What is meant exactly by the description 'more musical'?

Taste there is here...But it is not about taste...

Even stones can speak when you get the stone dimensions and composition parameters right... It become "more musical"... Is the first musician a man with mere "good taste" or a mystical acoustician ?

Is it not "musical" ?

Saying that the man who "sell" this set of minerals pieces of gear had "good taste" say nothing of importance about what is "musical" here ...Setting the minerals right and euphonic and harmonies with the FEED BACK of the ears/brain and the hands carving the pieces of rock describe what is "musical"...

It is applied psychoacoustics before the field even exist !...Or is it a select club of men of good "taste" ? It is " not even wrong" to say so, shamans are a selected club...but saying what is  "not even wrong"  explain nothing  and describing them as having "taste" does not explain  the " musical" healing power behind  music  ... Acoustic did...😁

Dont look for the gear branded name here , be creative... Experiment with acoustics and your own hands ...

Rival atmasphere craftmanship with mere stones but using the same applied science as him in his design : controls of some distortion by carving and chipping stones...😊😉

Taste there is, but it is not about taste ...

"musical" or "more musical" is an acoustical judgement which cannot be made without a minimal clarity of sound perceived ...

Acoustics parameters are multiple , even limestone matter here at Epidaurus theater ... It seems that there is no need there for a piece of gear to have clarity of sound?😁

No need for taste either ? 😁

Only ears/brain located at the right place for sure, the clarity is not the same at all spot... But everyone could listen an actor in this theater with no mic at all place ...

If loudness and clarity level there at Epidaurus or in a great Hall or in your dedicated room or even in your living room are conditioned by acoustics parameters , , perhaps you must think that the geometry, the topology, the reverberation time and the dimensions of your room , the acoustical material content of your room and many other factors as your inner ears structure, your HTRF, etc will at least matter as much than the dac and amplifier and speakers you had chosen with only  your mere "taste" ? 😊

https://greekreporter.com/2023/12/27/epidaurus-ancient-theater-sound-greece/

For sure you are right...😊

Here is my take on what is "Musical" in audio gear

Non musical= words like "soundstage, upper bass, smooth highs, detail etc etc

Musical =. grooving to the beat, nodding ones head, dancing, singing along etc

musicians have no idea what audiophiles talk about

---The discourse in audio marketing is completely focussed on the gear attributes and the perception of these gear pieces attributes ... ( as if acoustics conditions could be only a secondary matter in the evaluation)

All reviewers and their readers speak the same basic lingo.... ( bass, high, mids. imaging, soundstage etc )

--- The language of acoustics and psychoacoustics is completely different, it is made of physical or physiological and neurological concepts and of mathematics...

When have you read in a review of gear system or about a pieces of audio that the "listener envelopment" factor (LV ) relative to the sound source dimensions (ASW) imply a tyrransition time near 100 ms , then that this speakers in this room geometry could be better than the one this seller want to sell to you ?

This is absolute acoustic fact with NO RELATION TO TASTE ...

--- There is also the language of music completely different from the language of audio marketing and from the language of acoustics...

Musical rythm, beat, meter, measure, tempo , time signature, had nothing to do with the time in psychoacoustics Hall or room nor with the gear dac timing scale /frequencies ratio ...

With these three languages and three set of concepts we must learn how to hear and what to hear....

The less important of this three language is the lingo associated with the gear pieces as "tasteful" or not by the reviewers or consumers...But if a clever designer use psychoacoustics facts based on the statistical measures of enough human subjects to be a rule , as for the way to incorporate or decrease some distortions orders, or how to use the time dependant working dimension of the human brain/ears in his design , this is science applied not  mere "taste" applied...

Music create his own time dimensional experience, it is not the time of physics...it is a time dimensions qualities rooted in the human moving body as the creator of sound and speech and  music, dancing, playing, singing ....

We can choose to stay silent as you wisely recommend as a musician drummer  and avoid audiophiles lingo or any set of words... You are right...

