How do you describe "more musical"?

I think "sounds preferable to me" is the only accurate statement that doesn't involve an unresolvable spiral of interdependent definitions (What is 'more musical'? Sounds better! What is 'sounds better'? More musical... Etc.) that only ends in a fight.

Drawing an analogy to some other preference -- e.g., some folks like blue and some folks like red, but I like blue and this sounds "blue" -- might be helpful.

Can we further " Reductio ad Absurdum " ....
How about -
"I like it"

By the way, I can't believe you like the sound of blue....:whip:
 
More musical is experiencing sound that replicates a live performance that is not amplified.. It could also be an outdoor concert. In either case the microphones aren't on top of or directly in front of the performers. True acoustical space is captured from a distance and brought into your home in a more laid back truer representation. Musical is not an in your face experience with fake electronic processing to make multi-channel mono recordings have an acoustical space experience.. The frequency spectrum will be balanced differently also. The highs will have some natural roll-off, which most audiophiles can't tolerate and some times the bass and lower mid will be slightly elevated with the bottom octave slightly modified.

More musical can also describe the performance. While some folks may prefer the Sound of Maynard Ferguson, Doc Severenson, or Miles Davis, other might say Bobby Hackett and Clarke Terry are more musical. Its a matter of interpretation, too.
 
Last edited:
I am a very left-brained guy, so describing what is "musical" is hard for me,....
Gordon G

PS: I think there is something about the combo of my gear and the small room filled with books that tends to make things sound musical.

[gear: Cambridge Audio Azur 752BD, PrimaLuna Dialogue Premium Integrated (tube) amp, Paradigm Signature 2 bookshelf speakers]

Hi Gordon,
I have a small listening room as well. Instead of the books (which I too have, but not in great number), mine is rather spartan. It has only a single chair (my favorite recliner), an integrated audio-rack / TV stand that my husband built for me, two small side tables, and two bookshelves (which Steven built for me as well). Then there are some of my favorite things (stuffed animals, a minion, and some figurines), my stereo, and a TV. The colors are a bright white, with saddle brown accents and curtains, and a tan carpet. That too, for me, makes things so much more "musical" as well. :D:music:
 
I have a small room (width-wise] so big speakers do not work well.

Then move out what prevents the speakers from shining.:D

My room isn't that big either, somewhere around 13ft square, opening into a larger room, maybe 14x17 which has only one corner. But I wouldn't trade my big speakers for anything. There are recordings in which the experience is sometimes tactile. Not because of loudness, which is easy to achieve. Take some of the Linda Ronstadt/Nelson Riddle stuff for example.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
I know it when I hear it, but how exactly do you describe to someone that the amp, speakers, etc make it sound more musical?
Food for thought.
To me, there’s no “food for thought”.

Amps, speakers, etc. must NOT “sound”. Amps, speakers, “etc.” receive, amplify, transform acoustical and electrical SIGNALS they receive at their inputs and “deliver” to their outputs.

If amps, speakers, “etc.” insert decisively NO audible distortions into the signal they receive, it’s the equipment to spend your money on.

If they “sound”, then it’s a distorting equipment.

The special class of equipment that “sounds”: equalizers, compressors, expanders, reverberators, “enhancers”, filters “etc.” serves to PROCESS any electro-acoustic sound signal, (sounds of speech, music, traffic, forest, sea, “etc.” “etc.”)…

So, in my opinion, there is no problem of “musicality” of amps, mics, CD/DVD players, TVs, portable players etc. etc.
 
So, what's the opposite of "musical"? Sterile? Clinical?
If someone is saying so-n-so is "more musical", aren't they usually talking about amps?
 
Really not that hard, does it just produce some sound or does it create a sense of emotions of joy. There are many musicians who can play great works of music but do they engross your emotions of joy. Art work is like that as well, how many times do you see artist works that you look at it and say to yourself you call that art? And then there are those that just jump out and you think to yourself, what talent.
 
To me, there’s no “food for thought”.

Amps, speakers, etc. must NOT “sound”. Amps, speakers, “etc.” receive, amplify, transform acoustical and electrical SIGNALS they receive at their inputs and “deliver” to their outputs.

If amps, speakers, “etc.” insert decisively NO audible distortions into the signal they receive, it’s the equipment to spend your money on.

If they “sound”, then it’s a distorting equipment.

