I forgot to add something to my earlier post. Since my goal for my system is musicality, I see no need to focus on measurements or double blind testing of equipment. I get joy from experiencing the music. I wouldn't get any joy from gathering data to let me know if my system is accurate. That is a complete waste of time for me.
Another vote for musicality. I've learned to be very careful seeking better detail and accuracy. For me, anyway, it doesn't always lead to a more engaging listening experience.
The guys who mix and master good recordings are a little like chefs - it isn't about making every ingredient obvious, it is more about the blend that makes something musical - in my opinion.
I think it is impossible for anyone to know if their system is reproducing a recording exactly as the recording engineers, mixers and mastering labs intended. There can be just as much "art" in that part of the recording process as the performance. As a matter of fact, I have watched very talented engineers mix a track and it IS a performance.
Musicality to me is when my system draws me unconsciously into the music rather than me trying to decipher all the little parts of the sound I am striving for. That is the best feeling when you realize you have been totally engulfed into the music for the last hour without ever thinking about what the system sounds like. Musical nirvana, makes it all worth it.
Years later, the Eagles in Seattle, another almost equally bad audio experience however this time so greatly overshadowed by their "musicality" I honestly couldn’t have cared less.
Reminds me of John Lennon all those years ago when he said the quality of the recording didn't matter, it was the quality of the performance. Some of those 7" singles sound dreadful especially when played with a worn out stylus on substandard equipment. (He was probably comparing the sound to studio monitors.)
I couldn't agree more, the performance is crucial.
With today's equipment, those days are long gone and poor sound quality ruins any performance. Screwing the volume up to absurd levels so you hear nothing but pain is absurd.
A well produced recording played on a high end system cuts it for me.
douglas_schroeder has it right. Fidelity IS musicality. Musicality in this context is more than only the purview of musicians; it is also a component’s ability to more faithfully reproduce the details of what comprises that purview. Some gear does this better than others. The closer the sound of a component or system gets to the true sound of music (fidelity), the more musical the sound is.
@oregonpapa “When you go to a live, unamplified performance, of a small jazz group, or even a symphony orchestra, do you sit there and say to yourself ... "Oh my God! ... listen to that detail?"
Great way of putting it. That was actually one of my observations… I can hear incredible detail… the wall reflections nuance of the acoustic space… but they are not stuck in your face. Oregon Symphony… Oregon PaPa?
I have worked for years to assemble a system that is musical, and I will gladly live with it until I leave this earth. My system is composed of quality components, not expensive ones. Much of it is built by me, and now all I do is replace or repair what I have to continue my daily enjoyment of the music I love.
Like me, equipment ages and, at some point, it will fail to do what is asked of it. Just keeping evrything working properly is a necessity, and about all I can afford to do these days. I do love it though.
The terms are properly seen as synonyms, not antonyms. You are screwing up the endeavor of creating a superior rig and listening experience when you see them as antithetical. :(
Musicality is the purview of the musician. It is not the lack of annoying sonic characteristics such as sibilance or bass resonance.
I have never appreciated a pan-accurate system that sounded bad. There are painfully few accurate systems anyway. I suppose you could say a system either sounds good or it does not. Accurate is very specific. Everything else is relative, relative to that person's experience. You can't know what something sounds like if you have not heard it.
Every system is different and has a different set of problems and solutions. The permutations are endless which is what makes this an entertaining challenge.
I remember the first glorious five seconds I heard the JC1s in my system. "I'm really going to like this!" Don't you love those moments?
When you go to a live, unamplified performance, of a small jazz group, or even a symphony orchestra, do you sit there and say to yourself ... "Oh my God! ... listen to that detail?"
Music first. Fidelity second.
