High End System Building. How important is the matching, cabling and room? Thoughts ?

And now everybody can read what you claim :

Keep your "taste" and opinion grounded in your navel ... And i will keep mine grounded in acoustics...

Keep it where ever you wish. It doesn’t matter to me, but at least it does appear as if you are now understanding that the definition of music/musical/musicality is a matter of "taste and opinion."

Are you unable to understand anything ?

I already said and repeated many time ... In the word "musical" ,

TASTE THERE IS BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT MERE INDIVIDUAL TASTE...

Then contrary of what you claim about me i know that individual taste play a role in the definition of "musical" ... You get it ? TASTE THERE IS....

What does it means , it means that it is not about mere individual taste ... BUT MERE INDIVIDUAL TASTE IT IS NOT ...

It means that the definition of "musical" in acoustics dont negate the existence of INDIVIDUAL taste , nor it nullify his value or existence; but it use the collective experience of all humans of all origin and fields of life to create A CONCEPT defined by analysing together all human subjects and then making a precise complex definition of "musical" that goes beyond the Merriam Webster definition by a synonym ...

Defining a word by another word meaning almost the same dont solve any problem... The dictionary cannot be on your side... It is useless when i use an acoustics definition which is way more elaborate... But you dont even know that this concept exist in acoustics ...

Do you get it ? Or too stubborn ?

that goes beyong the Merriam Webster defin ition by a synonym ...

I could stir up a vast hodge-podge of words also, and then spill them all out willy-nilly on to a computer screen, and that too would meet the criteria of "going beyond Mirriam Webster." However, it certainly would not make the junk I typed factual and Mirriam Webster’s definitions fictional.

Are you able to get any sentence right ?

I never said that the Merriam definition is wrong ...

I never said that this definition is untrue...

I said that this definition is NOT ENOUGH ...

I said that acoustics science dont use a mere synonymus definition, as any dictionary, but A BOOK entirely to describe what is "musical" ...

neither me nor Acoustics contradict the Merriam dictionary, ACOUSTICIANS COMPLETED IT with experiments , and a set of concepts to CIRCUMSCRIBE all the aspects of this concept ...

Are you of good faith when you discuss ?

Myself i am and if i am wrong i admit it by the way ...

The rigorous definition of "timbre" acoustics experience ,

The rigorous analysis of "distortion" effects on perception ,

The rigorous analysis of the conditions for "immersiveness" .

The rigorous defintion of the "spatial qualities" of sound , ( this is not discussed in this video by the way )

All that 3 factors on these four are defined in this video, Is it "hodge-podge " of words salads as yourself too can make easily as you pretend ?

Or is it meaningful as it is for me ?

Try a little brain work and listen to it BEFORE answering ...

As you will see if you dare to listen to this video, you will understand that in audio yes there is individual taste for sure but there is way more and it is no more about individual taste but about acoustics rigorously defined concepts  refering to the acoustics conditions for "musical" experience...

 

 

that goes beyong the Merriam Webster defin ition by a synonym ...

I could stir up a vast hodge-podge of words also, and then spill them all out willy-nilly on to a computer screen, and that too would meet the criteria of "going beyond Mirriam Webster." However, it certainly would not make the junk I typed factual and Mirriam Webster’s definitions fictional.

@immatthewj why bother  getting a better engine and transmission just make the car faster and better just make it more aerodynamic that will fix all the problems. 

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 musical sound 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.