But when we face the problems which  are related to the installation of a playback system in a room , we need to know and understand what needed to be done to optimize the system /room... We need acoustics concepts and possible experiments with an (S) ... We dont need our "taste" so much and we dont need the marketing lingo ... Psychoacousticians had already studied humans and their specific needs in sound and music perception .... We dont know all but we know enough to understand how to optimize any playback system at any price ...

In a "musical" experience about the gear/room : Taste there is for sure, but it is not mainly about taste...

We know when a system/room is right and musical....We cannot explain it in words save using poetry... We feel it in our body... But this silent knowing experience dont nullify acoustics , in the opposite it confirm it in his concepts and experience ...

 Any musician check the Hall acoustic  or the room where he will play and can be able to describe  all his characteristics for the worst or for the better ... Any musician check also the acoustic state of his instrument for the same reason ...

A drum is way more complex  acoustic object than what meet the eyes... It is the same for a gear system in a room ...

Mahgister, you expressed your talks perfectly well. I also understand what “not even wrong” means. But let  me not agree with you. Firstly, I don’t see any relationship between individual taste and marketing. I am too far from marketing but I think i have my individual taste. As a simple example, the food I like that I find in supermarkets often disappear, because what I like most people just do not like. I cannot say that this is equally true regarding my tastes in music, but It is also partly true compared to the taste of the vast majority of the people.

Before disagreeing with someone first we must understand him ... 😁

You set up your experiment for a hypothetical individual who doesn’t exist.
And even more, all that  surrounds us is the result of our individual perception, only our “observation” makes solid things to exist. Imagine that nothing of this exists in reality, and is a result of our imagination (wave collapse in quantum theory). 

Defining "musical" as being a concept completely determined by individual tastes and biases is not even wrong...

Do you know what means the expression "not even wrong" ?😁

The expression was popularized by scientific debates, about the supercords theory by Peter Woit writing about physical theory that cannot be falsified by experiments...

Speaking of "individual taste" in acoustic cannot be proven right or wrong, because acoustic use all the parameters constraining human tastes in general to study"musicality" ... Then defining "musicality" in musical judgement of playback system by " individual taste" is not a claim that is even wrong and it cannot be falsified ... It is simply a claim beside the main point which is defining "musical" for all humanity ...Individual taste cannot be falsified by acoustical experiments , contrary to supercords, because individual taste exist for sure , but is not as an individual factor the matter of acoustic studies when acoustician and neurologist look for a definition of the "musical" experience for all humans ...

The feeling and perception associated by harmony and euphony , when we speak of the "musical" concept associated to a playback system, resulted mainly from the way the gear-system is rightfully embedded in a room/house mechanically, electrically and especially acoustically , and this in a way to make possible the TRANSLATION of the specific parameters trade-off choices of the recording engineer from the recording hall, TRANSLATED into your system/room/ears/brain... It is acoustics and psychoacoustics matter, it is not about mere INDIVIDUAL taste but about the way the ears/brain of all humans are wired to perceive timbre, localization of sounds, distortions as harmonious or not and immersiveness if all is well done as the end result ...

Thinking that "musical" is mainly an individual taste affair is created by marketters to sell gear according to your "taste".... It is not even wrong because : taste there is for sure, but it is not about individual taste but it is about the collective common "taste" and neurological biases of the human species as determined in a general way by neurologists working with acousticians and musicians and non trained human subjects statistically ...

Then when i feel that my system/room is "musical" i use my trained experience and history, call it my "taste", but what caused my feeling is the room parameters, the speakers parameters the inner ear parameters the brain parameters all coupled together... It is abbreviated by the word "taste" in marketing...

But marketing does not replace science and basic knowledge about mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings working controls of the mechanical field of the gear/room , of the electrcal field of the gear/room/house and of the acoustical field of the room and of the psychoacoustics physiological human biases of the listener as a human subject ...

i hope to had been clear ...

Others can explain it more simply than me , i dont master english very well ...😁

Taste there is but it is not about taste...

I thought that this short sentence could kill all debate but i was naive.... People stick to half truth more strongly than to lies...

😊

I wanted to see my favorite performers and/or groups perform more than I wanted to hear them perform. . . .

