You are right it is better to discuss in the right thread... My mistake ...
😁
Now if i read your post :
I am not sure how you managed to take the "definition of musical" thread and transport it over here to the "synergy of gear" thread, but since you did,
and what you have also did is taken the word "musical" which has a concrete meaning (which is "pertaining to music" in that a musical instrument is an instrument that pertains or produces music) (but then, unfortunately, the word "music" might need to be defined) and also has another less concrete definition (per Mirriam Webster)
having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music
(which is less concrete because what is pleasing to one is not pleasing to all, and that could also apply to a lesser extent to "harmonious")
and then you watched some videos and decided that, armed with what you thought you have gleaned from those videos, you would rewrite the definition of "musical" (with your own rambling stream of consciousness interpretation) And that is fine if it works for you on a personal level. But that is not how language works.
On it’s own, "hot" is somewhat subjective.
"Be careful, that is hot." That is subjective.
"Be careful, , that is 212 degrees f." That is objective.
Objective versus subjective/signs versus symptoms.
So apparently you have listened and watched some quacks that want to give the word "musical" a meaning beyond "pertaining to music" with their own acoustic interpretation and say that there is a "212 degree f definition" of music and that this is so because they say that it is so. And it doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other, but I am simply informing you that language does not work that way. If over a period of time more and more people start watching these guys and enough people start using the definitions that they use, dictionaries will be rewritten and new meanings will be attributed and you (and them) will stand vindicated. And it won’t matter to me either way. But do not hold your breath--this is not liable to happen in your lifetime.
You dont seems to understand that OBJECTIVE parameters and SUBJECTIVE perceptions are analysed in psychoacoustics experiments ...
Then "musical" as a psychoacoustics facts , because it is psychoacoustics the field who studies "musicality" , musical is described by the ACOUSTICIAN you called a " Quack" to correlate to Timbre perception factors, to distortion perception factors and to Immersiveness perception factors...
Nothing here contradict the definition of "musical" as euphonic and harmonious in the Webster Merriam as perceived by every INDIVIDUAL subject in his own way ... Acousticians , not real quack , study the general characteristic of "musical" in a population , then isolating the main factors creating it for ALL HUMANS in general , in spite of their difference ...
it is precisely why the Merriam DONT define "musical" as a purely incomprehensible experience for each individual with no relation to one another because each one had his own taste ... Do you get it ?
The Merriam define "musical" as harmonious and euphonic experience as HISTORY taught it because thousand of years of successive musicians and acoustician define the territory with experiment and knowledge of what is "musical" experience in music history as in acoustics architecture and applications ..
Do you get it ?
Is the acoustician and scientist in my video a "quack" as you accuse him and me to be one or is it you instead ? the reader of these posts will decide ...