What is meant exactly by the description 'more musical'?

So I am a troll because I asked you for your definition of "more musical" and until very recently you couldn’t do anything but concoct meaningless word-jumbo?

I said that you act AS one .. Repeating the same question already answered from the beginning by atmasphere and me ...You even just in a post above say that atmasphere made sense from the beginning .. Then you WERE WRONG ....

And the video i posted are not mumbo jumbo ...But from real acousticians with a doctorate in acoustics ..

I believe that one’s choice of speakers and that the amp in front of those speakers will have an effect on how well it reproduces a certain genre of music

Now repeating a common place fact seems all you know and want to learn about what is "musical"...

Put speakers and a good amp thats all ..

Are you serious?

Anybody saying anything about psychoacoustics or room acoustics is a quack ... Even Edgar Choueiri ?

Your post dont need really an answer because it is mainly many insults for me no more mere misrereading , now that you recognize FINALLY without even saying it explicitly, that atmasphere argument about psychoacoustics use of second order harmonic distortion is useful, and that psychoacoustics define "musical" not taste as said atmasphere in the beginning any other psychoacoustics facts by Dr, Choeuri about crosstalk in stereo system or anything about immersiveness by dr. Hans Gierlich is only babble talk for you ...

you are pathetic ....you laughed but not me...I dont laugh at people by the way...

Enjoy your "musical" system because it seens only you know what is "musical" , you say it very clearly, you cannot learn anything , you dont want to learn anything , more than that those who want to suggest anything to learn are "quacks" ... Others babble even with their acoustics studies ...

Who is pathetic? me or you ... I dont laugh but i can smile here ...😊

Now repeating a common place fact seems all you know and want to learn about what is "musical"...

Seriously? All you have done is to repeat yourself.

Your post dont need really an answer because it is mainly many insults for me no more mere misrereading , now that you recognize FINALLY without even saying it explicitly, that atmasphere argument about psychoacoustics use of second order harmonic distortion is useful, and that psychoacoustics define "musical" not taste

Oh my, but you are sensitive. Glass houses and pots who call kettles black. And what I said about Atmasphere’s answer was that at lleast it actually was an answer. I am good with "pertaining to music" what Mirriam Webster says about pleasing and harmonious and enjoyable.

you are pathetic ....you laughed but not me...I dont laugh at people by the way...

But I read your stuff and it is funny! I cannot help myself!

Enjoy your "musical" system because it seens only you know what is "musical" ,

That’s not true. You told everyone else that their perception/impression/definition of "more musical" was wrong and that you had the only concrete objective answer. But up until a few hours ago you would not produce that answer. I never said I was the only one who knows the answer. I said that I think the answer is subjective and the term means different things to different people. I derive pleasure and enjoyment from what my system does, and that is all I, personally, need. I only wanted to know, since you said that everyone else was wrong, what your definition of right was. It was like pulling teeth.

Who is pathetic? me or you ... I dont laugh but i can smile here ...😊

Glass houses and pots talking to kettles again. You should laugh . . . it’s good for you.

All your last post is insults or laughs... no need to answer..

But there is a LIE i must correct here ...

You told everyone else that their perception/impression/definition of "more musical" was wrong and that you had the only concrete objective answer. But up until a few hours ago you would not produce that answer. I never said I was the only one who knows the answer.

First this thread begin with Atmasphere in the few first posts saying this in a reply :

What if someone’s ear does not care about the kind of distortion @atmasphere identifies with musicality? Would we say their use of the term "musical" is incorrect? This would be tantamount to saying that "good food is spicy food" and then for anyone who demurs, they like "not-good" food. Would we say that some people like "not-musical" amplifiers?

@hilde45 No, what I described is based on rules of human perception, which encompasses all people. This is the same reason that deciBels are used, why humans are thought to have a range of 20Hz to 20KHz and so on.

What you are describing is ’taste’. I was not. If amps are not musical, no-one likes them. They might tolerate them; that’s different. You can tolerate something but be annoyed by it at the same time.

Now if you read his post in the beginning of the thread you will see and i came myself after him and his first posts approving completely his opinion of expert that audio is NOT ABOUT TASTE BUT ABOUT PSYCHOACOUSTICS FACTS ...

Then you lied by omission at least about me , conveniently forgetting the context of this thread and the reason behind my posts, i never claimed that only me had the answers,you did that opposing not only to atmasphere but to all acousticians whose names i used in my post ....

Then on the opposite of what you said about me, i claimed all along that atmasphere had these answers as an expert in audio, Dr, Choueiri and Dr, Gierlich and Dr. Gorike the creator of my headphone a physicist too as experts in psychoacoustics had the answers...And i only repeated here some of what i learned from them ... I even posted videos and articles ...

I opposed YES to all those who had claim erroneously AS YOU that "musical" perception is only a mere taste and nothing else , this is true ...I claimed that psychoacoustics knowledge and acoustics experiments and concepts tell the tale ..

Do you get it ?

You can put sarcasm and laugh...A said famously Anatole France , "Being called an idiot by an imbecile is a pleasure"...

But i dont accept your lie about me... I never pretended to be the only one to know. in the opposite i approved atmasphere claim from the beginning and give plenty of arguments to show how he was more than right ... And by the way i am not his customer as you implied to give a red herring flag to others here in your past post..

Now you can stay mute... I dont think that you are able to apologize when being wrong ...

Insult me i will not answer you are welcome... But lie about me and i will answer...

Insult me i will not answer you are welcome... But lie  about me and i will answer...

As far as lying, you have attributed statements (about you) to me that I did not make about you.  I never considered that lying, just mindless paranoia.  I wasn't intentionally telling a lie; it was that I never did go through the entire thread to read all of your convoluted posts.  At the point at which I picked up on this thread you were telling someone that they were wrong about "more musical" meaning different things to different folks and that you were right.and that (and I am going to have to paraphrase, so if I am a tad off it is not an intentional lie) there was one concrete and objective answer to OP's question.  At that point I asked you for that objective concrete definition and for close to 24 hours of repeating this this cycle ("what is the definition of more musical?"  "Blah blah blah blah. . . .") over and over again, you finally came up with a tangible definition.  However, as I said a while back ago I am good with "pertaining to music" and "harmonious and enjoyable."

But no, I am not going to apologize to you--you have been insulting me for almost the past 24 hours and attributing statements to me that I never made and I honestly do not give a $h!t.  So now you want to throw a hissy fit about this?  Fine.  Go ahead.  I don't really give a $h!t about that either. 

People reading this thread will judge who is babbling ...

😊

In the meantime this is my gift for those who think that "musical" means something more than their crocodile taste and only that...

this book is near 500 pages and is free on the net ...

i guess that putting amplifier in front of speakers is not in this book the only and main part of the definition of what is "more musical" as you suggested because it is the only thing it seems you can understand ... 😊

i recommended page 234 to 245 to you then you will learn a small bit about your room ..But i know you dont need to read ,your taste is enough... Anything else come from Quacks you said it ...

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3037007/mod_resource/content/1/MeyerJ%20%5B2009%5D%20Acoustics%20and%20the%20performance%20of%20music%20manual%20for%20acousticians%2C%20audio.pdf