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, is the fact that in an optimized acoustically controlled room with a minimally good system for sure and synergetical , the initial recording process of the performance, which recording implicate a trade-off set of choices by the recording engineer( location and type of the mics etc ) is now so well reproduced and translated by your system/room that now you "SEE" the instruments and musicians...

The way it was recorded make it possible and each albums is way different , 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... That was my stunning impression and thats why for me acoustic is not the cherry on the system cake but more part of  the cake itself provide for sure the system is synergetical and as high quality enough ...

There is many levels of realism ... My Sansui alpha so good it is dont rival the best that atmasphere can create for example , i dont have any doubt about that ...

But this is what i called the minimal acoustical satisfaction level ...

Most people dont enjoy this minimal level ...

This is why i insisted on the system synergy/room and their electrical,mechanical and acoustical rightful  embeddings controls even with mechanical devices or/and with some  DSP etc  ...The last rev9olutionary devices being the BACCH filters..

Thanks for your reply...

I am in the same situation as you... My budget was very limited and twelve years ago i had nothing to make my audiophile dream come  true...

I learned by experimenting... One full year non stop in my room ... I reach was i was aiming for, "a more musical " experience because i was inspired by my reading about acoustic concepts and i played by experiments  with them in my own way...

I prefer that we spoke in a friendly manner... I am often too serious... Then it can create "problems"... I am not as wise as i aim for... 😊

Anyway you seems not a bad guy at all ...

Then i apologize for my obsessive clarifications ...

I only hope that my references can be useful to one ...

I wish you the best ...

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.

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..

Etc

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.

By the way none of your answers about the matter of the thread had an argument ... You only throwed common place fact from a dictionary and insults to anything above your nose or head... All is taste period... ...

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 ...

And so on and so on ...

I am a quack and you said it yourself your rolled on your back reading my posts ... This is pathetic answer no ?

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 ... 😊

Now i will stop...

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...😊

People reading this thread will judge who is babbling ...

😊

In the meantime this is my gift for those who think that "musical" means something more than their crocodile taste and only that...

this book is near 500 pages and is free on the net ...

i guess that putting amplifier in front of speakers is not in this book the only and main part of the definition of what is "more musical" as you suggested because it is the only thing it seems you can understand ... 😊

i recommended page 234 to 245 to you then you will learn a small bit about your room ..But i know you dont need to read ,your taste is enough... Anything else come from Quacks you said it ...

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3037007/mod_resource/content/1/MeyerJ%20%5B2009%5D%20Acoustics%20and%20the%20performance%20of%20music%20manual%20for%20acousticians%2C%20audio.pdf

All your last post is insults or laughs... no need to answer..

But there is a LIE i must correct here ...

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.

First this thread begin with Atmasphere in the few first posts saying this in a reply :

What if someone’s ear does not care about the kind of distortion @atmasphere identifies with musicality? Would we say their use of the term "musical" is incorrect? This would be tantamount to saying that "good food is spicy food" and then for anyone who demurs, they like "not-good" food. Would we say that some people like "not-musical" amplifiers?

@hilde45 No, what I described is based on rules of human perception, which encompasses all people. This is the same reason that deciBels are used, why humans are thought to have a range of 20Hz to 20KHz and so on.

What you are describing is ’taste’. I was not. If amps are not musical, no-one likes them. They might tolerate them; that’s different. You can tolerate something but be annoyed by it at the same time.

Now if you read his post in the beginning of the thread you will see and i came myself after him and his first posts approving completely his opinion of expert that audio is NOT ABOUT TASTE BUT ABOUT PSYCHOACOUSTICS FACTS ...

Then you lied by omission at least about me , conveniently forgetting the context of this thread and the reason behind my posts, i never claimed that only me had the answers,you did that opposing not only to atmasphere but to all acousticians whose names i used in my post ....

Then on the opposite of what you said about me, i claimed all along that atmasphere had these answers as an expert in audio, Dr, Choueiri and Dr, Gierlich and Dr. Gorike the creator of my headphone a physicist too as experts in psychoacoustics had the answers...And i only repeated here some of what i learned from them ... I even posted videos and articles ...

