Now another misreading of my intentention and post to put me as a mere customer of atmasphere and promoter of his publicity...
Speaking of senile, I guess you forgot your own post.
"More musical" means an upgrade of gear or /and upgrade of room acoustics...
If you own atmasphere top amplifier for example which is designed in account of some psychoacoustics facts, then you may try to upgrade instead of his already TOP amplifier a low cost speakers to a better one ,
You acted as a troll in this thread willing to be one or not... And you put nowhere a single argument against atmasphere claim or against mine......
So I am a troll because I asked you for your definition of "more musical" and until very recently you couldn't do anything but concoct meaningless word-jumbo? I asked Atmasphere what his definition of "more musical" was and he actually provided one without quoting a ton of meaningless bullsh!t. I have no argument with that, except that I believe that one's choice of speakers and that the amp in front of those speakers will have an effect on how well it reproduces a certain genre of music.
I said multiple times that "musical" refer not to words as when you try to use the Webster Merriam dictionary to contradict me
In truth, contradicting you is way easier than going to Mirriam Webster.
You are not ashame to appear "empty" as a senile patient repeating "what means more musical" without end and repeating that we do not say nothing even when i refer to many acoustics concepts and many possible experiments.... At the end of this discussion as the troll you are you spew the truth : you dont mind and you dont care , your system room is musical for you thats enough...
I remember quite a while ago, someone compared you and your rants to a character in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest." At the time, that was another post that made me laugh and I gave the poster of that one a "+100" and as I recall, you reacted badly to that as well. Seriously though, what you have in common with an institutionalized mental patient is that you exist in a world of your own making that is contradicted by reality. I was not the OP who asked the question: "what is meant by more musical" and until quite recently you couldn't even come close to providing an answer. I had to continually tell you that your answers were nonsensical and to try again. Hopefully the exercise was therapeutic for you. It was a waste of my time because I am already happy with the musicality of my system. I can sit back and enjoy what it reproduces.
Effectively here you shine at your best : insulting...
Are you familiar with that old saying about those who live in glass houses? Or the put calling the kettle black?
Do you get it ?
But some people read this thread to LEARN ...They will appreciate...
Hey, I appreciate! Reading your stuff can be extremely entertaining. You have made me laugh more than once today! Keep up the good work!
|
I have two tube amps, a Reisong A10 SET that puts out 6 watts a side and a Muzishare X7 push/pull which does 35 or 45 a side depending on the mode. Both will play to uncomfortable levels with efficient speakers if desired. What is an average metal head anyway? I don’t think one exists! :) All I know is I like it loud when the party is going but otherwise I sit and enjoy my music at reasonable levels.
Sorry about the average metal head comment. I was going by the guys I hung with back in my head banging days and the metal guys who post here. Not that there are many of them, but the posts that I have read from the ones that do do not seem to be interested in tubes. As I remember, they were all talking about lots of SS stuff. I prefer the sound of tubes my self, and I am currently listening to a Cary with a six EL34s per side. It is switchable between 50 wpc of push-pull triode and 100 wpc of ultralinear. I almost cannot remember the last time I had it in ultralinear, but my tastes have changed a lot since then. It is not the only tube amp I have ever owned, and I am not sure it is the best sounding (but it's at least close) as prior to it I had a pair of ARC VTM120s that were serious rockers or could whisper sweet and quiet. But their reliability (or lack thereof) was a factor, and I used to cross my fingers and grit my teeth when I flipped the switches and I kept a soldering iron close by. I still have my very first tube amp, a sweet little Cary SLA 70. It was sweet but the sound was not as "big" and it was not as dynamic. However, coupled with the right preamp, I would have described it as "musical." "Harmonious and enjoyable to listen to."
With all that last typed, and back to your SET, from all that I have read up until today low wpc SET would not be my choice if I liked meal and I liked it loud. I am not saying that I do not believe you or Atmasphere, but I guess before I was convinced, I'd have to hear it for myself. Which is one of those many things that probably will not happen in this life time.
|
That’s cool. And somewhere near the end of all this you did offer up "improved transients and imaging and timbre" (which I assumed referred to a more accurate reproduction of timbre) and I said that this was concrete and that I could go along with all of that as making for a more pleasing and harmonious effect which would actually coincide with what Mirriam Webster’s definition was. And you may have missed it, but I did give you credit for that one.
