High End System Building. How important is the matching, cabling and room? Thoughts ?

The room has a significant effect on sound. This has been known a long long time, nothing new here. We all have different rooms, and different amounts of control as to what we can do with room acoustics. Regardless, we can always get good sound in any room, even at low cost. Some speakers are less sensitive to placement and give more/different options. Hopefully we are all enjoying the music on our various systems...

The room has a significant effect on sound. This has been known a long long time, nothing new here.

I am sure that is true, but so does the equipment.

 I went from a somewhat "cluttered" living room with unequal side walls (meaning no sidewall on one side depending upon which end I had my speakers at), andalso depending upon which end my speakers were at, the front wall/or rear wall had an open hallway leading into/out of it . . . so, as I was saying, I went from this room to a small spare bedroom with different stuff on one sidewall than the other (bookshelf on one sidewall and gunsafe and equipment shelves on other sidewall) and bookshelves completely covering what is now the backwall.  This turned into a very nearfield room.  I thought I would enjoy the intimacy I thought I would achieve in the small room, and I actually do enjoy the fact that there are no distractions back there, but I do find that I miss the open feeling and ability to crank up some volume in the living room.  But by moving some stuff out of my current small room and spending some time playing with speaker positioning and listening in the dark I can appreciate that with good source material that the soundstage that is created actually seems to extend beyond the boundaries of the room.

All of that was to say that through this I realize that the room does have a dramatic effect on the the sound that is reproduced. 

But:  in both flawed rooms I have played around with different pieces of equipment (digital front ends, preamps, amps, cabling and speakers) and in both flawed rooms I have heard differences in sound quality (both good and bad differences) as I played around with different gear.

I said that most upgrades will matter less and be less impactful than acoustics well done in a dedicated room ... ( this does not means that my low cost speakers will rival a Revel salon speakers to be CLEAR )  Saying the acoustic  truth dont exclude the other secondary truthfull fact that a well thought upgrade will make a difference even if you had no dedicated acoustic room and even no acoustics measures at all ..

People dont like the truth... 😁 Then they put "words" in your mouth ...

Keep your " school of tought" in the fiction section of your head ....

Acoustics rule the gear evolution and impression and design ...Not the reverse ...

It sometimes almost reads as if there is a prevailing school of thought here that is that if you don’t have an acoustically treated room it just doesn’t matter what gear you put in it because it is all going to sound bad.

@mahgister  , I wasn't directing that post at you.  As a matter of fact, I rarely completely read most of your posts.  However, I don't think that anyone can read through the responses to (for example) this thread, and deny that the "school of thought" I referenced does not exist. 

i understand ...

But acoustics knowledge is not a "school of thought" it is the essence of audio...

Even those who design dac or amplifier must be inspired by acoustics and psychoacoustics concepts about human hearings ...

My best to you ...

@mahgister  , I wasn't directing that post at you.  As a matter of fact, I rarely completely read most of your posts.  However, I don't think that anyone can read through the responses to (for example) this thread, and deny that the "school of thought" I referenced does not exist.

 

@cleeds can’t argue with you there - I should’ve been more careful about using the term “measures” 😉 - meaning (long-established) analytical measures in an experimental sense.

Some gear measurements, when taken on their own and not corroborated with behavioral analyses (preference evaluations), are less convincing of certain popular inferences than some folks would insist.

A few folks trying out different kit options to see which one sounds “better” in a limited number of setup iterations, and technical measurements on their own, are both partial puzzles at best, experimentally speaking.

@mahgister  , almost everyone who posts here claims to be knowlegeable; however, quite often their opinions appear to me to be 180 degrees out from each other.  Therefore, I will continue to refer to different schools of thought.

@jjss49 man I’m not trying to offend you or anyone. I just have read the responses. Based on the responses. I have strong opinion about how I see things after this discussion. I’m listening. But some of us can’t do jack about the room. I been doing this for a while now after reading the comments. It seemed like your room can fix everything and in my opinion it can’t.  I don’t mean to come off as flippant. I just self sssured after listening to the answers and based on my personal experiences. 
 

@jjss49 my apologies if I come off a certain way. I enjoy having the conversation. I debate and argue for a living so please forgive me. 

