What sounds more musical than audionote equipment

Whart, please read the introductory question where i believe i have tried to clarify what it is i mean by musicality. I guess unless you fully appreciate where i am coming from it may not still make sense to some people.It is not easy, neither is it rocket science yet it took me lomg enough and I am embarrassed to say this.

A lot of the descriptive terms you are using to desribe the sound of the components only help clarify certain aspects of the technical performance of the units, they do not desribe anything about its musicality as defined by myself.

Luke

Luke- I appreciate that you defined what you meant, but there are two difficulties, at least: first, trying to describe in words how a particular phenomenon, such as a musical performance affects you, if at all (some of which is pretty subjective, don't you agree?) and second, whether the equipment, in combination, actually brings you more of that experience- and this is where I say there are many ways to convey the emotional impact of music through electronics and associated hardware- the Quads present an image that is not distorted by box-like colorations, but it is in miniature, and not dynamic or full range enough; the Avantgarde system has the dynamics and the range (most of it, anyway) and creates a sense of immediacy but is not as pleasing in some ways. Both systems do, however, convey what you are describing in different ways- these days I'm favoring the characteristics of the horn system over the electrostatic one, but I don't know if that makes one more 'musical' than the other by your terms.

Hi Whart,

This may again sound arrogant, but it is the truth. What i have described is a simple phenomena but one that appears to be hard to acquire. I do believe that you have not grasped the basics of what my definition is describing. Yes emotion is a very subjective phenomena, but the idea of musicality can be appreciated in a more objective manner. it does not necessarily mean you will enjoy or be enraptured by every piece you listen to, it only describes the ability of a hifi system to accurately convey the messages of the musical piece as it was seen by the musicians. VERY VERY FEW pieces of hifi have ever managed this in all my years of experience.

By appreciating the rhythm timing and foot tapping energy exuded by a system this is an easy identification of a musical sounding system. But more often than not it is not as clear cut as this. The musicality aspect (to the untrained ear) can be so subtle as can only be appreciated when two set ups are listened to side by side. For example in the more musical sounding system you might suddenly appreciate why the drums were so crucial to come in at a certain point in a musical passage to help convey a particular mood, which you might never have ever picked up from the other system. In the weaker system, yes you will hear the drums come in at the same time, but its rhytm, beat timing, tonal colourations etc may be such as to not actually be coordinated with a piece as a whole and hence not provide the full impact of the creativity of the musicians.

Are we on the same wavelength?

Luke

I am not sure if we

I am with you Luke, but part of what you are describing, at least to me, is a great musical performance in and of itself. In other words, a fabulously 'musical' system in your terms will not convert an otherwise uninspired performance into something that will set your toes to wiggling- on the other hand, the emotional impact of a well turned musical phrase, or spot-on drum beat, can move me even over a sucky system. Yet, I acknowledge that some systems get you closer to this than others. Just not sure it can be used as a bright line test to separate the great from the not so great in hi-fi. For example, my horn system makes even not so great recordings much more involving- yep, I can hear into the performance in a way that puts me in touch with what's happening on the stage. Does that make my horn system, overall, more 'musical' than the Quad-based system? The Quad system is far more 'coherent,' ie of a piece, but it is not lively sounding and mediocre records sound, well, mediocre. Is the Quad system truer to life or less musical for this reason?
I'm not claiming that what you realize doesn't exist, or isn't important- just not sure its a useful way to discriminate among components. (Not that I have a better way). And, the virtue of your approach is that your focus is on the music, rather than on the analytical aspects of its reproduction. Best.

Whart, If I may take the liberty of trying to get Audiojoy4's point across of AN versus the others, at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, "Close, but no cigar."