there are 4 pages of posts here, so perhaps not so obvious...
- ...
- 302 posts total
Musical means acoustically right ...Because here we speak about sounds not about music per se ... Something can be musically right , as the Furtwangler interpretation of the Bruckner symphony under bombs in 1945 Berlin and be acoustically wrong or defectuous or lacking ... If you suppress the word acoustic , the meaning is a common place like : " i like it because it is my taste as an argument of a 5 years old arguing with his mother " ... |
I am with @decooney
For me, the key to his definition is the inclusion of "non-fatiguing, " which is conjoined, necessarily, with the other qualities on his list. |
The problem with "non fatiguing" as the main definition of the adjective "musical" or of the name musicality , is that in audio threads most of the time refering to a gear system as "non fatiguing" are refering to a gear system or to some gear pieces as being the cause of a fatiguing state ... Then defining "musical" by electrical specs of the gear pairing and coupling or by the tendency of a dac or from some speakers to create tinnitus or fatigue , or some S.S. badly designed amplifier etc all these non musical characteristics dont come from acoustical parameters of the embedded gear but mostly from the bad design or the bad synergy ... It is a consequence of the marketing that so much people are more bent toward the gear specs and coupling , the necessary synergy , than forgetting to add to that necessary synergy all the acoustics parameters included in the musicality experience of sound ... Then it is not even wrong to say so that a system which is fatiguing cannot be "musical" ... But the truth is "musical" cannot be really understood out of the complex set of acoustic parameters if we want an enghlitened positive definition and not only a negative one as in : musical means a non fatiguing system ... it is not even wrong and more importantly it is not enough at all for the definition of "musicality" ... As an example of an other characteristic as non fatiguing which may contribute to the definition of "musical" in acoustic , we know from this science and by simple experiments that all stereo system are flawed by their perceived crosstalk interaction as two speakers then two sources impeded the brain creation and retrieval of all spatial characteristics of the sound ... Musical in acoustic can then among other acoustics parameter means using some set of filters to correct this : as with BACCH filters of Dr, Choueiri which will then made any stereo system at any price more "musical" ... There is many others aspects of what is "musical" in acoustic experience ... "Pleasant " for example is not a "taste" experience but more an acoustic one related to the way any system/room can deliver in a balance way the 5 characteristics of any "timbre" perception and make them "natural" not artificial ... "Engaging" conditions for a system/room/ ears is related to the ratio Listener envelopment (LV) and the sound source width( ASW) and also to immersiveness which is the way the acoustic recorded conditions are translated by the system/room/ears in the listener room ... Am i on the scene with the musician or is the musicians are in my room in front of me ? In the the two case the listener is immersed in a different way in the music ... Immersiveness is acoustically more complex to set than imaging differentiation and soundstage dimensions alone and encompass them ... Then there is an acquired and trained "taste" for good acoustic experience and conditions and qualities , but acoustic is not about taste "per se" ... Taste there is, taste it is not ... Musical at the end is not gear related ( even if some gear piece are well designed to be more "musical" ) but acoustically defined ... |
- 302 posts total