What does “musical” mean? Audiogon takes a stab

[JiiPee]

Musical schmusical - My amplifier is more Beethovenesque than Yours!

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Musical schmusical - My amplifier is more Beethovenesque than Yours!

But does it Rock………..maninov?

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Musical schmusical - My amplifier is more Beethovenesque than Yours!

Don't be so Modest ... Mussorgsky!

Jim

 

[mhardy6647]

You love drumming and string quartets? How unusual!

Jim

If necessary: substitute drummer with a bluegrass ensemble.

Heresy!

no, the other kind!

 

[Deleted member 21219]

If necessary: substitute drummer with a bluegrass ensemble.

Heresy!
View attachment 337207

Sorry ... that's not my Forte.

(I'll go now. )

Jim

 

[Tangband]

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.

You need to study and make your own recordings to verify that my statement ( and D. Floyd:s ) about the flawed stereosystem is correct.
2 channel playback in a listening room is very far from the soundquality in the concert hall. I have real acoustical instruments as the reference - not the monitors in the studio.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You need to study and make your own recordings to verify that my statement ( and D. Floyd:s ) about the flawed stereosystem is correct.

I have made my own recordings using the BACCH in ear microphones and compared the recordings to the original sound sources directly. They are almost indistinguishable. I suspect that neither you nor Dr. Floyd have done that. The proof is in that test.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

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.

I see what you are saying and I understand. We are now in the realm of semantics.

 

[Tangband]

I have made my own recordings using the BACCH in ear microphones and compared the recordings to the original sound sources directly. They are almost indistinguishable. I suspect that neither you nor Dr. Floyd have done that. The proof is in that test.

We are talking about two channel playback using two loudspeakers in a room, not using headphones.
The best place to have the microphones in the concert hall is not the same place as the best listening position, far from it.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

We are talking about two channel playback using two loudspeakers in a room, not using headphones.
The best place to have the microphones in the concert hall is not the same place as the best listening position, far from it.

I am also talking about two channel playback using two speakers in a room. The test works the room. It would probably work in a concert hall too but you wouldn’t be able to do direct comparisons. What’s best is subjective. What’s accurate is not. The test I did was for accuracy.

 

[antcollinet]

Musical = "I like the sound and I don't care if that is real or bias induced"

 

[antcollinet]

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.

"Musical" is in no way equivalent to saturation. Saturation might be equivalent to boosted frequencies, but there is no direct scientifc analogy.


The equivalent word in photography would be "Pictorial"

This camera is more pictorial than that one. And there we can see the nonsense.

 

[Chr1]

I wonder if "saturation" could be a useful, (though non-scientific) term in audio. You might describe the SET valve sound as highly saturated. Some would say over saturated. Similar to the way that colour photographs or slides can be described... Just a thought.
(Perhaps, arguably not a particularly valid or scientific one however!)

 

[rdenney]

"Musical" is in no way equivalent to saturation. Saturation might be equivalent to boosted frequencies, but there is no direct scientifc analogy.


The equivalent word in photography would be "Pictorial"

This camera is more pictorial than that one. And there we can see the nonsense.

In photography, pictorialism is the attempt to make photographs look like paintings by use of satin-matte surfaces and soft focus effects among other things. It is one alternative to “straight” photography that took advantage of a camera’s ability to render sharp detail.

But photography is art, while audio playback is not, so the analogy fails.

One might as well argue that this copy machine makes copies of art works that are more artistic than that copy machine. It either makes copies that look like the original placed on the platen or not. If it does, then it would be equally good for pictorial and straight photographs. If it’s good for pictorial but not for straight photographs, that simply means that the effects (distortions) it introduces are harder to detect with pictorial originals.

I like the copy-machine analogy—nobody expects a copy machine to be “artistic” but some people do pay a lot for accuracy, in the full awareness that none of them are really accurate for reproducing art works. There is always generational loss, even when the print technology is identical to that which was used to create the original photograph.

So, when I say a system is musical, I mean a system with flaws that don’t audibly impair the listening experience compared with potential flaws another system might display. I’ve used that term with, for example, Advent loudspeakers, back when they were the affordable alternative to speakers with flabby oversized woofers with comparatively muddy or boomy bass response.

Rick “accuracy is better” Denney

 

[Vacceo]

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

Guitars are a string instruments...

 

[ahofer]

In photography, pictorialism is the attempt to make photographs look like paintings by use of satin-matte surfaces and soft focus effects among other things. It is one alternative to “straight” photography that took advantage of a camera’s ability to render sharp detail.

But photography is art, while audio playback is not, so the analogy fails.

One might as well argue that this copy machine makes copies of art works that are more artistic than that copy machine. It either makes copies that look like the original placed on the platen or not. If it does, then it would be equally good for pictorial and straight photographs. If it’s good for pictorial but not for straight photographs, that simply means that the effects (distortions) it introduces are harder to detect with pictorial originals.

I like the copy-machine analogy—nobody expects a copy machine to be “artistic” but some people do pay a lot for accuracy, in the full awareness that none of them are really accurate for reproducing art works. There is always generational loss, even when the print technology is identical to that which was used to create the original photograph.

So, when I say a system is musical, I mean a system with flaws that don’t audibly impair the listening experience compared with potential flaws another system might display. I’ve used that term with, for example, Advent loudspeakers, back when they were the affordable alternative to speakers with flabby oversized woofers with comparatively muddy or boomy bass response.

Rick “accuracy is better” Denney

Xeroxical

 

[ahofer]

Guitars are a string instruments...

Pianos are percussion instruments.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Guitars are a string instruments...

And tomatoes are fruit.

 

[Chr1]

So are beans aparently... And musical ones at that.
Always thought they were seeds myself.

Whodathunkit.

 

[ahofer]

So are beans aparently... And musical ones at that.
Always thought they were seeds myself.

Whodathunkit.

But are they legumes?