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

@lemonhaze most of us don’t have dedicated listening rooms.  All house condos etc are not built for music systems or audio. Some of us have all kinds of things going on room wise. But it doesn’t have to limit you if you get great gear that has synergy. 

You are seriously missing the mark if you think electronics can be designed to mitigate the damage room acoustics do to the sound. How can the designer know what size or shape room the amp will be used in?

Of course in an untreated room a collection of expensive gear will sound better than a budget system but I do have a treated room and 2 subs using Omnimic to optimise placement. The waterfall plot shows a smooth flat response and decaying within the RT60 recommended for the enclosed volume of my listening space.

If you have not heard a room treated properly as described then you are missing out. Measurement shows I need a little more bass trapping and that a third sub would further smooth out my already great result.

Looking at photo of your small room I can state with confidence that you will have huge peaks and dips which is not conducive to good sound. I mentioned above that nulls rob you of music, whatcha gonna do about that? Do not think that this can be corrected with EQ, pushing more power into a null achieves nothing, it will just cancel with the same power.

Have you measured your room? and if not, why not?

@lemonhaze you can still have a great sound without spending the money I have spent on my system.  If you maximize synergy and you have a great room you can have a great sound depending on how well the things you do buy work together and yes if you have a great room you can really do some good things sound wise. 

@lemonhaze look challenging my integrity openly saying that it somehow factors into my opinion is comical. But anyway I do this as part of the hobby. I don’t mention my infigo stuff unless it’s applicable to the conversation. Has nothing to do with my opinion.  Do I think well designed gear with great parts and technology sound better yes. But only if it has the proper synergy and it’s built on sound technology.  Yes. I’m at a point where I’m experienced and I tend to gravitate to the more costly gear. Not because of price but because of performance and the tech and build quality that comes along with it. 

Acoustics with an (s) which is not only mere room acoustic but psychoacoustics too is almost everything in audio, it is PRIMARY ; cables and gear are SECONDARY in relation with the MINIMAL acoustical satisfying experience threshold ...

The MAXIMUM experience imply and ask for acoustics knowledge with dedicated room with a cost exceeding high end gear most of the times and are impossible to reach by most here ...

We then must learn how to embed and control any working system electrically in the grid of the house and of the room and we must learn how to embed the mechanical vibrations/resonance field in the system/house/room and most importantly we must learn how to embed and control the system/speakers in the acoustic field of the room and the listener position and learn how to control their relation ...

Speaking about the importance of a dac choices or about cable choices or amplifier choices is not "even wrong" for sure and it is SECONDARY matter ....What is the PRIMARY matter and goal is learning how to embed any system at any price ...

Anything else may be promoting a race toward consumerism and ignorance ...

Obsession about sound is not science nor experience...

Concepts matter more here than money...

When your system is MINIMALLY good, you are so amazed by music, so astounded by sound qualities , you forgot audio race and you immerse yourself in music...My system value is 1,000 bucks at most by the way...

You can think i am deluded if you want to justify your expanses... 😁

 The difference is less between the low-fi,mid-fi and high-end gear systems as such  and more  between minimally acoustically  satisfying and maximally satisfying system and this is determined more by acoustical and mechanical and electrical embeddings controls than by gear  price tags...

And i never said that i could not benefit from costlier component for those who dont understand my point and want to react negatively... Any gear piece can be upgraded and improved... This is a common place fact not an argument against my point ...

@benanders,

@mahgister,

@gregm,

All good advice and argument. To bolster my above comments regardless of the insistence of the OP to the contrary I firmly stand behind the premise that a lower budget system in a properly treated room and with the addition of a couple of subwoofers, still well under the @calvinj budget, will indeed hear a more realistic rendition of the event. Consider that the nasty peaks, which I avoided mentioning earlier are now smoothed and that these peaks previously at 15 to 20dB above the average is what causes the impression of 'slow bass' or 'boom' or 'one note bass'

Now with peaks tamed and nulls filled in the room's acoustic signature is removed and you are left with being transported to the venue 😎

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

I fully agree with your good post.