I opposed YES to all those who had claim erroneously AS YOU that "musical" perception is only a mere taste and nothing else , this is true ...I claimed that psychoacoustics knowledge and acoustics experiments and concepts tell the tale ..

Do you get it ?

You can put sarcasm and laugh...A said famously Anatole France , "Being called an idiot by an imbecile is a pleasure"...

But i dont accept your lie about me... I never pretended to be the only one to know. in the opposite i approved atmasphere claim from the beginning and give plenty of arguments to show how he was more than right ... And by the way i am not his customer as you implied to give a red herring flag to others here in your past post..

Now you can stay mute... I dont think that you are able to apologize when being wrong ...

Insult me i will not answer you are welcome... But lie about me and i will answer...

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 said that you act AS one .. Repeating the same question already answered from the beginning by atmasphere and me ...You even just in a post above say that atmasphere made sense from the beginning .. Then you WERE WRONG ....

And the video i posted are not mumbo jumbo ...But from real acousticians with a doctorate in acoustics ..

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

Now repeating a common place fact seems all you know and want to learn about what is "musical"...

Put speakers and a good amp thats all ..

Are you serious?

Anybody saying anything about psychoacoustics or room acoustics is a quack ... Even Edgar Choueiri ?

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 as said atmasphere in the beginning any other psychoacoustics facts by Dr, Choeuri about crosstalk in stereo system or anything about immersiveness by dr. Hans Gierlich is only babble talk for you ...

you are pathetic ....you laughed but not me...I dont laugh at people by the way...

Enjoy your "musical" system because it seens only you know what is "musical" , you say it very clearly, you cannot learn anything , you dont want to learn anything , more than that those who want to suggest anything to learn are "quacks" ... Others babble even with their acoustics studies ...

Who is pathetic? me or you ... I dont laugh but i can smile here ...😊

You express so bad faith or stubborness i dont know it is hard to correct all you say...

"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?

Nope i was refering to your own example of taste when people listening heavy metal may PREFER BY THEIR TASTE as you yourself claimed , may prefer to pick more powerful amp than atmasphere amp ... Do you remember ? You misread always to win a point because you have put NO ARGUMENT save insulting people as quack , or as words babble... Me or any acoustician i recommend in video or articles..

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.

Now another misreading of my intentention and post to put me as a mere customer of atmasphere and promoter of his publicity...

If you read my posts i spoke about ANY relatively good design piece of gear even at low cost is ENOUGH to start acoustical experiments... And if someone own an atmasphere amplifier it is certainly enough ..bad faith exist when someone distort the intention of someone to gain a point ..

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.

You will never get it because you dont want to get it...

I said multiple times that "musical" refer not to words as when you try to use the Webster Merriam dictionary to contradict me ( ignoring the historical context related to these words harmonious and euphonic by the way ) but "musical" refer to acoustical parameters controls in a room with a human perceiving subject doing experiment for his own sake or being a voluntary in psychoacoustics investigations about the conditions necessary for a "more musical experience" ...

I presume my answer is a word salad for you ... 😊

Psychoacoustics rule audio gear not the reverse...

Psychobabble rules the greater percentage of your posts.

Effectively here you shine at your best : insulting...

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.

Now you end this postings criticism of us by admitting the truth...

you dont need to understand... Your crocodile taste is enough it seems ...other people are only "quack" who spew "babbles" .. 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......

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...

But all people here are not trolling the thread and some want to know what atmasphere or dr. Edgar Choueiri had to say about what is "more musical" and they dont want a senile person or a troll repeating that all that is written here is "babble for quack" because YOU LIKE YOUR SYSTEM ROOM AS IT ISAND IT IS ENOUGH ...

And anyone be it atmasphere or the two acousticians i suggested to read are quacks... The world end behind your back and in front of your nose concerning what is "musical" , no need of acoustics, you are very happy and dont mind about ANY UNDERSTANDING  and dont give a damn about  anyone who want to understand anyway  in this thread really ...

Do you get it ?

 But some  people read this thread to LEARN ...They will appreciate...