@atmasphere , sorry that as fast as this was going I missed your post about your buddy who passed away. That was an interesting post. I guess I must have known the wrong crowd, because they would more likely have been listening to thrash-metal when they were brewing up some methamphetamine. Not that I ever personally knew anyone who ever did that, but if a lot of those guys would have had the know-how, I could have definitely seen them doing that.
Anyway, you also provided a definition of "more musical" as sounding like "real music" [Quotation marks are mine]. By "real music", do you mean as it sounds in the audience of a large colliseum or at the mixing board? Or do you mean as it sounds to the audience in an unamplified venue? Or do you mean the way it sounds in the studio when it is being recorded? I ask because I don’t know if I have ever been to an unamplified performance, and I’d go so far as to say that I actually prefer tehe SQ of my own system to the amplified performances I attended in large venues . . . that may be partially because I was in a pretty bad condition at a few of them, but I don’t think that it was the SQ we were going for. Even much later in life when I started going to what I consider more intimate venues (500 seats GA) the small bands and performers were amplified and it still was not the SQ I was going for . . . I wanted to see my favorite performers and/or groups perform more than I wanted to hear them perform. . . .
|
.
"....at least one...." I can think of many....and the last sentence is likely shared by more than one that may consider that comment....
Well, yeah, @asvjerry , but what I actually typed at the time was:
There is at least one I can think of specifically who describes a great room and speakers that cost more than my entire system front to back.
and that is because although I know there are way more than one, I can only recall one who specifically spelled out the price of his speakers for me, and as I remember it was 30k+ and I said I can think of "at least one" (SPECIFICALLY) because his speakers were what I was thinking of at the time I was typing that, and when he originally told me that, I thought, "Whoooaaa!!! That’s like 10k and change more than my entire system lists for! I’d like to hear that!" And then I got to thinking, I’d really rather not hear that.
Anyway, sorry for the word choice, but as I was typing it, his was the set of speakers I was SPECIFICALLY thinking of (and in truth, the only set of speakers I can SPECIFICALLY think of that someone told me about costing more than my entire system) so it was technically accurate, and you did quote it somewhat out of context.
But if you wish to tell me how much your speakers cost, although I know there are many more, I will then SPECIFICALLY know of two.
|
"Musical" in acoustics is not defined by deaf 50 years old rockers who dream to put walls of Jericho fall down again ...And doing this will put atmasphere tube amplifiers in the trash bin and will bought 5,000 watts amplifier to do so BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR TASTE ...
I assume you are referring to me? I wish I could be fifty years old again. I am not deaf, but over the years I have suffered some hearing loss. I used to make a pretty good living working on jet engines while they were running and shooting rivets, and in retrospect, I should have worn better hearing protection. However, I can still hear when my gear is "getting ir right" or when there is a problem, or I wouldn’t go back there and listen to it for hours. Which I would be better served if I was doing now, instead of responding to mindless posts. As far as whether what the thrash-guys want to do with their systems is "more musical", you can argue whether that is musical with them--not me. I do not find that genre to meet the definition of "musical" that I am using.
By the way i never said that atmasphere amplifier are the only good design on the market... This is your usual misreading of my post...
What you said was, to paraphrase, that the definition of "more musical" was to upgrade gear or room acoustics, and if you had an Atmasphere amp, there is no need to upgrade that any further. If you want to dispute that, I can go back to that post that I am pretty sure I have in quotes (so you will be unable to delete it) and show it to you.
You get it ?
I get that until just within the last half dozen posts you could not provide any definition of "more musical" except for a bunch of mumbo-jumbo you seemed to concoct at will.
Psychoacoustics rule audio gear not the reverse...
Psychobabble rules the greater percentage of your posts.
buy a book ...
I have no need. I didn’t ask the question and I find the sound of my gear with good source material to be pleasing and harmonious.
|
Oops, I think that you may be the one that's wrong! I'm sitting here listening to Sacrifice (thrash from 1987) on tubes and high efficiency speakers, lol. Sounds glorious!