@calvinj

no worries, and not at all offended, was just making an observation, not a criticism

hope you are getting information and interactions you seek

happy new year and happy listening

@jjss49 I think this entire conversation has been great. There are two camps. Those that can work on their rooms that put really good work to maximize performance. Then there are those that will buy equipment that is less affected by the room that will still give them great sound despite them not doing anything to the room or being able too.  I think both sides have been well represented in this debate. By several posters. I enjoy talking audio and listening to music.  I wanna do it all day. 

@immatthewj i tend to agree with your approach more. 

I understand that it could appear so indeed ...

I will just add for clarification , that no amount of acoustics will compensate for a bad cable limitations , nor the reverse the best cables and gear will not beat their room and replace acoustics ...But the improvement given with a top notch acoustic controls is huge and exceed almost all upgrade in % of S. Q. ... Even if not amount of acoustics will compensate for the improvement from a low cost amplifier to a top high end one ...

Then the fact that most people are limited by their possibilities to transform a living room had no choice to improve by upgrading the gear dont create 2 schools of thought here ... It just reveal the limits of some and the better possibilities of others ...

Acoustics rules at the end ...

I wish you the best new year ever ...

@mahgister , almost everyone who posts here claims to be knowlegeable; however, quite often their opinions appear to me to be 180 degrees out from each other. Therefore, I will continue to refer to different schools of thought.

I'm using $800 JBL Mini towers with a $20K Aavik u-150 integ......best sound I've had...all about SYNERGY !

@mbmi i totally understand. My speaker is a 14k speaker and my amp and dac are way more expensive in cost together but my system has great synergy. I built my system based on synergy and design elements. 

@mahgister  , I am not arguing with what you have typed above.

I may well be the only one on this thread (and one of the only few on this site) who freely admits he is not knowlegeable.

And I also believe that if I had my system in a properly treated room it would sound better than it does now.

But I also know that in two untreated (probably acoustically unfriendly) rooms, I have made equipment changes and auditions that changed the SQ.

I also know that I have read posts from people who believe that they are knowlegeable that state (often unequivocally) that:

if you cannot measure it you cannot hear it

the room is EVERYTHING and next to the room the speaker is EVERYTHING

good speakers make crappy electronics shine and good electronics do nothing for crappy speakers

everything except for room and speakers is snake oil

anyone who believes anything other than all of the above is a victim of confirmation bias.

And I simply refer to those as being one or more  school(s) of thought and I happen to subscribe to different schools of thought.  Not that I wouldn't like better speakers and a better room.  But I have heard very afforable speakers on electronics that were their match and electronics that were way above their level.  I have experienced what an upgrade to those speakers sounded like.  Then I experienced what upgrades and auditions of potential upgrades did for the new speakers.  And all in untreated rooms.  So I do not buy that the room is EVERYTHING.

I never say that the room is eveything if you read my post... I said acoustic is the prime factors which is a fact ...I add that no acoustic will compensate for a bad gear design too ...

All matter even cables...

But there exist and order of priorities:

Synergy between gear...

And pieces of gear cannot be compensated by acoustic... A bad amplifier will stay bad in a good room ...

The most important transformation once the system is synergetical and  relatively good and chosen by the owner will be ACOUSTICS ... Not an upgrade or a change in cable ...

I ONLY want to be understood ...

So I do not buy that the room is EVERYTHING.

Again, @mahgister  , I did not attribute all or any of those schools of thought to anyone in particular, least of all to you.

However, I am saying that here on this site and also on Audio Asylum I have read posts that endorse all of those schools of thought, And almost all (if not all) of those people believe that they are knowlegeable.

I'm using $800 JBL Mini towers with a $20K Aavik u-150 integ......best sound I've had...all about SYNERGY !

@mbmi  , I also believe that the electronics in front of the speakers makes a difference.  By almost every post I have read, over the years I wound up allocating my electronics to speaker ratio funds totally backwards.

@immatthewj i 100% agree with you my system is 25% speakers. 75% electronics! My system is that way and I’m extremely happy   

Make no mistake OP and anyone else - most posters (that I recall?) in this thread did not state (in this thread) that high end sales aim to fleece anyone. I for one don’t generally don’t assume that.

