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 ...
|
@erik_squires IMO/IME equipment can be emotionally engaging and accurate at the same time. But not analytical, which IME is usually a way of describing something with low distortion but the distortion it has is higher ordered harmonics and not masked. So it sounds 'analytical' which is to say transparent, but also somewhat bright with a bit of harshness. |
Opposing musical to analytical comes from the focus put on the gear design by audiophiles not from acoustics in general ... "Musical" means in acoustics experience as just said atmosphere : "accurate and engaging at the same time" ... A system/room is musical or less musical ... If it is analytical too much it comes from a piece of gear not synergetical or badly designed , it does not come from the system/room/ears as an experienced whole ...
|
I thought when people used the term "musical" it was to make a value judgment about the sound being produced by the amplifier (and speakers), not state a fact which would apply to all perception. Here’s how I see it. Some people eat hot peppers and call them spicy. Others say they’re mild. Does chemistry tell us who’s right? Hardly. Peppers do have a chemical component, Capsicum, that causes them to interact with taste buds and then the brain. But what can one claim as "objectively true" about this sequence? Some people need only a small amount of capiscum to cause them to call the food "spicy." Others need a lot. Who is right here? The chemical explanation cannot sort it out, because perception always comes to us as interpreted, never raw. The same situation exists, pari passu, to "musicality." Some people’s taste will hear certain harmonics as pleasing; some not. It depends on taste, preference, circumstance, habituation. No way to disentangle it. Clearly, you and others have discovered there is a widespread predilection for 2nd and 3rd order harmonics, and there is a predilection for sugar, fat, and salt, too. But all of those preferences could be changed by changes in taste -- and the underlying physics would have no impact at all. |