@newfzx7 , I did stipulate that this is what "I think", meaning that I could be wrong. Are you using a SET amp and how many wpc does it put out and how loud do you do your thrash at? The SET folks I have talked to (except for the ones with higher powered SET gear, such as the Cary 805s or 211s) tell me that they didn't go the route that they went because they wanted to reproduce loud music.
|
@asvjerry , cueing up would be impossible! I can only imagine how many LPs and cartridges would get destroyed! Good thing I never made it back to vinyl after the digital revolution ended. I can see issues with that as well . . . I think if the meter would audibly identify when it was set to DC mA and would also audibly identify what it was reading that I could set the bias on both sides by feel-a-vision, but it would be frustrating doing the trial and error thing to find CDs in what is a large collection and stumbling around back there I'd probably be knocking the monitors off of their stands and putting a CD in the player might turn into damage to both the CD AND the player . . . anyway, enjoy the new vinyl and you take care as well.
|
|
As i see it now after my experiments and this correspond to what you said when you said that you want to see the musicians more than hear them,
iis now so well reproduced and translated by your system/room that now you "SEE" the instruments and musicians...
Actually, @mahgister , what I meant was that back in the days I was attending venues with live music, I was going out more because I wanted to see the band/performer perform than I was to hear them perform. It was always, "Hey, let’s go out this weekend and see so & so at such and such a club." I don’t go out to see/hear live music now-a-days, and when I go back to my little room and start flipping switches and selecting discs to listen to, it is all about what I hear, and what I hear does produce some visualizations, but to enhance the visuals I turn off the lights and take my glasses off and close my eyes. (I am actually at the point where closing one eye would work, but the eye that is gone is the only one I can squint without squinting the other at the same time, so therefore I close them both.)
@atmasphere
’Real music’ in that it sounds as real as the recording allows. So that might mean it sounds like you’re in a live amphitheater or it might sound like the musicians are in your room.
okay, I understand what you are saying; however I personally think I might describe that as accuracy more than musical. Not to protract this any further, but I am good with Webster’s definition (paraphrasing) of musical having to do with being pleasing and harmonious, and back in the ’70s and ’80s when the live venues we were going to were mostly coliseums or amphitheaters I really don’t remember the SQ being very good at all. I think it was all about the shared emotional group experience of SEEING a band we really thought was great enhanced by whatever misbehavior was going on at the same time.
Therefore, going back to Webster’s definition, for the live performance of (for example) Sammy Hagar opening for Boston at The CheckerDome in St. Louis (which was the very first concert I ever attended) to be musical, it would have to have been from the sound board perspective, not from the perspective of being in the audience.
|
A good system an OPTIMAL system cannot be only good for one style of music...
This is completely beside acoustic understanding of what is a "musical sound" ...
Buy some beats headphone or a boom box it will do ...No need of acoustics for you ...
You are probably going to get some push back from more than just me on that one. I have never done the SET experience, but I am intrigued. "Goose bump territory" or so I have been told. But years and years and years ago I liked it loud and louder, and given what I know about the thrash metal scene, 14 or 15 wpc wouldn’t sound "more musical" to that crowd. "Beats headphones"? I don’t even know what those are. Boom box? No, 30 years ago I had a rack system, and it was ggod for background, but I really didn’t find it engaging enough to sit in front of for hours and enjoy what I consider a "more musical" experience. But keep it coming . . . I find your attempts at insulting me amusing, although not as hysterically funny as your "buy an Atmasphere amp" definition of "more musical."
|
@atmasphere , so you are saying that the thrash-metal guys would dig 14 wpc of SET with some high efficiency speakers? I think you are wrong. That crowd wants to rattle windows, shake the walls and piss off the neighbors. And that is how they define "more musical."
|
No accounting for taste.
As far as what makes equipment sound musical, that is very predictable, For those who do not understand engineering, their opinion will matter (to them), but that won't change how equipment behaves...