@calvinj,  I disagree with your dubious stance which appears, since your declaration that you are now affiliated with Infigo and own their cables, amps and DAC, that this is a thinly disguised sales pitch for the company Infigo. You also state that you are "pushing back at room, room, room.

It may be apparent to other readers that downplaying the importance of room acoustics (RA) and punting electronics as paramount, clearly reveals your motive which is to steer purchases towards components rather than absorbers.

All we have seen here is your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the importance of (RA) and relentlessly insist that properly designed electronics and speakers can overcome the damaging effects of RA.  This touting of high-end components being able to achieve a result beyond RA defies credulity. Sure, a better system in an untreated room will sound better, I don't think anybody is refuting that but you have failed to, knowingly or not, address the elephant in the room.

This elephant has much baggage, namely overly long decay and room modes. The damaging effect of strong early reflections should not be lightly dismissed, however the elephant turd is the peaks and nulls which are an unavoidable phenomenon of every room.

Now here is a point to ponder: leave out the peaks for this in the interest of not typing pages of info which I'm sure would just be summarily rejected.

Lets look at the nulls: yes you have nulls, without RA everyone does. Fact. Those pesky nulls are caused by waves meeting out of phase and cancelling. You OK with that so far? Good. It is a null so nothing there, no music nothing, it's like a black hole for select frequencies.  Now introduce your top of the line state of the art cables, DACs and amps and tell me how in any shape, manner or form they could magically know what musical info is missing and then somehow fill it in. 👽

The above will perhaps offer some slight glimmer of hope to enthusiasts without the budget to afford the very best in electronics that they do have a means of great sound if they embrace the room issue.

Source, amplification, Synergy, Build quality, Room.  Crap equipment with bad synergy in a great room does not equal great sound. 

@bpoletti 
 I literally just said I have great sound in my room.  Kind of misleading to tell people they can’t have good sound in a bad room. Some of us can’t do a thing room wise. But still manage 

If your room sux, you cannot get decent quality sound regardless of price.  First fix the room.  A cheap way is to fill it with artificial ficus trees.  They act as great diffusers.  And they may not fix problems with soft walls or hard floors.

Gotcha.

@immatthewj i meant a small bit of tube style warmth. I didn’t mean a hint of musicality.  Its sounds musical. Instruments sound like instruments. Players are where they are supposed to be in soundstage. Just to clarify. 

I get great transparency, detail, soundstage with a small hint of warmth and musicality.

@calvinj  , with absolutely no intention of taking this down a rabbit hole, how do you define a "small hint of musicality"?

@curiousjim i can’t do any of that in my room.   I literally can’t change it because of the area and dimensions and the style of our condo.  So that everyone understands I am extremely happy with the current state of my audio system. I have infigo method 4 Dac. Infigo method 6 amplifier. Infigo Fluvius streamer. Gato Fm6 speakers and 2 rel 212se subwoofers. My infigo stuff has a zero noise floor up to -140 db.  It has great sound stage. I have cables that don’t have any noise as well. I get great transparency, detail, soundstage with a small hint of warmth and musicality. My system really gets in the air without sounding fatiguing at all.  Look my gear is expensive I can admit that but I bought it after loads of research and it has synergy off the charts. The design that went into every party of the system is next level to my ear. So I am literally getting great sound in my bad room.  I have high ceilings, a door that gets in the way. One speaker close to a wall. I have hardwood floors. Etc. But despite that the level of electronics I have overcame all of that. Look I can’t speak for everyone in my system it works. 

I am also going to say that in my small untreated flawed room with the speakers and front end that I now have on board, what I now hear that makes the biggest difference in SQ is due to the quality of the source material.

Another thing of huge importance  is the quality  of the recording. Or of the lp, cd, radio broadcase. 

"Garbage in, garbage out"?