Thats not the same as calling need for respecting the fact that expensive-yet-experimentally unverified kit could set a buyer up to be fleeced. In this era of easy learning, that’s probably more on consumers than designers. I’ve met some audio designers that genuinely perceive differences that I and other hopeful skeptics (experimental design backgrounds) could not. I don’t challenge them in hearing differences, but rather in not being curious (or confident?) enough to properly test detectability of those differences. Make sense? Seems reasonable to me, especially when considerable finances are at stake.
 

Regarding any concern for measurements: stating anything that cannot be measured can also not be heard is unsubstantiated. It suggests over-confidence in current-state test kit and our ability to make accurate inferences from results, often with a complete lack of properly executed and corroborated listener preference studies, and is basically demanding that absence of evidence = evidence of absence (which is often false). That’s no more scientifically sound (pun!) nor experimentally robust than someone swapping cables and proclaiming profound difference has been “proven.”

@calvinj the stumble I find in the discussion of kit synergy is that it is one fully ignorant (or at least exclusive) of any mechanisms for how the process works. Engineering and physics aren’t magic, obviously, so if some kit, namely expensive kit, is functionally “less prone” or “more resilient” to various room effects, great - show evidence of it. Doesn’t have to be (nor likely could be) through gear-driven measurements: it could just as well be human preference score analyses.

What you describe seems to me more blind shots taken at achieving what effective active speakers (many with built in DSP) do through careful engineering, to provide optimal fidelity (= controlled playback characteristics) in a variety of environments. The companies that generate this kind of (active) kit arguably charge more for the tech ingenuity than for the relative cost of production, which I think in principle is exactly how this sort of non-essentials market should work. Arguing that a musical chairs game of expensive separates is, or at least often can produce, the same solution is not accurate and potentially misleading, mostly because success will come from unlikely chance much more than it will come from empirically tested and reproducible modifications through engineering principles. That make sense?

If/when the claims “I have good sound because I use properly matched [high end] equipment” can = “I have good sound after trying many expensive items for years” are interchangeable statements for someone, there probably wasn’t much to the process that was experimentally robust and repeatable among rooms / devices / listeners. Passive speakers with separates upstream aren’t being driven by AI to recognize and modify based on room characteristics. If someone has proper sound from such a setup in a bad room without physical treatment or DSP, it’s most likely because that person (eventually) got lucky.

Which beckons a claim by Napoleon - “I always make my calculations with the assumption that luck is against me.” He would’ve said it in French, but y’all get the idea. 😉

@benanders i totally understand. We had one guy on this thread that repeatedly made the high end fleecing comment.  Most of who spend understand what we are buying. My system works in my not so good room because I bought speakers and components that work well in this environment. The kind of music I listen to also plays a big part.  I just was pushing back on room room room.  Bad equipment in a good room is not good sound either. 

@immatthewj i 100% agree with you my system is 25% speakers. 75% electronics! My system is that way and I’m extremely happy

@calvinj , and I am afraid my electroics $ to speaker $ ratio is even more skewed than that. That is partially because my (25 or 26 year old?) speakers are the 2cond oldest components in my system (my subwoofer being the oldest) and my preamp and CDP are the newest (under 5 years old) so inflation needs to be taken into account, but still. . . . And I truly would like to audition some better speakers. . . .

Anyway, I was going to spare this thread any of my audio anecdotes, but this one is just about how much electronics can make a difference even in a flawed room. Back in the late ’90s I was listening to my present speakers (B&W 805 Matrixes which are stand mounted monitors) using a Cary SLA 70 Signature to drive them with, with a B&K digital HT preamp in front of that, and for the source I was using a Carver CDP as a transport to a Muse Model 2 Dac. (All of that stuff has long since been replaced.) I had a sound that I enjoyed listening to, but I certainly was not getting the sound stage I had read about frequently in Stereophile, and sound stage was something I really wanted more of.