Metal musicians in reality are not  deaf people who want to put walls down how suggested our friend here speaking about  their hungry  watts Taste  , they are often great classical musicians as the first female singer of Deathwish was, and often recorded in acoustic Hall or even church...

"musical" had a precise meaning  in acoustic ONLY ...No word replace acoustics parameters controls ..

Tastes of immatthewj or mine has nothing to do with what we must learn in acoustics to improve any system in our room ...We improve our taste in music as we improve our taste in sound by LEARNING , TRAINING, and EXPERIMENTING all our life ...

«Only crocodiles cannot improve their tastes»--Groucho Marx 🤓

"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 they will put atmasphere tube amplifiers in the trash bin and will bought 5,000 watts amplifier to do so , BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR TASTE ...

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...I said that his design are well known for a reason: he apply psychoacoustics knowledge  to his design ...it is enough for me...

You get it ?

Psychoacoustics rule audio gear not the reverse...

buy a book ...

@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 shake windows and piss off the neighbors. And that is how they define "more musical."

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 ...

😊

as I have typed before: what pleases some does not please all, and therefore not everyone defines "more musical" the same way.

And by the way in a top acoustic Hall everyone know it sound "musical" even a heavy metal group recording there ...Musical taste had nothing to do with "musical" qualities in acoustics experience by the way ...

And every one listening mike lavigne room/system say it sound "musical" ... No one claim that for his taste his boom box sound better ...

As a dog racing his tail go on with your definition of musical in relation with one individual taste: your own ... It will be enough for you brain ... And Go on laughing at people here ...

myself my own taste in sound GROWS in the last 12 years with my acoustic knowledge and experiments ...

We must LEARN how to hear exactly as you must grow our brain all our life ...

😊

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.

«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

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 ?

Now if you want to know with WORDS what is musical... Try to read poetry ...

Acoustics science define "musical" in big books about all acoustic parameters and conceptual aspect of it ...

Timbre, immersiveness, and spatial qualities ...

Try an acoustician and read it ...

I suggest Dr. Edgar Choueiri...

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 ...

"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.

i spoke in my last post about an answer to your question : what are all the " more musical" OPTIONS ... What means more "musical" when a reviewer spoke about a piece of gear...

I dont spoke in this last posts as in my other posts here about the acoustic parameters defining the concept of "musical" in acoustic ... ( timbre- distortion- immersiveness- spatial qualities)

What control the impression of "musicality" we had in front of a system is not only gear change but room acoustic controls... For example the location of a listener in a room is a parameter of acoustic control etc... There is a huge number of parameters , dimension , geometry, topology, acoustic content ( glass or wood or rug etc) , surface ratio of reflection and absorption and diffusion and their balance , reverberation time , HTRF and inner ears parameters, pressure zones distribution , speakers characteristics, etc...All these parameters are used to CONTROL the timbre impression and the immersiveness by the right ratio between the sound source dimensions and the listener location, and finally the spatial dimensions between all sound sources ...

For example i just change a bad cable for a better one, but this small audible change dont compare to room acoustics change... Even most change in amplification or even with speakers change will not exceed huge impact of the acoustics room controls ...

But we cannot replace a bad amplifier with room acoustic control nor a bad cable or a bad dac by a new room ... 😊

"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.

When a reviewer writes that "a certain piece of gear is more musical,"

"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 , but if your speakers are relatively good already BEFORE upgrading, it is better to improve the room ...

One piece of Gear upgrade at some level of price toward another gear piece in a similar price scale will not compare generally to the huge impact of room dedicated acoustics at all ...

What you seem to MISS IS that anything , any piece of gear will sound in synergy with all the other piece of gear but IN A DIFFERENT WAY in a different room ...The room acoustic will make a HUGE difference on speakers impressions...

If the room is bad, or if it is not bad but a simple living room or if it is a dedicated tailor made room acoustically controlled for a specific pair of speakers then you have here 3 cases of two increase in .SQ .. A bad room versus a good room with no acoustic control or/and treatment , and now going from a good room without any acoustic optimization to a dedicated acoustically controlled room ... Most gear upgrade will not compare to that if you already own a synergetical system already then upgrading anything is way less impactful than upgrading the room ...

