What does “musical” mean? Audiogon takes a stab

[mhardy6647]

Adding bacon to sprouts is like adding a drummer to a string quartet.

I disagree with your analogy but I'll defend to the death your right to make it -- 'cause the analogy made me smile!

 

[Chr1]

Some would say that it's a bit harsh on bacon. Being compared to a drummer...

 

[rdenney]

85% of hifi is Frequency Response.

The other 15% is power.

Rick “musicians are musical and playback equipment either calls attention to itself or not” Denney

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Funny enough: I love both of the things you just mentioned!

You love drumming and string quartets? How unusual!

Jim

 

[fpitas]

playback equipment either calls attention to itself or not”

That's how I feel, too.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Funny enough: I love both of the things you just mentioned!

Both? Which? I like all four.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Some would say that it's a bit harsh on bacon. Being compared to a drummer...

I dunno. Context is everything.

 

[MattHooper]

You love drumming and string quartets? How unusual!

Jim

Both? Which? I like all four.

What I mean is that I love drums combined with strings, whether a small quartet size or full symphony.

I'm a huge fan of soundtrack work from the late 60's through 70s when they combined balls-to-the-wall drums and bass, guitar with string sections, horns etc.

And I like Library music that puts together strings and percussion/drums.

Stuff like this:

From one of my favourite Library Albums:

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

2 channels reproduction itself is not a photoprint of the real event in the concert hall - not even close. So , as a start, let us agree that there is no accuracy to be had at all with only two channel playback. Not even with the worlds best loudspeakers, because there are just two of them. The stereosystem is way to flawed.

Ok- now when we know this ….. it brings out the possibility to use some coloration to make the perceived sound quality better.

I don’t agree. Two channels is all we have with our ears. And that is all that is needed. Just get the two channels right and you are set.

Done right from recording to playback two channels will give you as much accuracy as anything else if not more.

Doing it right is the catch.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

85% of hifi is Frequency Response.

So all we need is a high quality equalizer and we are 85% there? I think the emphasis on flat frequency response is a dated idea

 

[Chr1]

I like both bacon and sprouts.
No opinion re drummers personally.
Definitely wouldn't mix all three however. Volatile and rather smelly.
"Musical" is still up for debate it would appear.

PS Howsabout Lalo Shifrin's "Dirty Harry" soundtrack. 1971. Excellent production. Splendid Rhodes, plenty of strings, wah-wah, horns, tablas and one of the dirtiest bass lines ever to grace a 70s soundtrack. Marvelous.
[Nerdy edit : There's a version with bonus tracks- studio outtakes and different versions. Very good indeed.]

 

[Kal Rubinson]

What I mean is that I love drums combined with strings, whether a small quartet size or full symphony.

Whoa! OK with (and essential to) a symphony but not (for me) with a quartet. Do you have an example?

I don’t agree. Two channels is all we have with our ears.

That's an old red herring. Not even worth rehashing.

 

[Chrispy]

I don’t agree. Two channels is all we have with our ears. And that is all that is needed. Just get the two channels right and you are set.

Done right from recording to playback two channels will give you as much accuracy as anything else if not more.

Doing it right is the catch.

Kind of a nutty idea that because you have two ears you necessarily need only two sources to maximize reception into those two ears without regard to anything else.....not a choice with headphones, but personally I enjoy surround with multiple speakers, particularly when well mixed for such. May not be your preference, but 2ch only doesn't cut it in this scenario.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Whoa! OK with (and essential to) a symphony but not (for me) with a quartet. Do you have an example?

That's an old red herring. Not even worth rehashing.

There is a rocket scientist and team of grad students at Princeton University who feel otherwise based on years of scientific research. You may disagree. But there is no consensus. It’s not a red herring. And their work can’t be dismissed like that.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Kind of a nutty idea that because you have two ears you necessarily need only two sources to maximize reception into those two ears without regard to anything else.....not a choice with headphones, but personally I enjoy surround with multiple speakers, particularly when well mixed for such. May not be your preference, but 2ch only doesn't cut it in this scenario.