Some time in the late ’90s, the Stereophile cover girl and featured pin up was the Mesa Baron amp (I still have that issue, btw). What a looker. Two monoblocks with six output tubes each in one chassis, meters, switches, knobs, rack handles. . . . Anyway, believe it or not, one of the few local dealers had a demo and he offered me a great trade on my Little Cary, and he let me take it home for the weekend and I was to bring it back on Monday or buy it. His advice was to listen (this is where some of the switches come in) in 1/3 triode and 2/3 pentode.

I got this amp home and set up and hooked up and i WANTED to like it. And I truly did. I typed that I never experienced a sound stage before . . . well . . . I was listening to the Cowboy Junkies a lot back then, and this brought Margo Timmins right up in my face. I became a Leonard Cohen fan through "Natural Born Killers" the same time as I discovered the Junkies, and I still remember his voice sounding more menacing and sardonic and right up in my face than ever before and I enjoyed the experience. And up front and personal and filling the room was pretty much with everything I listened to all day Saturday and Sunday.

However, in addition to being right up front and perhaps adding a sensuous quality to them, vocals sounded sort of husky and musky and it made me think of listening to a music in a room filled with cigarette smoke. But this was unique for me and I was transported somewhere else and I initially liked it.

Sunday night I had just about made up my mind to trade my sweet little Cary in for this behemoth. So the last thing I did before I unhooked the Mesa Baron was to listen to Cowboy Junkies/Sweet Jane (I think I may have listened to both Trinity Sessions and the one and only commercially available, at the time, live version).

Then I hooked my sweet little Cary back up and listened to Sweet Jane again--probably both versions. Wow. The sound stage shrunk to the back wall and around the speakers again, and I wouldn’t call this an A/B because taking amps down and putting amps up and hooking and unhooking wires/cables is a bit time consuming . . . but . . . I had read about a "black background" before, but I never knew what the term truly meant until I heard my sweet little Cary playing Sweet Jane after two days with The Baron. Cymbals shimmering in the air and Margo sounding as if her jaw was clenched on a certain passage. . . . Anyhow, the dealer was not thrilled with my decision, but he took it in stride. However, he did make a comment about "how one gets used to an old shoe. . . ."

The reason I related this aural experience is because I intended it to illustrate the clearly audible differences I heard between electronics using the same speakers in the same flawed room.

Although I still own my sweet little Cary, later on I would pick up a couple of truly dynamic and large sounding ARC VTM120s, a second hand Cary preamp (SLP90) that is my definition of what more musical (than the B&K HT pre) sounds like, and add another piece between my transport and Dac, and then, not due to sound but due to reliability, I would replace the ARCs with a stereo amp that I don’t honestly think sounds better, but I don’t have to worry about getting the soldering iron out when I flip the switches on it. And, as I typed earlier in this long winded reply. within the last four to five years I upgraded my digital front end (I wanted the SACD experience) and the preamp (I had been lusting for the Cary SLP05 for quite some time).

In comparison to the rest of my reply, that last paragraph was quite short. But although the audible impressions the other equipment that I just referred to was not as dramatic as that experience with the Mesa Baron, even in my flawed room with my way less than perfect abused ears, with all my equipment changes I heard differences.

Oh well . . . ramble on. . . .

@immatthewj its part of the journey. I enjoyed mines. I’ve had 8 amps and 6 different speakers with 8 different sources over the years. Bug my infigo gato combination now makes me smile. It’s the journey. In this same bad room of mines. 

The fact that electronics matter a lot when we pick our system pieces is well known and called : synergy....

I just changed a bad low cost  cable for a better low cost cables i already had  and added a low cost tube  preamplifier well designed to my active speakers and for my secondary headphone  for the best... Then synergy matter and can be helped as anyone know by adding the rightful pieces .😊

The fact that the greatest improvement will always be acoustics as in room or as in acoustics gear modifications using acoustics concepts , ( modification of porthole design and modification of the wave guide) these facts are way less well known...It is why they must be known ... This improvement facts going on with  acoustics basic are true even compared to most upgrades of a single piece of gear ... The only exception will be going from low-fi to top hi-fi  speakers which will represent too a high improvement ...

The two "schools of thoughts" you are refering to are not schools of thought but 2 groups ignoring that measures or tastes are not enough ...