Now dont believe any  reviewer when they say that a piece of gear is " more musical "... It is relative not only to the design of the piece of gear but also to the synbergy with the other gear pieces  but also to the room acoustics ... There is too much factors at play here to believe one reviewer...

I believe atmasphere because he knows psychoacoustic facts  about human hearing which he use in his design to improve it and make it more musical...Then the only way to make the amplifier of atamasphere "more musical" if your sperakers are on the same level is giving to the system a dedicated acoustic room the best as possible in your house ...

I did not wrote history... 😊

Before the Edison and Charles Cros gramophon invention at the same year, euphony and harmonious was refering to the sound of music well played or sang in well realized acoustic architecture location ...

This adjectives then refer , to acoustics parameters in some location with very well trained musicians...

The word "musical" as an adjective to qualify a sound perception as harmonious and euphonic refer as well to acoustic as music itself together and this adjective predate Edison invention and then is older than any gear system ...

Then when we qualify the sound impression of any pieces of gear for specific trained ears in some acoustic room "musical" it refer to an acoustic impression and a musical impression together when the gear piece under test listening do not impede the awaiting results pertaining to what is an harmonious and euphonic perception in some specific acoustic conditions for the AVERAGE human ears ...

Many speakers are tested by the designer in anechoic room to verify their potential musicality by testing their frequencies response but it can be done in normal room with the necessary equipment ...Anyway acoustics parameters of the room must be known.... Any designer know that speakers /room will give an impression different if we change the room materials acoustic content, geometry, topology and dimensions etc ...

Then acoustics parameters knowledge are important for the definition of a "musically" subjective well accepted experience for most human subjects...

The gear choice matter for sure ... I just bought a tube preamplifier for my active speakers and the improvement is amazing... But no gear change can repair or compensate acoustics, in reverse no acoustic change will compensate or redeem a bad gear choice...

When our gear synergy and choices are done , no upgrade of a single piece of gear will compare to room acoustic parameters well done ... The only exception will be going from a very bad cheap piece of gear to a top very high cost one as for speakers choice ... No room acoustics can redeem a bad speaker or very low cost one compared to a TOP one... In reverse TOP speakers in a living room, even a good room , will not sound as the same speakers in a carefully dedicated room ... There is a difference between any speakers at any price giving his minimal working sound quality and the same speakers giving his maximal sound quality... The difference will be room dependant generally more than from change of comparable amplifiers choices or dac choices near the same price bracket ...

Acoustics is the more underestimated factor ... But even cables matter, i just change one of mine from cheap to better .. 😊

the most important factors when the gear choice and minimal synergy is reached are the electrical noise floor embeddings controls, the mechanical vibration/resionance controls and the essential acoustic parameters controls...Without these three controls under your hand , any upgrade will be premature and perhaps useless...

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.

By the way immatthewj i succeed two times to create a satisfying audio system in two different rooms ... And with an headphone TOP system ...

How?

No sorry it was not guided by my mere taste for a branded name piece of marketing gear ...

"musical" is not merely about my taste about sound or about my HEARING as individual at some point in time ... Why ?

Because my hearing experience has changed a lot when i experimented and studied acoustics in my dedicated room ... My taste for and about sound now are no more the same as 10 years ago ...i learned how to create the sound on all new levels and aspects unknown to me before ...This is why ...

Even my headphones and speakers modifications were not guided by my mere "taste" but by my learning about acoustic concept as Helmholtz resonators among other concepts or immersiveness or timbre , and the way to modify them in a system/room ..

Then "musical" as harmonious and euphonic, was a result of my LEARNING JOURNEY not from my taste for the gear pieces of some company ...

We must learn how to hear and listen , sorry for your innate taste, mine had been put in an evolutive journey by studying ...

By the way dont come back here saying that i claim that all pieces of gear are the same nevermind their price ... I perfectly know why my actual low cost speakers cannot be satisfying as could be a High end maximal acoustic satisfaction with speakers like my past TOP Tannoy dual concentric which were on another level Then my actual low cost speakers can only be a minimal acoustic satisfaction ... The problem is i never really experience my Tannoy at their real potential BECAUSE i was ignorant of acoustics and i never used them the right way for 40 years , nevermind my taste here .....Do you get it ?