Sure, @atmasphere , but what is meant by "more musical"?
|
@mahgister you continually use words like "impression" and "perception" and "well." "Impressions" describe subjective experiences, "perceptions" describe subjective experiences, and what some consider "well" others do not, so "well" is also subjective.
OP asked "what is meant by more musical"?
Musical = pertaining to music, as in a musical instrument such as the cornet.
Unless the term music is also subjective, that definition is not subjective.
When a reviewer writes that "a certain piece of gear is more musical,"
I would assume that the reviewer means that the gear produces music "well" and that the experience is listening to something "having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music." However, what pleases some does not please others and what some find harmonious others do not.
I have nothing at all against Cher Bono or her heritage--however I find nothing harmonious or pleasing about her nasal catterwalling in a monotone about being a half breed. I would say the same about the thrash-metal sound of the band Mega-Death. My perception or impression of both is that neither meets the criteria of being very "musical."
But there are a lot of people who would argue that I am wrong about both (however, it wouldn't be the same group of people that would argue that the sound of Cher is musical that would also argue that thrash-metal is musical).
|
"More musical" means an upgrade of gear or /and upgrade of room acoustics...
Seriously??? That is what you think the definition of "more musical" is?? A simple "upgrade of gear"??? And if the gear upgrade doesn't work and the result actually sounds like hammered sh!t, then is it still "more musical"?
At least you were finally able to provide a concise definition. I'll give you that anyway.
|
but in all good recordings you keep the eyes open , not close, because you are irresistibly convinced that you are there in the church where the organ played or you are persuaded that the organ is there in your room and your room begun to be a church...
I actually find that I enjoy my system more in the dark and with my eyes closed. Fortunately for me, I have lost one retina and the remaining one is not all that good and my world is getting darker every day. I am weighing the pros and cons of gouging my remaining eye out, as I am sure that would enhance my ability to hear and perceive "more musical," but I do have to take into consideration that I will not be able to adjust the biases on my amp unless I can get a meter that can talk to me. I am not sure if they make such a meter, but in this day and age one would think that they might.
|
None of that (above in your last post) answers OP's question: "what is meant by ’more musical’"
However, when you typed that
"More musical" means an upgrade of gear or /and upgrade of room acoustics...
That was at least an answer to OP’s question. It was an answer that nearly had me rolling on the floor with laughter, but at least it was an answer.
|
"Musical" has different meanings to different people.
To some people, AC/DC sounds musical; others think Johnney Cash is musical; there are those who would call classical musical . . . and possibly the same applies to the quality of sound that different equipment produces.
|
There is only one way to improve musicality...
It is to EXPERIMENT with the relation between the gear and the room acoustic...
do you get it ?
I have no doubt about all of that, but the problem is, that does not answer OP’s question: "what is meant by more musical?"
Now if you want to know with WORDS what is musical... Try to read poetry ...
So when OP asks "what is meant by more musical?" this is NOW what your answer is? You are no longer saying that "more musical" means to buy an Atmasphere amp? What if OP has read some poetry but finds that defining a good poem versus a bad poem is a subjective process as well? What if OP enjoys reading but finds short fiction to be a preferable genre (to him or her) than poetry? Does this mean that OP can never know what musical is?
Acoustics science define "musical" in big books about all acoustic parameters and conceptual aspect of it ...
Okay, I’ve provided two definitions, one of which was relatively concise and concrete and the other which was concise but subjective . . . you have yet to provide ANY definition of "musical", except for a lot of meaningless word soup. Give me a concise definition of musical in 25 to 50 words if you can. And if you try and you find that "having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music" is the best you can come up with, I am okay with that. Then we can go down the "what is music?" rabbit hole.
Timbre, immersiveness, and spatial qualities ...
Okay, expand your definition to 100 words and explain how those properties define musical and I will probably ask you once again if, for an example, the group Mega Death is musical.
Try an acoustician and read it ...
Meaning that you cannot explain what "musical" means?
I suggest Dr. Edgar Choueiri...
How about Dr. Seuss?
And an advice: dont say to someone reading his post that you roll in laughters... The idiot is not always the dude who dont laugh ...
