What is meant exactly by the description 'more musical'?

+1 @mapman

I have resisted the term, because whatever someone prefers in the character of their system is going to be the one which draws them into the music, no?

If that’s true -- and I cannot see how that can be disputed -- then every system which someone likes is "musical."

What if someone’s ear does not care about the kind of distortion @atmasphere identifies with musicality? Would we say their use of the term "musical" is incorrect? This would be tantamount to saying that "good food is spicy food" and then for anyone who demurs, they like "not-good" food. Would we say that some people like "not-musical" amplifiers?

That said, I do see that some here are trying to help associate the word "musical" with its most frequently used associations -- lexicography, if you will. It's "rhythm and pace" or "2nd and 3rd order harmonics," etc. Maybe that's useful. I'd still expect a lot of people to just use the word to mean other things, and not really be incorrect in their usage. This makes the word of suspect usefulness.

What if someone’s ear does not care about the kind of distortion @atmasphere identifies with musicality? Would we say their use of the term "musical" is incorrect? This would be tantamount to saying that "good food is spicy food" and then for anyone who demurs, they like "not-good" food. Would we say that some people like "not-musical" amplifiers?

@hilde45 No, what I described is based on rules of human perception, which encompasses all people. This is the same reason that deciBels are used, why humans are thought to have a range of 20Hz to 20KHz and so on.

What you are describing is 'taste'. I was not. If amps are not musical, no-one likes them. They might tolerate them; that's different. You can tolerate something but be annoyed by it at the same time.

I have always felt this term to be equivalent to "emotionally engaging" and standing in contrast to analytical or accurate.

Does it pull me in and make me want to listen to the music and actively participate, or am I presented with a laboratory in which only the truth is heard?

Does it pull me in and make me want to listen to the music and actively participate, or am I presented with a laboratory in which only the truth is heard?

Personally, I think a system is more "musical" when more recordings of music one actually cares about can be enjoyed their fullest. Then the system for playing the recordings is working well and maximizing its value. Again, what one enjoys is a very subjective thing and the details will surely vary to some degree for each.

.

"Musical" has not as much to do with taste as with acoustics concepts ( not mere room acoustic by the way but acoustics as science) ...

If we use the word in acoustics where the adjective "musical" can be studied by experiments and described in acoustic concepts : as timbre, transients, dynamic, immersiveness etc ...

It is why people prefered tube amplifiers for years over S.S. because of this objective masking of higher harmonics with tubes easier to do than with S.S. in these days  as atmasphere said ...It is an acoustics facts ... not a taste ...

But what makes a system "musical" in his experience has too much factors in it as said Mike Lavigne to be reduced to only amplification ...

Vibrations controls for example or electrical house grid control and not only room acoustic play a role ...

The spatial characteristics of the sound play a role not only the timbre experience ... Then because of the crosstalk effect on any stereo system we loose in the musical spatial characteristics of the sound for example ... Dr. Choueiri  wrote much about it ...

And even other well less known factors play a role in our experience of "musicality"  ...Including our own inner ears structure which is not a taste as an innate  way to experience the sound  which we can call our "taste"...But it is not a taste , it is more  a starting point ...

We must learn not only how to listen but we must learn how to hear  all our life ...