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.