One group vouch for set of electrical measures which are not enough at all and the other group in the name of "tastes", which is not enough either, ignore acoustics factors and psychoacoustics factors and measures and go for an upgrading race to improve his S.Q. blind to acoustics by necessity ( not all people own a dedicated room or know its importance )

There is only one enlightened group for me : People who takes into account all factors in the right order ...

I want to be clear....😊

Repeating common place fact as changing electronics piece can improve S.Q. will not change acoustic and psychoacoustics truth ...It only will add to the feud "between these two school of thought" ...

It is why i stubbornly repeat basic which goes over this feud...In acoustic we used "ears" and we use "measures" ...

@immatthewj i was blessed to be able to try my amp and Dac combination prior to buying it to replace my old Dac and amp combination. I was able to retain a slight by of warmth that my tubes had with the Infigo amp but gain in dynamic range , soundstage, speed, dynamics and decay. The Infigo stuff just took the top off and made it sound truly live.  I put a lot of work into my system and through the years. So I know what to put in my listening room. 

An interesting experiment would be to take two DPDT switches like these

And hook up two competing cables. With a simple throw of the switch one could easily A/B test cables. I wonder why this isn’t done by the cable sellers at audio shows. It would prove the value of their cables.

@mahgister im not minimizing your points. I think at certain situations a proper room can raise your system levels above where it is at. I agree with you somewhat but there are speakers and pieces that are just built better and sound better 

ossicle2brain

105 posts

01-04-2024 at 03:28am 

An interesting experiment would be to take two DPDT switches like these

And hook up two competing cables. With a simple throw of the switch one could easily A/B test cables. I wonder why this isn’t done by the cable sellers at audio shows. It would prove the value of their cables.

If you consider the alternative possible outcome, you’ve answered your own question. 😉

Incidentally, sighted switching (A/B’ing) between 2+ items does not relieve the lack of experimental design that can prevent bias in the outcome(s). IOW, it’s still not a real experiment, unfortunately.

I think at certain situations a proper room can raise your system levels above where it is at. I agree with you somewhat but there are speakers and pieces that are just built better and sound better

Hi @calvinj - with all due respect, the speakers-room interaction is a practical reality, scientifically proven - it is not a belief or "school of thought". 😁

It is all about actually hearing your system - or as much of it as possible!
Speaker placement and even small touches of "treatment" make an appreciable difference, particularly in the low frequencies and the audibility - or not - of certain frequencies.

• REW is excellent free software, graciously available to music & audiophiles allowing you to model your room and get speaker placement tips as well as listening optimum position
• Since you are satisfied with your system / hardware, you could consider small, unitrusive "room treatments": placement of couches and armchairs which absorb low frequencies; artwork strategically placed that offer absorption or diffusion (Paintings, sculptures)...
• Don’t forget the benefit of using a sub or two -- not necessarily to add bass, but to disperse room modes (somewhat) making the bass more intelligible... i.e. you can hear it better. You could even hide these (I have...) and they will still be useful!

Of course the equipment makes a difference - but any system can only operate within the confines of the room it is in.

Believe me (😀) it is a practical matter - not a philosophical one.

My opinion too .... Thanks ....

Hi @calvinj - with all due respect, the speakers-room interaction is a practical reality, scientifically proven - it is not a belief or "school of thought". 😁 It is all about actually hearing your system - or as much of it as possible! Speaker placement and even small touches of "treatment" make an appreciable difference, particularly in the low frequencies and the audibility - or not - of certain frequencies. REW is excellent free software, graciously available to music & audiophiles allowing you to model your room and get speaker placement tips as well as listening optimum position Since you are satisfied with your system / hardware, you could consider small, unitrusive "room treatments": placement of couches and armchairs which absorb low frequencies; artwork strategically placed that offer absorption or diffusion (Paintings, sculptures)... Don’t forget the benefit of using a sub or two -- not necessarily to add bass, but to disperse room modes (somewhat) making the bass more intelligible... i.e. you can hear it better. You could even hide these (I have...) and they will still be useful! Of course the equipment makes a difference - but any system can only operate within the confines of the room it is in. Believe me (😀) it is a practical matter - not a philosophical one.