But in all seriousness, @mahgister , OP asks "what is meant by more musical" and you answer that an "upgrade in gear or acoustics" is the definition he is searching for . . . that IS funny!
|
@immatthewj that would only be because they didn't have the right (more efficient) speakers to go with it. So that would also mean that someone into classical wouldn't be satisfied either unless they got more efficient speakers as well.
@atmasphere , although I have tried, classical is not my thing; but if it was and I wanted to hear The William Tell Overture (I hope I got that right) at what was a satisfying level, I wouldn't be looking at low powered SET stuff. And I wouldn't be looking at the low powered SET stuff if I was into death metal either. And most of the posts from the metal guys that do post here, seem like they are into the big SS stuff. I am not saying that I don't think tubes can do metal, but I am saying that I don't think 15 wpc or less is going to do what the average metal guy wats it to do.
|
@immatthewj That which is better able to sound like real music.
Well, that may be getting some where. However, in that case, "more musical" may differ depending upon one's musical tastes. If one was a thrash-metal fan, one might find different equipment "more musical" than if one was a fan of chamber music. If one was a fan of the latter, one might find a 12 wpc SET amp and some high efficiency speakers to be "more musical." If one bought that combination to jam out on Mega Death, one would probably be disappointed. A massive SS amp with some huge JBLs might be "more musical" in that application given your definition.
Personally, I am good with the "having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music" definition, but as I have typed before: what pleases some does not please all, and therefore not everyone defines "more musical" the same way.
|
Insult me i will not answer you are welcome... But lie about me and i will answer...
As far as lying, you have attributed statements (about you) to me that I did not make about you. I never considered that lying, just mindless paranoia. I wasn't intentionally telling a lie; it was that I never did go through the entire thread to read all of your convoluted posts. At the point at which I picked up on this thread you were telling someone that they were wrong about "more musical" meaning different things to different folks and that you were right.and that (and I am going to have to paraphrase, so if I am a tad off it is not an intentional lie) there was one concrete and objective answer to OP's question. At that point I asked you for that objective concrete definition and for close to 24 hours of repeating this this cycle ("what is the definition of more musical?" "Blah blah blah blah. . . .") over and over again, you finally came up with a tangible definition. However, as I said a while back ago I am good with "pertaining to music" and "harmonious and enjoyable."
But no, I am not going to apologize to you--you have been insulting me for almost the past 24 hours and attributing statements to me that I never made and I honestly do not give a $h!t. So now you want to throw a hissy fit about this? Fine. Go ahead. I don't really give a $h!t about that either.
|
A said famously Anatole France , "Being called an idiot by an imbecile is a pleasure"...
Oh, and I am not going to accuse you of lying, but I never referred to you in this thread as an "idiot." The term "idiot" has not been used as a clinical description of the intellectually disabled/delayed for quite a while. The last I knew, MR was being broken down to mild, moderate, severe, and profound.
|
To realize and understand why your smug laughter is ridiculous in the face of the complexity of the problem and your real or simulated incapacity to understand the concept of musicality here is the definition from Wikipedia
Smug laughter? Hardly. OP asked "what is meant by more musical" and you basically said that the definition is to buy an amp from Atmasphere. That was hysterical laughter. Everything below is lah blah blah that does not answer what OP asked.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Musical acoustics or music acoustics is a multidisciplinary field that combines knowledge from physics,[1][2][3] psychophysics,[4] organology[5] (classification of the instruments), physiology,[6] music theory,[7] ethnomusicology,[8] signal processing and instrument building,[9] among other disciplines. As a branch of acoustics, it is concerned with researching and describing the physics of music – how sounds are employed to make music. Examples of areas of study are the function of musical instruments, the human voice (the physics of speech and singing), computer analysis of melody, and in the clinical use of music in music therapy.
The pioneer of music acoustics was Hermann von Helmholtz, a German polymath of the 19th century who was an influential physician, physicist, physiologist, musician, mathematician and philosopher. His book On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music[7] is a revolutionary compendium of several studies and approaches that provided a complete new perspective to music theory, musical performance, music psychology and the physical behaviour of musical instruments.
|
"musical" cannot be put in words except by using synonyms as in the Merriam Webster...