@calvinj 

As I’m sitting here reading all this, my mind wondered to room treatments.  Have you measured out the first reflection points on your front wall and ceiling?  I to have a doorway next to a speaker and it noticeably messes up the sound, but I covered up my fireplace and put a 2’x4’ absorbing panel above it and for the other side, I bought one of those cheap folding walls and tossed a comforter over it. I have to take it down when company comes, but that’s easy enough. The only thing I haven’t been given permission for, is to put panels on the ceiling,  but I’m thinking you might have to really consider it. Oh, and those smaller corner bass traps, do help a bit. ( but once again, they were not wife approved here.)

All the best.

Another thing of huge importance  is the quality  of the recording. Or of the lp, cd, radio broadcase. 

@tony1954, @ghdprentice

Glad to read you have a similar experience.  Your methodologies are good.  Great sound is certainly a measure of personal taste, and ongoing tuning over time. 

Everything is a component. All the interconnects and hardware as well as room acoustics. 

I'll be digging into some UNobtrusive acoustic treatments in my future.  Might have to move to have a dedicated sound room :)

@patrickcarey 

"best advice I can see on your audiophile journey is to try some stuff make sure there are returns or at the very least if you buy it used that you'll be able to flip it and sell it to someone else if it doesn't work for you so you're not risking a ton of money. "

With an unexpected divorce, followed by an unexpected retirement and a suddenly "fixed" income, I use the same methodology. The key is having the patience to put the time in to research and locate what you want. And to get it for a price that allows you to flip it if need be.That being said, if I am sure about something, I don't mind buying new.

The room matters a lot, do everything you can afford.

Yet the next step is most important .... do not buy anything unless

a. You NEED it. How do I know? Because you are BOTHERED and can NAME the ISSUE you wish to SOLVE

b. You have done an A/B in your space and you PREFER the new thing, FOR SURE.

From here it’s never ending. Hopefully you will go many years with a set up, but you may not. When you have amazing Speakers, Amps, Cables, DA etc ... then you might in time be bothered and fine tune it with AC cables perhaps, Fuses perhaps, Caps and Resistors perhaps.

The better the system the more obvious is any small change.

Small gains are often costly ... that’s the reality. Do you need them? See #1

A great thing can be costly or not.  A bad thing can be costly too.

Enjoy the Process. For the Audiophile the system is the creativity, the instrument.

@mahgister thanks for the clarification.  Respect my friend. 

I would disagree with you about how much the room affects the sound. It affects it some but it’s not gonna make average equipment compete with the best of the best. Sorry that’s as direct as I can be.

I am tired by your misreading but i thank you for your invitation to post...

You seems a very good person to me then ... I want that to be clear...

Now i will clarify something you MISREAD about my experience...

No room acoustic will correct a bad design or compensate for it or replace gear choices...

IS IT CLEAR? ...

But on the other hand No high end speakers and system can perform at their PEAK POTENTIAL in a bad room ...

Is it clear ?

And any low cost system will improve a lot with room acoustic controls BUT WILL NOT EXCEED THE POTENTIAL OF A HIGH END SYSTEM for sure ...

Is it clear ?

Now we can have a low cost systen that give a relatively good " audiophile"  experience if we work with not only acoustic but with electrical noise floor control and vibration/resonancve control...

I call it the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...

Is it clear ?

Then in no way a low cost system giving a minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold because of acoustic and electrical and mechanical control well done, in no way such system will rival some very high end system... The only exception may be high end system in bad room ...

is it clear ?

In a word claiming as you do that high end system exist and are better than low cost one , is a common place fact known by everyone even me ... What i said dont contradict that... But you dont seems to understand what i said ...

Psychoacoustics rule the gear not the price tag...

I thank you even if we differ because you are a gentleman ...

My deepest respect ...

@mahgister you are talking to someone who works in audio where I used to be just an hobbyist. I know the work, build quality, research and design elements that go into products and why at this point. It should not surprise you that based on that that I would disagree with you about how much the room affects the sound.  It affects it some but it’s not gonna make average equipment compete with the best of the best. Sorry that’s as direct as I can be. 