 

My opinion too .... Thanks ....

Well, you know what they say about opinions. . . .

My opinion too .... Thanks ....

Well, you know what they say about opinions. . . .

You are comical in your lack of argument... Then attacking my answer to another poster...

Do you think that what you just say dont apply to your own "opinion" ? Your "opinion" is king ?

Are you a conscious being able to recognize yourself in a mirror and able to manipulate logic ?

Then why your "opinion" contradicting acoustics science , because any system own the signature of the room where it is, why your "opinion" is it  the only one immune to your own judgement about my "opinion" ?

I must conclude that you are not a robot, because robot are at least logical...

Everybody here "know that electronics in front of the speakers" as you said make a difference each time and IN ALL TIME ...But the point to understand is not this common place fact known by all from 7 years old to 77 years old ,  anyway known by all of us , but the fact that audio main factor is acoustics , when a synergetical system is chosen at any price ...For sure marketing sellers dont claim this to their gullible customers...

Then as you said , you know what they say about SOME opinion ?  Some "opinion"  are common place fact without any use save repeating a common place experience: no amplifier or dac sound the same for sure ... so what ?

Read about acoustics and psychoacoustics and call this a new day in your life  ...

Acoustics is the sleeping princess and your ears/brain are the kissing prince and the gear pieces are no more than the 7 dwarves... Do you get it ?

It is not my opinion , it is a fact ...

I only quoted you.  Why are you throwing a hissy fit?

But do you know what they say about opinions?

I only quoted you.  Why are you throwing a hissy fit?

But do you know what they say about opinions?

When someone is polite enough to qualify his post to another person  at the end by : "it is my opinion too " it is a politeness formula...This say for a third person reading it : it is only our opinion...

When a third party , a dude come suggesting that this "opinion" is like the paper we use to wipe something i will not name , instead of answering by arguments , it is an insult ... Do you get it ?

Do you need a drawing ?

So you do know what they say about opinions?

@gregm @mahgister well here we go.  I completely disagree.  Point blank in you build higher quality speakers and amplifiers that reduce noise and distortion. If you research how to use better materials and design. If you spend time researching and developing those products. They are just going to sound better on most occasions.  Typically most but not all but most high end audio makers put a lot of time, resources and intellectual property in to the finished products.  Look if you don’t want to spend of will not spend on that.  Then that is fine.  But no matter what room you are in. If the products have proper synergy and the build quality is better in the higher end equipment it’s just going to sound better.  Can you get a great sound at a cheaper price and a better built room yes.  But the level of transparency,  detail , soundstage , speed, low noise floors and decay in some of the higher end products can not be touched no matter what room you put the lower to midfi equipment into.  I have lived with both in my room with extended demos or either ownership.  Could one consider it too much to pay.  Yeas. But better is better because it built, designed, researched and developed better. If you know how to get synergy in the high end it’s a wrap. We do all have opinions.  This is clearly mines. 

We do all have opinions.

However, some state that their "opinions" are undisputeable facts. 

@immatthewj funny how some expect that the room can be better BUT THE EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT CAN’T BE BETTER AND GIVE YOU BETTER PERFORMANCE. 

. . . and if one does hear a sonic improvement with better electronics in a bad room--it is obviously due to "confirmation bias."

But could confirmation bias ever play a part in how one perceives the effect of his or her high dollar investment in room treatment? NO WAY!! Why, that is just not possible!!

There is no democracy in acoustic no more than in mathematics ...

I had given many arguments to assert my opinion about what means "musical" ...

Like a children repeating "no" with no argument at all you repeated common place fact : musicality is a question of taste , which is a claim which as i already said is NOT EVEN WRONG ...

Individual taste is beside the problem about what is musicality ,because you cannot define something by mere individual taste you must define "musicality" or "euphony" as a collective experience resumed in a concept defined by objective parameters and confirmed subjectively by most subjects speaking a language or listening some music in some Hall ...

As i said you conflate individual taste with the collective conditions for a "musical" acoustic experience ...

Keep your "taste" and opinion grounded in your navel ... And i will keep mine grounded in acoustics...