Frank
I saw Holly Cole live at the Showbox in Seattle. A small venue, 100 to maybe 200. The show began with her singing from off stage. Just her voice, no amp, no nothing. "I Am Calling You" place got quiet real fast. As she walked out on stage everyone realized no mic, just her voice, and it was electric. As I recall she was joined by string bass and piano, also unamplified. Sadly, only for this first number. Well I can understand, people have their expectations. Afterwards however every one of us at our table said it was the best most memorable thing they ever heard at a show, and we all wished she had done the whole show that way.
Another time, Patricia Barber at Jazz Alley in Bellevue. Another very small venue, and this time we were seated close enough to see the glow from the lead guitar tube amp. Pretty sure Barber had her own tube amp as well, but don’t quote me this was many years ago.
Another time, Keb Mo in Seattle at the Paramount. Pretty sure the performance was equally "musical" to the other two, but hard to say for sure due to the painfully piercing treble spike that pretty much ruined the concert for me.
Years later, the Eagles in Seattle, another almost equally bad audio experience however this time so greatly overshadowed by their "musicality" I honestly couldn’t have cared less.
So yes indeed there is a tug of war, but to thoroughly mix the metaphors I would have to say when the chips are down musicality holds all the cards and fidelity takes a back seat or at best rides shotgun.
"...A false dichotomy is created...to support one’s budgetary constraints, the decision to accept a certain level of performance..."
Doug. I can't agree with this. I don't have any budget constraints (well compared to most anyway) but I prefer a musical system. Sure a top level system with the right recording can sound amazing but most of the music I listen to is just standard production crap that is unlistenable on a highly analytical system. I'd rather have good sounding playback than 100% perfect playback that sounds terrible. I have my lessor systems on all the time, my big rig mostly sits dormant.
'Musicality' rests (or should I think) in a listener's reaction to a performance, not to his audio system. I offer two examples, Richters live Sofia performance of Mussorgsky's 'Pictures' and Zlata Chovhieva' performance of Chopin's Etudes. The former is in terrible audio yet the performance is by most any standard great(est?). It is dramatic in a way that most are not and it draws you in. Chochieva's Chopin is a different approach, a more lyrical one and in pretty good 'audio' as well. It's a more relaxed experience, one that I like in this music. If I had the best audio system I could not enjoy these performances more!
I could easily improve my audio system, lots of room to grow. But would I like these recording more, I don't think so.
When you go to a live, unamplified performance, of a small jazz group, or even a symphony orchestra, do you sit there and say to yourself ... "Oh my God! ... listen to that detail?"
Detail is great, precise 3D imaging with huge soundstage, sure why not. These things certainly add to the experience. But the minute you achieved correct timbre of instruments and have very musical system that carries rhythm and makes you engaged. The minute it makes you want to listen to more and more there's no actual need to go any further. As fidelity is concerned you need a certain level of it to achieve the above.
I have a highly analytical background, perhaps lIke many folks that take up high end audio. The attraction to analyze, compare, and improve the easily heard sound quality characteristics is very high. So, as I learned I optimized the most obvious first: bass, details, overall tonal balance, imaging. It was enjoyable, no question. After about 35 years , I had a great “reference” system. It was not overly analytic… but showed off every detail on the soundstage, mastering… etc. Don’t get me wrong it played music, I stayed clear of harsh totally analytical systems.
But through season tickets to the symphony I realized something was missing: rhythm and pace, and real musicality. I turned and slowly swapped equipment until I have the system I have now, which is musical first. Although it has all the details, it is not as if details are in a spotlight. Had I purchased one of the tube amps I remember hearing 40 years ago I might have figured out musicality quicker and had more satisfying systems along the way… but I have enjoyed the journey.
Musicality is what one settles for when deciding not to elevate a system further. A false dichotomy is created (In premium systems fidelity and musicality are not antithetical) to support one’s budgetary constraints, the decision to accept a certain level of performance. The performance spectrum knows no such distinction as fidelity/musical. It’s an arbitrary distinction usually employed to support one’s decisions on system building. Superior audio systems do not lend themselves to being sliced and diced as having fidelity or being musical. :)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
