What exactly is textural density??

Good post and I agree. His attempt at a description points, once again, to the issue of harmonic truthfulness (timbre).

The use and better understanding of terms (“resourceful prose”) that are rooted in musicology to describe the perceived sonic qualities of audio gear is not only appropriate, but is something that, were it to happen more often in audiophile parlance, would reduce the level of confusion we often see in discussions like this one. I have always found it interesting and not a little ironic that there is often a disconnect between terminology used in audiospeak and well established terminology in musicology when, in fact, the actual parallels are many. After all, it is music that audio is dealing with, no?

I think we are conflating a couple of things. I don’t think this is about which voice or instrument has, in real life, more or less textural (tonal) density than another. While different voices or instrumental sounds obviously have different harmonic signatures, some richer in harmonics than others, as concerns the use of the term in audio (“more there there”), the point of quantifying or qualifying tonal density is to determine whether the reproduced sound does justice to the timbre of the sound being reproduced; whatever that might be. It is possible to have a sound that has “more there there”, as the phrase is used in audio, that is a sound that is TOO tonally saturated. Error of harmonic commission as opposed to error of omission. In my experience the opposite is the case more often than not....not enough tonal density.

Also, let’s not confuse tonal purity with lack of tonal density. I would argue that Karen Carpenter (or Bing Crosby) has no less harmonic density in her voice than Ray Charles. More nuanced with better balanced and integrated harmonics, yes. Less? I don’t think so.

“Realism” has everything to do with the correct expression of the naturally occurring harmonics (overtones) in the timbre of musical instruments. Audio equipment does not discriminate. If a piece of audio gear does not correctly reproduce the natural tonal (textural) density of a cello (to use bdp’s example) it will, likewise, not express the natural tonal density of an upright bass playing in the same range as a cello. They may each have different harmonic signatures overall, but any deviation from “realism” in a particular frequency range will impact another instrument playing in that range to one degree or another. Mahgister speaks to this Re “timbre”.

Djones, I agree with you, but I will give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt. “Tonal density” is a better term to describe what I think he is trying to say. Musicians use this term when discussing “timbre”.

Erik, actually, I think that Ohnwy61 got it right in the first post here. My definition (the audio part) mirrors his.

Good points, mahgister.

“Textural density” in audio is the (partly successful) appropriation of a term in music which refers to the way that instruments/voices and their respective musical lines in a musical composition are used. Each musical line is a “layer” and the “density” of the composition refers to the overall character of the sound as determined by the number of layers employed in the composition. One or few layers results in a “thin” musical texture. Many layers, a “thick texture”.

I think one can then extrapolate and in audio, if one thinks of the naturally occurring harmonics in musical sounds as “layers” themselves, a reproduced musical sound which expresses an accurate (natural) number and combination of harmonics can be said to be “texturally dense”. One that is lacking in full harmonic expression can be said to be “thin” or “threadbare”.