapping, rhythm, and pace, naturally. This is a wonderful example of Audiophile Fundamental Attribution Error defined (again) as when you attribute something to the equipment that actually has to do with a) the recording b) the room, c) the volume level, or d) the audiophile's mood, context. musical taste, or expectations.

As @Keith_W suggests above, dirt-cheap EQ can provide most of the variation these people experience while swapping equipment.

 

[DonR]

Once again people believe audio reproduction should sound like a musical instrument. Which one? All of them? Maybe just their favourite? Who knows? Reality is they probably couldn't tell one "musical" device from another in a blind test but it sure does shift product.

 

[fpitas]

it sure does shift product.

And the more ill-defined and nebulous it is, the more iterations of product swapping go on until the sucker's money is exhausted.

 

[DonR]

And the more ill-defined and nebulous it is, the more iterations of product swapping go on until the sucker's money is exhausted.

Price follows adjectives.

 

[fpitas]

dirt-cheap EQ can provide most of the variation these people experience while swapping equipment

I often wonder if that's why EQ is so universally despised in that community. Bad for sales!

 

[Blumlein 88]

OK then, i'll take a stab at it.

I started off in this hobby as a subjectivist. I even still have the overpriced speaker cable to prove it. After years mingling with them, I am familiar with the terminology.

After I switched to a more science-based approach to listening, and taking a lot of measurements, I started to realize that most of these audiophile terms directly correlate with the frequency response. For example:

- "Warm" = boost in lower midrange to mid.
- "Dark" = shelf cut in treble above 1-2kHz
- "Cold" or "Analytical" = a straight downwards shelf starting at 20Hz and -4dB to -6dB at 20kHz.
- "Fat" = too much upper bass / lower midrange
- "Hollow" = too little upper bass / lower midrange

My definition of "Musical" = a "fun" frequency response that varies with taste in music which corresponds with no known target curve. For example, any system that sharply rolls off at 60Hz is said to be "musical for vocals". The reality is - this system can't play anything except for vocals. Conversely, any system with a pronounced upper bass hump is "musical for rock". This is why subjectivists disagree on which speakers are "musical" and which are not, it's because that "fun" frequency response only flatters their taste in music and nobody else's.

Anybody with a PEQ can quickly turn your "analytical" and "cold" system into something "musical" by twiddling a few knobs. Try it, roll off the bass on an "audiophile approved" female vocal track (say, Rebecca Pidgeon) and suddenly her voice pops out with more clarity than ever before. If you want to make her sound even softer, try rolling off the treble above 6-7kHz. Voila, your system is now "musical".

I haven't elaborated on other terms, such as "sibilance" or "boominess" because usage of these terms is common with objectivists. Everyone understands that these correspond to pronounced upper treble and too much reverb respectively.

85% of hifi is Frequency Response.

 

[Shadrach]

Obviously weight of opinion makes me completely wrong. Music and musicality is something that happens in the brain.
There is no music on the medium. It's just a signal. All that's going on is signal processing.

 

[fpitas]

Obviously weight of opinion makes me completely wrong. Music and musicality is something that happens in the brain.
There is no music on the medium. It's just a signal. All that's going on is signal processing.

Care to elaborate? So far that didn't add much except nihilism.