@mahgister i am. Not doing anything behind your back at all. Look I respect your opinion. I just strongly disagree with it. I understand how you strongly feel. I’m not mad at you and I’m not offended by you disagreeing with me. I strongly disagree with your position but please don’t take it personal. I respect how professionally you have responded. But I disagree with you. Don’t think I hate you as a person or that I’m sneak dissing you behind your back. It’s Audiogon you will see what I post. Look we have debated this topic on and on. You have wrote long answers and explained your position. Yes the room can help you some. But not as much as you probably think in my eyes. I respect your ideas and arguments in your position. But I’m not talking behind your back. It’s Audiogon. You will see my response like you are seeing it now. Just don’t take it that personal. You are a smart thoughtful guy. Continue to engage on this thread or any others. But the more you respond the stronger I feel about my own position. Based on those responses. It’s ok to disagree and still be ok with each other. Always feel free to respond on my threads.

@calvinj , I am also going to say that in my small untreated flawed room with the speakers and front end that I now have on board, what I now hear that makes the biggest difference in SQ is due to the quality of the source material. I am (for good or for ill) all digital, and I am not just referring to my taste in music. I am not a huge jazz fan, but over the past couple of years I have been trying, and although it is not my favorite genre, some of the jazz SACDs I have bought over the last few years have some of the best sonic quality ("more musical", ha ha) in my collection. And then there are CDs in my collection from genres that I really like and those from genres that I used to really like that have the nails-on-a-chalk-board-effect on me. I have SACDs that are nothing special in SQ as well . . . on the other hand I have red-book stuff that I am totally blown away by, and I assume it is my front end (most specifically the SACDP) interacting with a "well" recorded mixed and mastered disc.

Which leads me to conclude that the very front of the system MIGHT be the most important link in the entire chain. But since I know that is an invitation to pushback, I am going to qualify that by saying that I am only speculating as a mostly satisfied and not disgruntled consumer who loves the sound of his system in a small bad room when it (the system) is getting things right.

The room is the most cost effective measure for good listening experience - I prefer just a lot of book shelfs full of random sized books and phase gradient diffusers on the ceiling - which are a specialty item that you can find from companies that do acoustic room treatments - Armstrong Ceilings in one company  has a few that look attractive, As far as snake oil or should I say cables - keep them short and a good stranded cable of 12 gauge (or something that will take 15 amps or so)  from what Dr Toole had mentioned in his book, a 12 gauge stranded wire will loose around 1db over a 65 foot span. if you need to run a line at 60' + then either thicker cable or make your own using thin strips of copper  foil laminated together between Mylar or Kapton - Mylar is way cheaper. this will allow the capacitance and inductance to basically cancel each other out. The ultimate cable is the Transposed Litz Cable, use in high frequency reactors and transformers - but that's an overkill. Cables are the least likely to effect your sound in comparison to things like dirty power, bad speakers and or placements and especially bad room acoustics.

but getting good cables for the preamp stage is way more important. in the studio environment where I do most of my work - having double conductor balanced cables (4 conductors instead of three) is now used in pro studios. The movement of wires inside a cable does effect the sound quality when you move them around, and this is caused by changes in capacitance between the live conductor and ground. with 4 conductors and movement in the live wire gets cancelled out (for the most part) chance are you will not hear that issue because consumers don't use condenser mic which have a rather low levels in comparison to line level signals that a preamp would produce. but it help out

one snake oil that works quite well  is Stabilant 22, which has been around for at least 35 years or so. these improve connections of low level signals _ basically in the nano scale, the material will conduct when an electrical field  is present, such that connections that are very small (like 1/4 jacks or RCA) will have a very small footprint where it connects. if you have a lot of connections (like ones found in recording studios -just  think patch bays) then you really start to hear it. the best cure for this is to eliminate as many connections as possible. You can find Stabilant 22 on ebay. I knew the inventor who was a member of the AES in Toronto (the same AES that Dr Toole is a member of) 

Just getting Dr Toole's book -" Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms", will be your most effective tool for all things audio. there is nobody in the world that has done that amount of research in psychoacoustics then him. His book is the bible of understanding what good sound really is. I've known him from the AES in Toronto for about 35 years. 

I distinguished minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold and maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold INSTEAD of the distinction between mid-fi and high end ...

