There is no physical or psychological law which can determine the outcome, because the outcome emerges at a stage of experience where causes (physical, physiological) become reasons (logical, semantic). That is where the "spade turns" and one can dig no further.
The fact that in front of an image some human can perceive a duck objectively and can then label as an illusion or a subjective fact the perception of a rabbit or the reverse ; this paradox is also at the root of psycho-acoustic as it is at the root of visual perception ...
This image of a duck/rabbit does not show so much a vicious circle here in this discussion but a virtuous time spiral revealing how the interaction of subjective and objective factors as much as internal neurophysiological one and external physical and material acoustic one are interrelated without being ever apart from one another and more participating together in an emerging NEW phenomena instead of competing with each other ...
" Musical" in acoustic is explained in a relative way by analysing the contributions of all objective and subjective factors and all internal and external factors then musicality is not so much the result of a capricious taste exhibited by individual consumers behaviour but the result of our evolutive Brain/ears system and his long history in TIME and timing ...
The experience of sound as "musical" for example in acoustic architecture is not the matter of an exploratory taste in an esthetical fashion but a matter of pragmatism when we put together the human neuro physiology of sound perception and the material conditions related to the experience of sound in a closed construction ...
This pragmatism is the root of acoustics as of all science if we go along with Peirce semiotic instead of Wittgenstein criticism here... With Peirce , signs are " causes (physical, physiological) and become reasons (logical, semantic)" but also the reverse reasons can become causes.... What set apart the Peircean semiotics from the Wittgensteinian critique is time and evolution ... It is well said here :
« The principle “meaning is use” is a common topic in the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Charles Peirce. Both maintain that the use of words, tools and the like is a spatio-temporal phenomenon, but according to Wittgenstein meanings as objects of thought are timeless while for Peirce thought and objects of thought are temporal phenomena.»
https://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-5-issue-1-article-27.annotate
Now going back to "musicality", this concept and word is born from a long evolutive history of the brain/ears where causes and reasons worked together creating a non arbitrary concept of "musicality" which can be today investigated and analysed by psycho-acoustic , inspiring some designer as atmasphere to use some fact about harmonics for example interpreted by them in some way to create a design, in a non arbitrary way ,deemed "musical " ...
Some other designer can even explore other acoustic concept to create also more "musical" design, as van Maanen investigating the concrete non linear time domain proper to the human ears/brain versus the abstract linear Fourier mapping for the needs of his specific audio designs...it is not contradictory , harmonics and the non linear time domain are each one of them separately or together factors that explain "musicality" perception, because if "musicality" is not an arbitrary concept or a word relating to a mere taste or fancy , it is for sure a complex concept ...
As atmasphere do, this designer Dr, van MAANEN look also for a better musicality too with psycho-acoustic knowledge :
These two designers atmasphere and van Maanen will exclude fancy or arbitrary factors as the causes and reasons explaining perceived "musicality" ..."Musicality" as a free choice taste of the consumers is an idea in marketing not in design nor in science ...
If we ask a crocodile why he eat people sometimes letting them rot before eating them or prefering rot meat over fresh meat , he will claim that it is only and just his taste ...But his taste is not an arbitrary free fancy it is programmed and explained by its metabolism and mouth/dentition and the specific properties and qualities of rotten meat easier to break compared to fresh meatby the properties of his jaws mechanics ...
In the same way perceived "musicality" for human is not a quality always different and variable resulting from the arbitrary and free fancy of the consumers buying a piece of gear, it is first and last a quality that correspond to many complex facts and conditions known by psycho-acoustics and acousticians ...
The fact for example that a stereo system by the disruptive effect of crosstalk is less "musical" than a stereo system where this crosstalk effect is cancelled by specific designed filters is a psycho-acoustic discovery of Dr. Choueiri, the fact that these filters increase the musicality associated with a better timbre and a better localization demonstrate well that the concept of "musicality" has an objective ground in acoustics ... ...
Now to have an idea of the effect of harmonics on "musicality" perception , this post in another forum is very interesting :
