Trade offs?

there is either a semantic issue or logic issue.

first, let's discuss musicality:

music refers to pitch, timbre and harmonics. other by products are dynamics and tempo.

achieving musicality requires recordings which are accurate respect to timbre and harmonics. no recording can be accurate , as in 100 percent accuracy, because of the recording process. thus, one is left with an inaccurate recording. when listening to an inaccurate recording through a stereo system, the result is some degree of error with respect to perfection . can you call some presentation musical ? it is a matter of opinion. it all depends upon one's standards. it is my contention that if you don't have perfection, you have something less. calling something less musical is arbitrary. there are too many variables.

resolution is another matter. there is resolution, inaccurate resolution and accurate resolution. since stereo systems are inaccurate, the resolution attained has errors, with respect to the recording.

thus, an inaccurate stereo system, produces some level of resolution which is not 100 percent accurate and certainly not 100 percent musical.

calling something musical when it has timbral errors is not very useful.

since our hobby is enetrtaining, it could be sufficient to say that a stereo system achieves inaccuarcy of resolution and musicality but its errors do not prevent one from enjoying the music.

unfortunately it is not possible to quantify how inaccurate or how far off from 100 percent musicality any stereo system is and it is difficult to compare stereo systems with respect to these variables.

if the term "musical" has another connotation, please define so that i understand what is meant by that term.

after my long rant, i forgot to add the following:

if a stereo system is highly resolving, it can't always sound "musical", because all recordings are not in themselves, sufficiently "musical", to reveal the attributes of music.

if instead, a stereo system always sounds "musical", whatever that means, it cannot be highly resolving, as colorations intrinsic to a stereo system will render problem recordings "musical" in their presentation.

I'm waiting for more and better remasters, things are complicated enough trying to balance a system, it can be fun, or a pain in the ass.

MrTennis, while your contentions may be logical, they are more an academic argument than applicable to what we're discussing here.

I understand the jargon of sonics to be understood as semantics rather than objective descriptions. Therefore, musical means the ability to enjoy music rather than listening to the 'sound' of music.

As far as resolution relates to musicality, you hit the nail on the head. If a stereo system is highly resolving it can't always sound musical. 'Can't always' is the critical element, yes, too many recordings aren't inherently musical, ie. can never sound musical. As for many other, or perhaps most recordings, they can sound musical on a highly resolving system, they have some amount of inherent musical quality.

I doubt any system can always sound musical. You contend some recordings have no inherent musical qualities, any system that could make these somehow musical would be capable of performing magic. Colorations of a less resolute system would only add further color to amusical recordings, certainly not make them musical.

A system that is both musical and highly resolving allows one to enjoy the maximum number of cds within one's collection. Extracting maximum musical enjoyment, along with maximum information is the goal many of us are seeking. I'm not sure that adhesion to some perfectionist and objectivist ideal is what many of us are after, as you say, way too many variables to drive that delusion.

"...some recordings have no inherent musical qualities...."

Comedy recordings I suppose?