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.