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

Dear @mahgister, @rauliruegas, we agree on about 75%, yet there is still a remaining topic of the gear that musicians, recording engineers, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers use.

These music professionals pick the gear according to their own at times very peculiar preferences, and tune the stages of recording/mixing/mastering chain in very specific ways: sometimes for a whole album, sometimes for a specific song, and sometimes just for a short music phrase.

It seems we dont speak about the same things ... 😊

Welcome here fair by the way ...

There is music as a commercial manufactured product ...

There is music as an artistic recorded event ...

In the first case all is about mixing and the mixing is the true source ...

In the second case, the source is the recording of an organ playing in a church for example ...Here the source is the original lived event captured by the microphone and craftmanship of the recording engineer AT THE SERVICE of the event not his creator in his studio as in the case of music more as a commercial manufactured product in studio ...

The source of music is not the mixing, it is the acoustic atmosphere captured by the mics and translated in our own room system acoustics ...Mixing must be a cherry on a cake not the cake when we recorded a violin or an opera singer...

The recording of acoustics spatial information is lost in all stereo playback ... It is known by acousticians studying the effect of crosstalk on spatial duimensions sound perceptions then on timbre also ... It is the discovery of Dr. Choueiri  who was able to create filters adressing this problem ... Using these filters then any high end system with them not without them can give a quality experience rivalling any studio which did not use them in their system  ...

Heavily mixed music is not ideal by the way and my goal in audio, listening Bach for example, is not retrieving the mix formula of the studio engineer but the acoustic atmosphere specific in the recorded church /organ playing for example .. the mixing engineer here must obey the playing instrument acoustic constrainst in that space ...... I dont need the same audio materials for that as those used by the studio engineer ...Here i will need the BACCH filters with any high end system in a dedicated acoustic room for sure , not the same playback system as in the studio is necessary  ...😁

I dont mind about the mix engineer specific intention by the way , i mind about the organ recorded playing in this or in that church ...The artist here for me is the musician not the engineer ... ( even if any great sound engineer is an artist in his own way ) i listen music and a musician playing Bach not a bunch of mixed sounds ...

Till today does not exist a precise measurements that can tell us ( bullet proof. ) why we like what we like and audio item specs alone can’t tell us if that audio item will match our taste till we tasted.

This statement was true in the 1960s and 70s. It is not true today- measurement technology, like all technologies, as advanced quite a lot since then. The understanding of what the newer measurements tell us is apparently still lacking; that ignorance causes audiophiles to act as if the above statement were still true.

Dear @fair : " yet there is still a remaining topic of the gear that musicians, recording engineers, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers use. "

As an audiophile and MUSIC lover I almost do not care about but anyway all what happens down there at the end comes in the listener tastes in what we like.

Well, at least that’s my take.

R.

I don’t want to open a new window in this thread because it’s useless and even futile and only want to tell that today is STILL TRUE .

Now could be of some interest for some of us to know for example why some one likes more the Firebird than the Berlioz Fantastique played by the London simphonic orchestra but the other way around two days after the first session all those by live measurements that at the end those bullet proof measurements explanation could be useless for the listener.

Anyway, open a new thread with the facts, examples measurements and the like on that specific issue.

R

What define a good sound depend of a set of basic measures realatively easy to understand ...

This does not means that taste does not exist...

Taste there is, but taste it is not ...

Electrical measures guided by psycho-aqcoustics information about amplifier design or any pieces of gear, any DSP , or any tools matter ..

Mechanical measures about vibrations and resonance matter a lot ...

Acoustical physical and material measures and inner ears and HTRF measures matter a lot and other psycho-acoustics concepts ...

When all this set of measures are used and when a trained set of ears is used to guide all this toward an optimization of the three working dimensions , any system at any price will sound at his OWN optimal level of S.Q. ...

This does not means that inferior design will sound better than superior design ... This means that when all is set right we reach and pass the minimal acoustic threshold of satisfaction, this is true for all of us ...

Then designer like atmasphere dont claim that they understand everything , they claim if i read him right that they use psycho-acoustics facts about the way human perceive harmonics impact to create a better design in tube amp or S.S. amp of any class ... No designer can do this with only educated taste ...He needs knowledge first and last ...

It is the same in acoustics ( do not confuse with mere room acoustic ) The taste of Dr. Choueri for classical music indicate to him what was missing in any stereo system by crosstalk destructive impact of the spatial information for the perceiving brain ...He corrected it with his set of filters , psycho-acoustics revolution ...

I dont understand why some stuck with taste, informed taste or uinformed taste to explain S.Q.

I used acoustics concepts applied full time for more than one year ... Why? Because before i experimented my "taste" was completely uninformed and i did not know how to be satisfied by sound in my room with my system ... And i could not afford 50,000 bucks system ...I was lucky being in lack of money , i discovered how to do it with any system and be happy ...