In "musical" perception , Taste there is, but it is not  so much about taste but about TRAINED knowledge in music as in acoustics ...

And even if a piece of well chosen gear matter for sure ( i just changed for a better cable ) the essential of an experience descriptible as "musical" is related to hundred of parameters , electrical, mechanical and acoustical one , NOT mere TASTE ...Sorry you must STUDY ...gear bragging taste is not enough ......

You are right it is better to discuss in the right thread... My mistake ...

😁

Now if i read your post :

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 music 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.

You dont seems to understand that OBJECTIVE parameters and SUBJECTIVE perceptions are analysed in psychoacoustics experiments ...

Then "musical" as a psychoacoustics facts , because it is psychoacoustics the field who studies "musicality" , musical is described by the ACOUSTICIAN you called a " Quack" to correlate to Timbre perception factors, to distortion perception factors and to Immersiveness perception factors...

Nothing here contradict the definition of "musical" as euphonic and harmonious in the Webster Merriam as perceived by every INDIVIDUAL subject in his own way ... Acousticians , not real quack , study the general characteristic of "musical" in a population , then isolating the main factors creating it for ALL HUMANS in general , in spite of their difference ...

it is  precisely why the Merriam DONT define "musical" as a purely incomprehensible experience for each individual with no relation to one another because each one had his own taste ... Do you get it ?

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 ..

Do you get it ?

Is the acoustician and scientist in my video a "quack" as you accuse him and me to be one or is it you instead ? the reader of these posts will decide ...

You need more thinking

here ...

I dont contradict the dictionary... Everybody who read my post can see it .. 😊

I contradict you simplistic appeal to the dictionary as the ONLY means to define musicality...

For sure musical is a question of taste ...

It is a common place fact my friend ...

But musical is ALSO an acoustic specific concept ... A dictionary dont replace acoustic book ..

By the way speaking of my "word salad" have you listened the acoustician in the video i suggested to you speaking  about how to evaluate "musical" experience, by analysing the experiences cumulated of all people and doing so define in a better way what is "musicality " ?

is it a word salad too ?

@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.

: 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. 

I already said : TASTE THERE IS. but musicality is not about INDIVIDUAL taste but about a collective acoustic experience and knowledge ... You dont get it ?

It seems you dont get it...

It seems your are unable to understand that your point is empty of content :

Using the dictionary definition about harmonious and euphony  only goes further in my direction : acoustic ...

To be "pleasing to the ears" which is the definition of euphony , is not a definition concerning individual taste but collective humanity ...It is  a culturally biased  definition for sure, culturally biased ; but nevermind these biases are  easy to overcome by any attentive listener, euphony  ask for optimal acoustic conditions  to be experienced as such...A  talented and trained playing musician in a good acoustic room sound euphonic , it is not a taste question ... Do you get it ?

But like a rabbit using a dictionary instead of thinking  you circle around your own tail ... Acoustic has nothing to do with INDIVIDUAL taste or about the  idiosyncrasies of a single perceiving subject , acoustic parameters were created by studies or ALL  humankind  specific abilities...

The fact that some with a boom box on their back revendicate this a "musical" will not transform some music in a "musical" event even if some "taste" it with delight ...

It is useless to argue more ... You dont want to understand , your "taste" is all you have , keep it ...

how old are you ?

You conflate here and confuse taste in musical choices and what is the concept of musicality ... You confuse a specific music choice with acoustic...

Did i must repeat my post above in one sentence because you dont seem to understand : taste there is yes BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT TASTE ...

I will not go further ... 😊

By the way the fact that i listen almost nobody on your list had no relation with the objective parameters at play for any kind of speakers in a specific room and the optimization process of this speakers/room relation with a specific Ears/brain ...

No matter who is the pianist in a room or through the speakers, acoustic will not change ... Do you get it ?