We do all have opinions.

However, some state that their "opinions" are undisputeable facts.

. . . and if one does hear a sonic improvement with better electronics in a bad room--it is obviously due to "confirmation bias."

It is not because an amplifier sound better by its design than another amplifier in a bad room that the definition of "musical" is grounded in individual taste ...😊

You put in my mouth the false claim i never said that it is impossible to distinguish between a low cost design and a way better and costlier one ... Only an idiot can say that, and i am not one ...

The sound of a good amplifier ( in a bad or good room nevermind) is grounded in the craftmanship of the designer and his knowledge of psychoacoustics as explained by atmasphere , and it is grounded then in ACOUSTIC , bad room or not ....

Euphony is not a word used to justify your gear choice, it is a concept used by the designer to improve the amplifier design because this concept has a spexcfic acoustic meaning ..

I think that you even confuse acoustics with an "s" with room acoustic ...

I think also that you conflate my point and my position with the naive  objectivist who think that only some  electrical measures of the design verified by their toy tools matter...

Sorry i am not a subjectivist focussed  on his taste for the gear  and i am not an objectivist focus on his pet tool measuring fad...

Am i too complex for your brain ? it seems so...

😁

Buy a book ...

I had given many arguments to assert my opinion about what means "musical" ...

What you did was typed a lot of undecipherable word salad that you stated was indisputable FACT.  Then you went on to state that Mirriam Webster has it all wrong, but you have it absolutely and undeniably correct.  And you still won't explain why anyone should take seriously that gobble-de-gook that you type, but not Mirriam Webster.

Keep your "taste" and opinion grounded in your navel ... And i will keep mine grounded in acoustics...

Keep it where ever you wish. It doesn't matter to me, but at least it does appear as if you are now understanding that the definition of music/musical/musicality is a matter of "taste and opinion."

You put in my mouth the false claim i never said that it is impossible to distinguish between a low cost design and a way better and costlier one ...

And you continue to attribute everything that I type to being about you.

What you did was typed a lot of undecipherable word salad that you stated was indisputable FACT. Then you went on to state that Mirriam Webster has it all wrong, but you have it absolutely and undeniably correct. And you still won’t explain why anyone should take seriously that gobble-de-gook that you type, but not Mirriam Webster.

Mirriam webster define as any dictionary a word by another synonymus word ... Musical is defined as euphony or harmonius which are synonyms...

Acoustic definition dont work by synonyms but used Controlled PARAMETERS in controlled environment to define a concept ...

I give a video about acoustics of "musicality" listen to it :

Am i too complex for your brain ? it seems so..

I don't think that "complex" is the adjective that I would choose.

Mirriam webster define as any dictionary a word by another synonymus word ... Musical is defined as euphony or harmonius which are synonyms...

What you do is to concoct your own definition for a given term and then state that your definition is truth, and not only that, it is the only truth.

And now everybody can read what you claim :

Keep your "taste" and opinion grounded in your navel ... And i will keep mine grounded in acoustics...

Keep it where ever you wish. It doesn’t matter to me, but at least it does appear as if you are now understanding that the definition of music/musical/musicality is a matter of "taste and opinion."

Are you unable to understand anything ?

I already said and repeated many time ... In the word "musical" ,

TASTE THERE IS BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT MERE INDIVIDUAL TASTE...

Then contrary of what you claim about me i know that individual taste play a role in the definition of "musical" ... You get it ? TASTE THERE IS....

What does it means , it means that it is not about mere individual taste ... BUT MERE INDIVIDUAL TASTE IT IS NOT ...

It means that the definition of "musical" in acoustics dont negate the existence of INDIVIDUAL taste , nor it nullify his value or existence; but it use the collective experience of all humans of all origin and fields of life to create A CONCEPT defined by analysing together all human subjects and then making a precise complex definition of "musical" that goes beyond the Merriam Webster definition by a synonym ...

Defining a word by another word meaning almost the same dont solve any problem... The dictionary cannot be on your side... It is useless when i use an acoustics definition which is way more elaborate... But you dont even know that this concept exist in acoustics ...

Do you get it ? Or too stubborn ?

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.

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.