Trade offs?

after my long rant, i forgot to add the following:

if a stereo system is highly resolving, it can't always sound "musical", because all recordings are not in themselves, sufficiently "musical", to reveal the attributes of music.

if instead, a stereo system always sounds "musical", whatever that means, it cannot be highly resolving, as colorations intrinsic to a stereo system will render problem recordings "musical" in their presentation.

there is no accounting for taste. i believe our hobby is primarily about enjoyment and not about audio "correctness".

thus, there are many ways to achieve satisfaction when listening to music. there is also no free lunch.

if one chooses to minimize coloration, the quality of recordings will become apparent. the greater the focus the more obvious the warts.

the level of focus is the key. some want more, some less.

you can't eat your cake and have it too.

if one alleges greater resolution associated with less harshness, i doubt that there is either greater resolution or greater ease of listening.

you can't have both. it is foolish to propose unattainable listening goals.

there is a trade off that implicitly or explicitly occurs as one tries to hear all there is to hear on a recording.

i am wrestling with this myself, with my recent purchase of quad 57s. let's distinguish between what is attainable and what is impossible to achieve.

it's unfortunate that designers of preamps do not offer a focus control. such a capability, i believe would solve a lot of problems. it is possible that the issue of tubes vs solid state would no longer be an issue.

most recordings are replete with timbral reproduction errors. it therefore comes as no surprise that a high-resolution system will reveal such errors to an experienced listener.

there is either a semantic issue or logic issue.

first, let's discuss musicality:

music refers to pitch, timbre and harmonics. other by products are dynamics and tempo.

achieving musicality requires recordings which are accurate respect to timbre and harmonics. no recording can be accurate , as in 100 percent accuracy, because of the recording process. thus, one is left with an inaccurate recording. when listening to an inaccurate recording through a stereo system, the result is some degree of error with respect to perfection . can you call some presentation musical ? it is a matter of opinion. it all depends upon one's standards. it is my contention that if you don't have perfection, you have something less. calling something less musical is arbitrary. there are too many variables.

resolution is another matter. there is resolution, inaccurate resolution and accurate resolution. since stereo systems are inaccurate, the resolution attained has errors, with respect to the recording.

thus, an inaccurate stereo system, produces some level of resolution which is not 100 percent accurate and certainly not 100 percent musical.

calling something musical when it has timbral errors is not very useful.

since our hobby is enetrtaining, it could be sufficient to say that a stereo system achieves inaccuarcy of resolution and musicality but its errors do not prevent one from enjoying the music.

unfortunately it is not possible to quantify how inaccurate or how far off from 100 percent musicality any stereo system is and it is difficult to compare stereo systems with respect to these variables.

if the term "musical" has another connotation, please define so that i understand what is meant by that term.

words lose their meaning when they are too inclusive.

the idea that one can enjoy music when listening to a highly resolving stereo system does not imply that the sound of that stereo system is musical, or is accurate with respect to timbre.

if the criteria for musicality is "i can enjoy listening to music", almost any stereo system will be acceptable, especially to its owner.

the word "musical", as has been used on these forums no longer means accuracy of timbre. in fact, many recordings are not musical.

calling an apple an orange does not suddenly transform the orange into an apple.

perfection is not the issue. the issue is the meaning of words. it may feel good to use the words resolution and musical in the same sentence, but the word musical in that context is watered down.

musicality means accuracy of timbre. an oboe sounds just like an oboe, a tenor does not sound like an alto sax, and of course frequency response is balanced.

it seems obvious to me that if 2 people say: "my stereo system sounds musical", one might disagree with other as to the sound of the "other" stereo system.

what anyone says , in the end, does not matter, as we return to our stereo systems and listen to music.

if each one of us considers his/her stereo system musical, that is all that matters.

as to how so many stereo systems could be considered musical and yet the components within change so much. a stereo systemn can be musical, less musical and more musical, according to the way the term has been used.

"musical" is based upon opinion. let's leave it at that.

as an absoluteist, i think all stereo systems are flawed and not musical, because of errors of timbre.

as for resolution and musicality, from what i surmise of the relativism of terms, i understand how a system can be deemed musical and highly resolving.

it's just words and its all a matter of opinion.

also, it is worth noting that one may be able to fool others, but it is hard to fool one's self.