Almost any word can be used as a synonym for another word. Including the words you have been using. Sorry, but that is just what language has evolved to.
"musical" can be defined in acoustic factors as these factors can be controlled in a room by some ears/brain EXPERIMENTING ...
Fine. But you have yet to provide a coherent definition of what is more musical. "Buy an Atmasphere amp is the most concise thing I've read by you so far.
We know for example that the transients are important in the timbre "musical" judgement by a listener...
To improve the transients it is possible for example to play with the room ratio between absorption, reflective and diffusive surface ...
Okay, I'll give you points for "improved transients." If one piece of gear compared to another piece of gear produces "improved transients" that piece of gear may meet some of the definitions of "more musical." However, some musicians probably are also able to produce music with transients that are better than the transients than other musicians can. If that's the case, "more musical" may go beyond just gear and room acoustics?
To give another example, imaging will be greatly improve by the listener location and the speakers location and the wise use of the lateral reflections at the right timing ...
I'll give you points for that also. Better imaging should be "more musical." I have never argued that the room and the placement of speakers in the room was not important to imaging. But I'd also say that the most noticeable improvement in my last upgrade (the preamp) was definition and imaging. And yes, I admit that I did play around with speaker placement and adding rugs to tweak that.
Or as any idiot i can ask forever a definition of musical in words that dont exist , because "musical" being an acoustic concept suppose some ears/brain and a pair of hands modifying the room acoustic parameters to his liking and after studying the concepts of timbre , immersiveness and spatial qualities in such a way and enough then he had learn what to do instead of changing cables and gear without end...
Well, actually it appears that words do exist. But if words didn't exist, then it would be up to everyone what their own feelings about "more musical" is. And then it would be subjective.
Then you will understand what is a "musical" timbre perception by being able to perceive any of his aspects ...
So I assume you are talking about accurate timbre, not timbre that is pleasing?
For timbre there is 5 aspects to play with.... You cannot put this understanding and set of experiments with specific gear in a specific room in few words...You must experiment with acoustic concepts... Even if i paste any text acoustics if you dont play with the parameters associated with these concepts you will not understand ... Acoustics is an APPLIED knowledge not words and not even equations because hearing is too complex ...
That doesn't tell the OP what the answer to his question is.
Do you get it ?
Or will you roll in laughters ?
You are saying "more musical" means improved transients and imaging and more accurate reproduction of timbre? Okay . . . that is something solid that OP can hang is hat on. However, as I just replied (somewhere up above) to Atmasphere, equipment that one will find "more musical" for one genre may not work for another genre. No, I am ot laughing . . . this time around you did not answer OP's question by saying that the definition of "more musical" is equipment and room acoustics upgrades. But that was funny.
|
My summary of this thread is that the term ’musical’ is not a good term to describe sound or equipment characteristics. It appears to have multiple different means to different people.
Absolutely. Like quite a few of the adjectives and adverbs "we" use to describe the sound we hear. Back in '99 I found a dealer who had a used SLP90 and I took it home to audition in place of the B&K digital HT preamp I had in front of a couple of ARC VTM120s . . . something about what it did for the sound I was hearing grabbed me immediately and grabbed me hard, but I was, and still am, unable to articulate in words what it was. "More musical" is honestly the best that I, personally, can come up with.
|
The term "musical" cannot be defined as an opinion...
So tell me which/who is more musical:
Megadeath, AC/DC, Waylon Jennings, Pink Floyd, Cowboy Junkies, Maria Muldaur, Led Zeppelin, Suzanne Vega, Knickelback, Warren Zevon, Fritz Reiner and the Chigago Symphony Orchestra, Taylor Swift, The Moody Blues Threshold of A Dream LP, The Moody Blues Days Of The Future Past SACD, Ten Inch Nails performing "Hurt", Johnny Cash covering "Hurt", Johnny Paycheck, Linda Ronstadt with The Stone Ponys, Linda Ronstadt without the Stone Ponys, Diana Krall covering "Desperado, Linda Ronstadt covering "Desperado", Catie Curtis, Charlie Manson’s "Charlie’s Good Time Gospel Hour", Johnny Cash "Live at San Quentin", Johnny Cash’s in studio recording of "Ring Of Fire", The Beach Boys, Willie Nelson with The Highway Men, Willie Nelson solo, Taylor Swift, Lynyrd Skynyrd’s first LP, Lynyrd Skynyrd’s second LP, or Bread?
|
"musicality" is a concept defined with parameters under controls in experiments analysing statistical set of subjective perceptions classed in different categories..