Why ?

Because the distinction between mid-fi and high end is related to price tags not only to objective design quality in all cases...

The distinction between the two acoustical satisfaction threshold had no  direct and immediate relation with price but is related mainly  to the way the three working embeddings controls are put in place ...

The MINIMAL  threshold is reach by me now with my low cost system ... Passed this minimal threshold exist many levels between good system in display here by many members and world level system as mike lavigne one ...All these are under or above this MAXIMAL  acoustical satisfaction threshold...

it is not price tag that define good sound but acoustics knowledge, for sure a top system on the world stage will  cost a lot of money and a lot of  studies and a lot of experiment time ... This is the bad news..

The good news is anybody can reach the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold at relatively low price if he put his mind in studying what to do to control the electrical noise floor of the system , of the room and of his house... Then he must learn how to control vibrations and resonance ... And the last but not least he must learn how to control the room acoustics to serve his ears brain and the speakers relation ..

Are you of good faith or are you able to read correctly ?

If you listen to some here you can put any equipment in a good room and it will sound the same?

I dont like behind the back remarks about me...PUT MY NAME or stay mute ...

And also LEARN HOW TO READ: I never said that we can put any cheap low cost gear in place of high end gear forr the same acoustic result in a room and it will sound the same ...Acoustics dont replace design quality ... I said that any system will improve in a dedicated acoustic room at any price and often improve more than many upgrades ...An upgrade to be a real one must be made in OPTIMAL acoustic condition ...

First room acoustics is the MAIN factor to improve sound ONCE and only ONCE we had a relatively synergetical system to begin with ... ( here the system price do not matter because we all have budget limit... do you get it ? )

Suppose your system value is 10,000 bucks, it will be a greater improvement to modify the room for the better than buying a 1000 bucks cable or a new dac near the same price level than the one you already have etc ...

But for sure if you own a cheap amplifier no room acoustics will compensate for this fact ...All begin as i said above with a relatively good gear system according to our budget and synergetical to begin with ... But Upgrades  urge  race is useless most of the times BEFORE learning and experimenting with acoustics ...

Do you get it ?

There is three main working dimensions for any system at any price, the electrical noise floor level, the mechanical controls of vibrations, the acoustical control of the relation speakers room ... These three embeddings controls matter more than almost any piece upgrade and anyway these three embeddings controls jobs must be done BEFORE a costly upgrade to be able to evaluate the level of quality of what you already own before throwing your money out of the window... Some have bought 40 amplifiers and never had experiment with their acoustics... Complete lost of money....

Next time adress to me if you doubt one of my post ...not about me behind my back...

@immatthewj yup I get it. If you listen to some here you can put any equipment in a good room and it will sound the same? 

@calvinj , you made an analogy to cars (engines and aerodynamics) and here is another one this thread makes me think of. I had a buddy who spent as much time with guns as audiophiles here do with achieving sonic results. He used to tell me that his formula for properly scoping a rifle was to spend as much on the scope as one spent on the rifle. Meaning a $1700 rifle should have a $1700 scope (and that was over ten years ago, so the Lord only knows what that rifle and scope would go for now).

So I did that once ($1700 and $1700) and I am going to come right out and say that it was not the best money I ever spent. But the thing is: if I could have only bought one or the other, would I have been better off buying just the scope with no rifle to put it on? Or would just the rifle actually turned out to be handier, even without a scope? Yeah, I know . . . it’s probably apples & oranges. . . .

@immatthewj whats wrong with some people. Room acoustics are ok but the way stuff is built is paramount. 

@patrickcarey thats why at Infigo cables we give customers a free trial. Stuff you spend on has to work for your system. 

@patrickcarey 

Great story. Thanks. That is how it starts and over time better components allow greater positive effect of wires… and it goes on and on.

Although I didn't realize it at the time I was and have been a cable denier.  for the longest time I would cheap out and get Amazon basics cables and then get mad at my equipment because it didn't sound the way I wanted it to .