The special class of equipment that “sounds”: equalizers, compressors, expanders, reverberators, “enhancers”, filters “etc.” serves to PROCESS any electro-acoustic sound signal, (sounds of speech, music, traffic, forest, sea, “etc.” “etc.”)…

So, in my opinion, there is no problem of “musicality” of amps, mics, CD/DVD players, TVs, portable players etc. etc.

All hi-fi equipment is imperfect. Every piece of hi-fi equipment colors the sound to some degree. (I own more than 2 dozen amps, and they all sound different.)

The sound of a symphony orchestra is complex, and a few published hi-fi specifications like frequency response, signal/noise ratio, and THD do not capture all qualitative facets of reproducing this complex sound. IME satisfactory electronic test results represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality from an amplifier. The ultimate goal IMO is not to satisfy an oscilloscope or distortion analyzer or some software tool, it’s to satisfy a music lover. And that involves a music lover listening to the reproduced music and either having a smile on their face – or not. Being engaged by the music – or not. The hi-fi system is “musical” – or not.

IME, there is no such thing as a hi-fi system that has “no sound”. I think it’s important for each individual to define “audio fidelity” or “high fidelity reproduction” or “good sound quality” based on their goals for their hi-fi system. Each individual must choose the trade-offs that suit him or her - i.e., which compromises they’re willing to accept regarding the inevitable imperfections in reproduced sound. In plain terms, each individual must decide what sounds good.
 
So, what's the opposite of "musical"? Sterile? Clinical?

Yes, I agree with this. I’ve had some solid-state amps that I thought sounded “dry”, and were not “musically engaging”. (I generally prefer tube amps.)

If someone is saying so-n-so is "more musical", aren't they usually talking about amps?

I think more specifically it’s the synergy between an amp and speakers.
 
More musical = better captures the intent of the artist

More accurate = better captures what the the media is capable of.
 
All hi-fi equipment is imperfect. Every piece of hi-fi equipment colors the sound to some degree. (I own more than 2 dozen amps, and they all sound different.)

The sound of a symphony orchestra is complex, and a few published hi-fi specifications like frequency response, signal/noise ratio, and THD do not capture all qualitative facets of reproducing this complex sound. IME satisfactory electronic test results represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality from an amplifier. The ultimate goal IMO is not to satisfy an oscilloscope or distortion analyzer or some software tool, it’s to satisfy a music lover. And that involves a music lover listening to the reproduced music and either having a smile on their face – or not. Being engaged by the music – or not. The hi-fi system is “musical” – or not.

IME, there is no such thing as a hi-fi system that has “no sound”. I think it’s important for each individual to define “audio fidelity” or “high fidelity reproduction” or “good sound quality” based on their goals for their hi-fi system. Each individual must choose the trade-offs that suit him or her - i.e., which compromises they’re willing to accept regarding the inevitable imperfections in reproduced sound. In plain terms, each individual must decide what sounds good.

Oh great.... another person saying " we each have our own personal truth" .... :D
I think we should all vote and reduce the entire audio market down to 30 selections of each piece. Then we can just buy the piece that best suits our economic station... you know, like the folks who live in the trailer park , but drive a 90k truck... :rolleyes:
 
with my own addendum, TO ME. very subjective as it is like music itself, either good music or bad music! it is in the ear>brain of the beholder.

play music!
 
Fuller accurate tonal quality, some call it timbre....

I think it really depends on the persons ability to hear.....and no, we can’t hear the same thing. For some people a certain note in a repetitive chord played from a peice of equipment with a broad bandwidth incites an emotional response. Like if you have a cartridge with a bandwidth of 15hz-45hkz using an amp with an even wider bandwidth and sensitive speakers a few people might hear a big difference. Most that can not hear a difference would beg to differ cause they can’t hear the difference. One persons experience is their own and they have to learn on their own what sounds good to them. All I can say is to look for equipment that exhumes a warmer sound like the SX-1250, Sansui 9090 or the Luxman R-117. Klipsch Cornwalls are know to be a fuller warm speaker to some depending on what the signal is amplified by. It’s just what and how you learn to combine different peices of equipment. Some people combine equipment and just learn to live with it just thinking that certain speakers will always sound bright or harsh.
 
It's basically , for instance, the degree to which an oboe sounds like someone playing an oboe in the same room.
Or even a triangle;)
 
Back
Top Bottom