Musicality" in a system? What IS that ?

Great thread Detlof. Defining this is sort of like trying to unscrute the unscrutable, or nail jello to the wall. There are some really excellent posts above and much to agree with on my part.

This months issue of TAS magazine re-states the original goal(s) and philosophies of the magazine as put forth by H. Pearson about 30 years ago, and some of it specifically addresses what the abosolute "sound" is-- the whole article is 11 pages long. I'd just like to quote a short, but germane to this thread, paragraph, as TAS is trying, IMO, to get at the core of musicality.

Quote: "The Absolute Sound' is the sound of unamplified music occuring in a real space, usually a large room or concert hall (small or large). That music can be bluegrass, jazz, folk, big band or classical. (Nor need intrumental music be our only reference: The human voice will serve as well.) Such is "the real thing", and provides us with a philosophic absolute, which means that our descriptions of variations from that absolute are not based on subjectivity, but rather upon observation. That is to say, the basic description of any component's "sound", if scrupulously attended, will be objective, based on perceivable data, rather than that originating from "taste" or "subjectivity".

I don't think I can totally "buy into" HPs philosophy as I don't seem to be able to eliminate such considerations as "taste", and as some other have noted above, "mood". Still, TAS has a lot of influence in high end audio, and HP states his belief and philosophy well. I just don't know if I have the kind of discipline that HP has. I recommend the whole article to all interested in high end audio. Cheers. Craig

Perhaps, "musicality" is tantamount to an intrinsic satisfaction...an association of musical memory and musical reality. Assigning "musical" qualities to hardware can be a paradox...one might ascribe the beauty of ethereal highs and concomitantly, succumb to the visceral appeal of the nadir frequency of which a system is capable. Indeed, it would be the seamless integration of these two with a transparent and liquid midrange which to my memory and reality deliver "musicality." -Sam

detlof: excellent thread! and from a shrink, no less. (you accomplished, BTW, what i set out to do in my reckless youth, and i envy you for your accomplishments. i, alas became a lawyer, saving not souls or minds but perhaps, now and then, a portfolio or, even more rarely, a man’s, a woman's or a family's honor.) perhaps you relate somehow to "analyze this" ? let me at least believe that this is so, until i am dissuaded to the contrary.

there are, as my compatriots have already noted, as many answers to your query as there are among us. it would be easy, more-or-less, if we were to cling to HP's vision of "the absolute sound." the big problem is that nearly nothing's recorded nowadays without an amplified "boost" or a digital enhancement. i go to live concerts, lots of 'em. but i gain little from those experiences but for those heavenly times when i can hear what a 21st century conductor decides what an 18th century composer must have thought, and i usually agree. since i am less capable of entering the mind of mozart or brahms, or even john lennon, than my learned heirs of ‘music,” I accept for the most part the truth of their vision.

"musicality," thus becomes that which we feel is "real," through our ears, our skin, our experience and our desire. it is this subjective view of subjectivity that makes our hobby exciting and valuable to those among us who would otherwise doubt the lack of empirical "realism." for me, at least, we must distrust objectivity in this realm, much the same way as spies create a mythos of believability by rationally rejecting the most unbelievable hypotheses.

i don't wanna get off on a rant here, but, IMHO, the drive to find the “musical” variety of sounds is no less important among us than the search of arthurian knights for the holy grail. monty python reminded us of the folly of this quest, tho i doubt we'll be knocked off course voluntarily 'til we encounter our own knights who say nih." -kelly

In view of the fascinating posts above, may I venture an interim summary at this point, using expressions as well as single words used (random order)?
*effortlessly perceive the (performer's') meaning of the
note(s);
*Rythm and timbres;
*"naturalness" (my word)i.e., how do reproduced sounds compare with live / reality (real instruments, real space), and relate to our memory of reality;
*(ultimately) does the reproduction transport us and induce emotional reaction.
Detlof, maybe as initiator, you could give a fuller picture at this point?
(Caveat to newcomers on this thread: this post is not intended to, and doesn't fully reproduce the information contained above: newcomers to the thread are heartily invited to read what comes before.)

Yes Gregm, I will do as you suggest. But I still need a little time. Just let me tell you now, that there is much food for thought for me in all of the above posts and that I am also deeply moved by them. Next to enjoying and sometimes enviously marveling at the astuteness of the thinking, I am above all moved by the love and the passion for music which shines through all of your posts. I feel profoundly happy and also honoured to be able to find myself amongst you here, this especially after in time I felt my sensibilities somewhat bruised by all the unpleasant bickering going on elsewhere. I live in a country, where people are pretty close and introvert, so audiophila is a bit of a lonely thing there. So stumbling across Audigon was a lucky stroke for me. Hence: Thank you to you all, not only for responding so in- and extensively but also just for being there. Regards,