A couple of months ago I decided to try and upgraded Coaxial cable from Pangea, and I could hear some minor differences in the depth and imaging. So of course I decided to take another step up and I bought a really expensive cable for me - about 100 bucks which was the AQ carbon digital coax.  that was the beginning of a journey and a Sonic revelation.  Since then I've upgraded up the line and with each step I literally hear a little more detail wider soundstage in some cases better base response and more detailed richer bass response and most recently with an AQ coffee coax…well it's a pretty good cable.  OK it's really good astonishing the difference really from where I started I'm not sure it's gonna be worth it for everyone because it was pretty darn expensive but it was apparently the weakest link in my system.  since then I've been exploring speaker cables and power cables and frankly it all makes a difference.  the downside with this is that the interactions of the acoustics of your room will certainly flavor the music as well as the type of cable you use will also flavor the music just like with speakers and just like with amplifiers so it takes a little bit of experimentation to get something that's right for you.

best advice I can see on your audiophile journey is to try some stuff make sure there are returns or at the very least if you buy it used that you'll be able to flip it and sell it to someone else if it doesn't work for you so you're not risking a ton of money. 

Given the preamp and the SACD player that I upgraded to within (I think) the last four years, and the crappy little untreated room that I put them in, I guess I should be disgruntled and dissatisfied. But I am not. It sounds better (even in the room that it is in) then it did before the upgrades. Now the focus between the speakers is tighter, the stage outside the speakers has more air and definition, the warbling of a harmonica or the squealing of an electric guitar or the brash brassy sound of a sax when the player bites down hangs with better delineation in mid air. Nuances and vocal inflections are more pronounced now than with the old gear. I can almost see Willie has he enunciates.   No, I am not disgruntled or dissatisfied. In a better room I am sure it would sound even better. But I am sure that if, in the same room, I was to upgrade to better amps (I’d love to hear a pair of Cary 805s) and spend some serious money on a speaker upgrade that this would produce even better sound in the same bad room . I have my doubts that a rack system in a great well treated room would sound as good as what I am hearing now. But since I’ve never heard that, I cannot honestly say for sure.

You can go round and round with speakers, and cables but when you get the room sorted, you are on the express train to done.

Right...the guy with the crappy room should keep buying cables to try and fix his disgruntlement and the crap he hears

If you have a bad room you have a bad system and the solutions are to use headphones or find another room.

the room is paramount, as it couples with the chosen speakers

A guy can have very audiophile gear, but, the choice of such gear would be very different for a sht room.

most importantly the room

The gear choices matter less than the acoustics...

Acoustics rule everything in audio...Not the reverse so important it could be ..

+1 ghd. Everything matters. Irrelevant which is declared most important. Get the best equipment you can, matched the best you can, set up the best you can. And enjoy

The way I look at it is that time invested in choosing, configuring and tweaking can result in a much better sounding system. So, let’s say you go all out and invest 1,000 hours and $5K or $10K… invest the same huge amount of time (1,000 hours) and $25K… and your system will sound a lot better… same for $50K… etc.

Investing huge amounts of intelligently used time will result in a better sounding system. But holding time constant, then the financial investment results in a better sounding system. Huge amounts of both are the best way to go.

There is just some equipment that will take you closer to any other piece you have.  Most of the time it will cost you more.  Yeah the room helps. But the equipment is the most important. It’s ok not to want to pay too much. But the fact is that the better stuff gets you closer. It is what it is. 

@immatthewj why bother getting a better engine and transmission just make the car faster and better just make it more aerodynamic that will fix all the problems.

I was going to leave the analogies out of this, but this is good.

Obviously aerodynamics PLUS horsepower and torque would be ideal if you wanted to go fast ("fast" being another subjective term). But I once had a ’75 LTD (which by almost all standards is a big ugly boat) with a 460 in it, and I played around with a few things on it and I could get that monster to go over 120 mph and I actually surprised a few people at stoplight races once in a while. If I could have put that motor in a Mach 1, it would have gone even faster.

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.

@immatthewj why bother  getting a better engine and transmission just make the car faster and better just make it more aerodynamic that will fix all the problems. 

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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

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 :

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.

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."