After this set of experiments, we can using various concepts pertaining to acoustics have an idea about what will be experienced as musical by most people and what will not be so perceived ...
But this, and what followed it, was all stream of consciousness gobble-de-gook.
|
. . . Mirriam Webster lists
having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music
as one of their definitions for "musical.". Is Mirriam Webster wrong?
Since you tossed about the word "musicality," this is how Mirriam Webster defines that:
1
: sensitivity to, knowledge of, or talent for music
(And, btw, it is too late to edit, but sorry about the typo: that should have been "Nine Inch Nails performing Hurt," not "Ten Inch Nails."
|
What people choose to play on that equipment is a different matter- some of which some people might regard as musical while others might not.
So the topic, IMO, is bit too broad in the context of this thread.
Exactly and again, exactly. I guess opinion and taste might enter into it?
|
Some Mirriam Webster definitions of "music"
: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
: an agreeable sound : euphony
If one accepts any of those definitions of "music," it sure seems as if opinion and taste enter in to the equation.
|
@mahgister
Why should I, or why should anyone, accept your word salad as the only definition of "music" and/or "musical" and reject Mirriam Webster? Please explain.
|
The Merriam define "musical" as harmonious and euphonic experience as HISTORY taught it because thousand of years of successive musicians and acoustician define the territory with experiment and knowledge of what is "musical" experience in music history as in acoustics architecture and applications
You obviously took different history courses than I did.
|
Metal heads appreciate good sound like everyone else.
@atmasphere , I am not saying that you did not have this experience; what I am saying is that 14 or 15 wpc of SET would not have done it for the metal heads I used to know.
|
@atmasphere and @newfzx7
. . . and apparently by some SET standards, 14 or 15 wpc is a lot, as I keep reading about some of Dennis Had’s new stuff making less than 5 wpc? I DEFINITELY don’t think that would satisfy the average metal head.
|
Now repeating a common place fact seems all you know and want to learn about what is "musical"...
Seriously? All you have done is to repeat yourself.
Your post dont need really an answer because it is mainly many insults for me no more mere misrereading , now that you recognize FINALLY without even saying it explicitly, that atmasphere argument about psychoacoustics use of second order harmonic distortion is useful, and that psychoacoustics define "musical" not taste
Oh my, but you are sensitive. Glass houses and pots who call kettles black. And what I said about Atmasphere’s answer was that at lleast it actually was an answer. I am good with "pertaining to music" what Mirriam Webster says about pleasing and harmonious and enjoyable.
you are pathetic ....you laughed but not me...I dont laugh at people by the way...
But I read your stuff and it is funny! I cannot help myself!
Enjoy your "musical" system because it seens only you know what is "musical" ,
That’s not true. You told everyone else that their perception/impression/definition of "more musical" was wrong and that you had the only concrete objective answer. But up until a few hours ago you would not produce that answer. I never said I was the only one who knows the answer. I said that I think the answer is subjective and the term means different things to different people. I derive pleasure and enjoyment from what my system does, and that is all I, personally, need. I only wanted to know, since you said that everyone else was wrong, what your definition of right was. It was like pulling teeth.
Who is pathetic? me or you ... I dont laugh but i can smile here ...😊
Glass houses and pots talking to kettles again. You should laugh . . . it’s good for you.
|
You explicitly said that i babble and that i am a quack...
There is not much difference.. I forgot mindless paranoiac... Insults are insults nevermind the word choice..