I’ve experienced it first hand with the BACCH SP. The demo done by recording through the in ear microphones and directly comparing that recording to the live source tells me it not only “cuts it” but it is an end game system. Not sure how it can get much better than the original acoustic source and the playback being virtually indistinguishable. Wasn’t that supposed to be the goal of “Hifi”?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

There is a rocket scientist and team of grad students at Princeton University who feel otherwise based on years of scientific research. You may disagree. But there is no consensus. It’s not a red herring. And their work can’t be dismissed like that.

FWIW, I was responding to your statement as being yet another presentation of the old canard that we need only two speakers because we have only two ears. If you were raising a more sophisticated point, I missed it.

I know Ed Choueiri and his work and we have talked several times. He has created an alternative to using multiple speakers but it accomplishes the same thing (perhaps more).
You can do it one way or another but a pair of (unassisted) stereo speakers cannot convey a realistic soundfield.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

FWIW, I was responding to your statement as being yet another presentation of the old canard that we need only two speakers because we have only two ears. If you were raising a more sophisticated point, I missed it.

I know Ed Choueiri and his work and we have talked several times. He has created an alternative to using multiple speakers but it accomplishes the same thing (perhaps more).
You can do it one way or another but a pair of (unassisted) stereo speakers cannot convey a realistic soundfield.

Edgar’s work is premised on the very thing you call an old canard. Two sound sources is all you need for two ears. And I think the results support the premise.

 

[Robin L]

"Musical" is something in the head and understanding of the listener. A musical experience requires an understanding of music. Gear doesn't do it; someone can have a musical experience with subpar equipment if they're paying attention. There's nothing high fidelity about Enrico Caruso's acoustic recordings but there's a whole lot that's musical.

 

[Leporello]

"Musical" is something in the head and understanding of the listener. A musical experience requires an understanding of music. Gear doesn't do it; someone can have a musical experience with subpar equipment if they're paying attention. There's nothing high fidelity about Enrico Caruso's acoustic recordings but there's a whole lot that's musical.

Quite, but "musical" in context of hifi was invented in the UK hifi scene in the 1970s. The idea was that certain brands marketed as "musical" represented an entirely different and higher dimension of sound reproduction than ordinary hifi. Brilliant marketing of course.

 

[Victor Martell]

"Musical" is something in the head and understanding of the listener. A musical experience requires an understanding of music. Gear doesn't do it; someone can have a musical experience with subpar equipment if they're paying attention. There's nothing high fidelity about Enrico Caruso's acoustic recordings but there's a whole lot that's musical.

I used to challenge audiophiles re: historical recordings, specially classical. If you read audiophile forums you will see a lot of "the music is what really matters, we are all about the music in the end". Yet the amount of replies re: people not being able not getting over primitive sound was the majority. If you are missing (and like classical) Weintgartner's Beethoven because of sound, you are not "all about the music" in the end. IMHO, of course.

Musicality - hard to define when talking about music and musicians. Audio devices? pls.

My go-to analogy - medical devices. You see, we use this audio devices to reproduce mostly music. So believers of subjective analysis of this devices, came up with this to add some gravitas to their opinion.

Obviously it doesn't make sense. In the practice of medicine, empathy is good, right? But it would be extremely silly to say that a pulse-ox, a respirator, etc have empathy. Nice to have in the practice of medicine? Sure. Applies to medical devices? Obviously NOT.

My go-to scenario. Let's say you are designing an audio device. Now, if your boss is a believer, imagine they come with the order "THE DEVICE IS NOT MUSICAL ENOUGH, MAKE IT MORE MUSICAL!!!"
How much more musical? 20% more musical? 1.2234234% more musical? how do you measure you achieved it?

If I was in that impossible situation and wanted to keep my job, I would just guess what the evaluation group might like and just do that in the hopes of making them happy. Introduce some distortion, introduce some kind of an EQ curve. Maybe I could fool them. It still won't be musicality.

I know I am repeating myself - have posted this before - happy to see the concept actually being discussed.