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

It started for me in high school in the 70s, where we obsessed about specs—THD, bandwidth. Late 80s was post specs—perceived accuracy compared to live, for me based a lot on written reviews of golden ears types. Now, its simply what sounds enjoyable. Smooth and capable of loud at no more than $1,500 per component. Imaging is not important to me, so I dont have to spend for that.

So, for me, ‘musical’ is what makes me feel good when I hear it. Most of that means not a lot of energy in the high frequencies such as crash cymbals and aggressive digital compression during mastering—and re-mastering. 

Dear @dman777  : I agree in almost al@mapman ​​​​​@hilde45  already posted but for different reasons.

" Musical " is a wrong word used for years as an adjective for any audio item in a room/system and not only amps.

Why " wrong "? first because in reality says aolmost nothing about the audio item other that it's what the owner likes: his " taste " and each audiophile has different tastes. Yes 100% subjective.

In audio " musical " is not true/reral related to distortion levels, feedback, soundstage, odd harmonics and the like of the audio items.

Electronics today in the audio world are way different to the 60's designs specialy the SS units ( of course that gentlemans like atmasph still lives in the 60's. Today Is a myth that he likes to spread from several years now. Never mind.  ) where iover the years its active and passive parts way improved order of magnitudes and yes designers improved too.

The gentlemans that as me attend  at least one time each week to listen live MUSIC never talk ( example ) that the concert with the Firebird score was " musical " or smoother, or about the " nuances " or the venue etc etc.

Live MUSIC seated at near field is not smoot but even could be very agressive witgh brigthness or even harsness and all those is not about odd harmonics or clipping ( as with in the past electronics. Today designs comes with wide overload margin high headroom )  Any one of us can pprove what I'm telling here doing something simple: seat in a piano instrument ( top cover opened. ) and even with out  be a piano player hit with your rigth hand 4-5 different notes and you will know what I'm talking about, no way to say " smooth ": it does not exist seated at near field.

MUSIC has his natural brithness as its natural colors. Yes, if we are seated in the 20+ row things are different but things are that the recording microphones are not seated at the 30 row but at truly Near Field ". So from where comes in our system that " smoot " " nuances " " the venue ": it's what we want to " think " or bad audio item designs or bad pressings.

Soundstage is an audio word with almost no meaning because the sounstage is developed between the speakers and room not in the recording. same systems in different room develops different soundstage.

We audiophiles " invented " several words that are non adequated  and were invented due to each one of us ignorance levels.

I never in my audio life or MUSIC life talk of " musical ".

Subjectivity several times plays a role against each one of us because each one of us as human beens has way difference Tolerance levels to distortions: THD/IMD or SP or frequency deviations. Btw, discussions in the VIV tonearm and Dava cartridge ( analog forum ) threads confirm exactkly what I posted here.

Not for me but for the ones that like the word " musical " it's only taste and a word thatb even that is meaningless is a way trying to explain what each one of knowledge levels does not permit saying in precise way.

Such is life.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

I am not sure to understand your critics...😁

First i am totally with you about this sentence and you are totally right here :

We audiophiles " invented " several words that are non adequated and were invented due to each one of us ignorance levels.

But I can understand this second sentence in only one way :

I never in my audio life or MUSIC life talk of " musical ".

Any acoustician will evaluate the acoustical working parameters of a room as worst or optimal for musicality perception ...

In the same way architect acousticians will be able to design great Hall acoustic , which is an art based on science in a way more or less musical , and any acoustician can evaluate why some great Hall seems to be better than other because of the different parameter choices and informed  trade-off choices ...

Any musician or maestro will be able to qualify "musical" or non musical any room or Hall ... It is not mainly and merely taste , no, it is way more the results of their ears training ...

Any designer who know what is doing will use objective derived psycho-acoustiocs facts about "musicality " in his own design for it to be minimally musical as atmasphere explained it ...

Musicality has a meaningfull definition ONLY in acoustics and psycho-acoustics not in audio consumers market for sure ... Save if we use scientific consumers evaluation tools but this is no more "taste" as relative then but psycho-acoustics objective desc ription of "musicality" perception statistically revealed ...

Psycho-acoustics rule the gear and the room ... It is musical or not ... My system well embedded is way nore musical now after what i did right than before what i did right out of their box ; and this will be perceived as such by anyone so huge difference it is , because of some synergy between components but mostly because of a good choices of the mechanical, electrical and acoustical working dimensions device controls i implemented ...

Then claiming that the word musical is merely subjective and only a relative question of taste is not even wrong , it is beside any definition of the musicality concept in acoustic which for sure is a complex set of factors but these parameters , as the time domain , the harmonics etc exist objectively and we can learn to control them ...

As atmasphere try with his own design , we can select some acoustic factors on which we can act in our own room and at the end calling that "musical" not by arbitrary taste but as the result of our conscious room design controls ...

it is why i side here with atmasphere because amplifier musical quality design is no more the result of randomness than my room acoustic design ...

Musicality vary, can be in a secondary way a taste question ; but it is not primarily a taste question but a knowledge acoustic question objectively testable ..

Another example any one could try is to listen say a sax alto or a trumpet at 2-3 meters where the player is playing at live event SPL's, no one can tolerate it by more than maybe 5-10 minutes or maybe less but with a violin at 1m. it's the same.

I think that we have to start " understanding " live MUSIC at near field listening and after that return home and try to " mimic " in our system what we listened then we will really know.

R.

I think that we have to start " understanding " live MUSIC at near field listening and after that return home and try to " mimic " in our system what we listened then we will really know.

 

Trying to " mimic" live events will not do anything and means what ? If we try to understand the verb "mimic" in an audio context ?

It means almost nothing if we speak about a method of doing it ...

The only way to doing it , is not going to one hundred live events , so useful it can be to know how sound a piano timbre in near listening  ; it is learning to control all acoustic concepts in our room/system for doing it right  ...

Nothing else will do ...

Recognizing that a system in some room is better for reproducing a live event playback than another system in another room will not taught you how to do it ...

Learning basic acoustics concepts and experimenting will do ...Nothing else especially not upgrading the gear without knowing basic acoustics BEFORE ...

By the way basic acoustics concepts are not only about room acoustics ...