Once again I will not accuse you lying (as you did to me) but I never referred to you , personally, as a quack--only all those doctors you kept referring to. You mentioned reading a lot of books, and that’s good, but after I was laid off in ’05 I made one of my bad life choices and retrained for a new career in health care; for that I took a couple of semesters of anatomy and physiology and a semester of micro and a lot more and I read a lot of books--but that never made me a brain surgeon. Babble? Maybe that is subject to the ears and eyes of the listener/reader. The way you were responding to certain posts I made that were not about you or directed at anyone, least of all you, was coming off as paranoid. And there is a difference: once upon a time, the term "idiot" was a clinical term that was used to describe a particular IQ. I do not recall referring to your IQ. Although I never said as much, I am assuming that you are not typing in your first language, and that, alone, is an acheivement beyond me.
When i spoke about immersiveness for example you call that babbling words even if you had no idea what is "immersiveness" experience in acoustic and how to perceive and control it ...
Isn’t "immersiveness" a synonym for something? But okay, I could have asked you to expound upon that. That doesn’t seem to be a bad term to describe how a system that is doing the right thing on a given night will bring the listener a pleasing and harmonious experience. But it too just might mean different things to different people; I am not sure . . . depending upon the context, without giving it undue thought, the word "immerse" does almost sound like an objective and active verb. So I’ll give you that one.
I am a quack and you said it yourself your rolled on your back reading my posts ... This is pathetic answer no ?
Again, I don’t believe that I referred to you, personally, as a quack. If you can find the post that I did, I will stand corrected, because I guess it is possible, but I don’t think so, and I am not going to go back and do the reading. "Pathetic" is a modifier I do not use all that often . . . I think there is an argument that it has different meanings in different context . . . I am relatively certain that I did not use it in this "discussion."
I am too serious... I should never had bother myself and others to answer to your tail race about "taste" but i am not perfect either ... 😊
I know for a fact that I have NEVER claimed to be perfect. I know that I am opening the door for push-back on this, but I believe that different gear appeals to different tastes, as does the sound of different musical instruments. Therefore, I still maintain that "more musical" may have different meanings to different listeners
.
I wish you really a good year...
With all there is in the world my passion for audio and acoustic is nothing very important save for me...😊
I don’t wish you any ill will or bad luck and I honestly would rather that you had a good year than a bad year. I think that if you are happy with the sonic results you have acheived, that is a good thing. I can be happy with mine; I also understand that there is a lot more out there. There is at least one I can think of specifically who describes a great room and speakers that cost more than my entire system front to back. I cannot have that and I am better off not hearing it, as it just might ruin (for me) what I do have.
|
@asvjerry , I will admit that
There is at least one I can think of specifically who describes a great room and speakers that cost more than my entire system front to back.
was poorly constructed and could have easily been construed to mean other than what I intended it to mean. Someone could have read that and thought that I was saying that the individual’s speakers plus room cost more than my entire system. After seeing the pictures of his room, he may well have more into that than for what I could list this crappy little aluminum can on a slab that I call home.
What I should have typed was: "I can think of one individual who has a great room, and his speakers alone cost more than my entire system; I am aware that there are many others on this site who are also in that league but he is the only one who I can think of specifically at the moment."
And when I also typed that I would be better off not hearing the sound that he gets to hear, I was serious. And I told him as much. I’ve been rolling some tubes in my preamp and I recently found a combination that is just absolutely thrilling me. (I came by a pair of ’52 Sylvania "Bad Boys" 6SN7s and they are in for the balanced inputs in front of four JJs that I recently used to replace the EHs with. I do not know if the JJs are just starting to come alive at 50 hours, or it is all about those Sylvanias, but there is source material that is affecting me like it has not affected me in the past. I finished off my session last night by listening to two songs: Brandy Carlyle singing The Story and Eliza Gilkyson singing Borderline and I was moved nearly to tears.) However, my point is that: if I was to hear a pair of 30k speakers driven by the stuff he has in front of them in a GREAT room . . . I doubt that I could appreciate what I presently now perceive as a musical system.
On another note: although I was serious about my reaction to the last two songs I listened to last night, I was being totally tongue and cheek about gouging out my right eye. When/if the retina comes off of the back of that one I will then cross that bridge. A lot of things will definitely change in my life when/if that occurs, but a talking multimeter would mitigate some of the changes. But it still might not be enough for me to continue in this hobby.
|