Incredible.... 😊

Will you repeat your taste mantra with a list of names , with no argument at all only to have the last word, or perhaps you dont even understand this simple distinction between a subjective choice and the objective factors which are at play when we speak about "musicality" ?

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?

The term "musical" cannot be defined as an opinion...

"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 ...

I modified my own speakers according to acoustic principles not according to my taste... ( even if my speakers before my modifications were not my "taste" at all )

read here as an example how is created with acoustic analysis : the MDQAS algorythm...

This does not means that the evaluation of what is "musical" is not the prerogative of the human subject, it means that we are all more similar which one another than different in relation with what will appear as "musical" in Acoustics...The acoustician even know why this is so for the human ears/brain ...

Now it is the same in architectural acoustics, which is an art based science existing for millenias...

For millenias from caveman building room in the rock to experiment sacred sound and singing to monasteries and Church to great Hall, any acoustician know what could be a "musical" room and what cannot ever be a musical room ......

The only one here who dont know what means objectively the "musical" concept and acoustic experience is the passive consumers in awe in front of always costlier proposed gear and who says picking one of them almost by chance : "it is my taste , i pick it and it is the more musical FOR ME " This customers wrote here that musicality is a taste and can only be defined by variation and relativity, then negating all psychoacoustics experience assembled in a science for millenias...

The Greek hemispheric theater had a stupendous acoustic, and it was the result of "science" and of the art of the architect-priest ....It was not the result of taste ... I hope some will get it ... 😊

Audio experience is not about "taste" but about the way we set hundred of objective parameters right especially acoustical one ...

For sure prefering a horn speaker or a small box one is a questions of specific needs more than specific taste even if taste is implied because horn dont sound as small box speakers, but using this fact to claim, that the concept of "musicality" or what is musical experience , using this fact to claim it is all about taste is complete ignorance of what is acoustics and reflect consumers conditioned mind focussing on gear piece and price tags and justifying their own choice by their taste in a vicious circle ; ignoring then all objective acoustics parameters necessary to OPTIMIZE their choice , horn or small box, nevermind what is their choice(taste) ... ...

Audio is based on these optimizing parameters and concepts not on "TASTES" save for sellers marketing practices aiming at the ignorant consumers ...

When we speak about "musicality" , taste there is yes for sure , but it is not about taste...

«When i spoke about love i dont speak about my taste for my wife »-- Groucho Marx🤓

Saying without explaining anything that i am wrong is a joke not an opinion...

In the definition of the adjective "musical", taste there is for sure; but at the end it is not about taste ...It is more than taste, it is learned knowledge shared with all other humans as do any acoustician and musician or designer going toward a better understanding... Taste dont progress, they only can be educated by knowledge and relativized ... The perception of musicality and of what is more "musical" or less must be learned out of our uneducated tastes and sometimes in spite of them ...

A perception is not a taste ...Even if this perception can be judged positively or negatively ... "Musical" is a perception BEFORE being a taste and it stay a perception AFTER being adopted as a taste or not ...

But there is between taste and amygadala ( emotions) and perception and concept a dynamical relation called knowledge ...When we are at peace with our perceptions because our emotions dont oppose them , we are in a "musical" state of relaxation ...This state is a state before and after we taste it as good ...

Relaxation can be objectively controlled and induced in the body by meditation, in the same way a "musical" experience can be created and controlled and induced from a system/room/body in the mind , we can learn how to do it by setting the right conditions and parameters ... All this dont contradict the common place fact that this relaxed state is our taste too because we like it ...

There is no contradiction between heart and mind in any relaxed or contemplative state... This is why music as silence are musical states of peace ...We can understand and create peace as taught Christ the greatest acoustician ... 😊

Enough my point is made...

 Merry christmas to you and to your family ...

🎄

😊

@mahgister , enough with you . Btw, the Brain neural structures are whom handle all our body that makes that any kind of stimulus, musical or not, involve the whole or part body. The neural structure is in command. You are wrong too.

Work done by Daniel J. Levitin shows, "Musical activity involves nearly every region of the brain ... and nearly every neural subsystem."

for sure Levitin is right but,

Musical activity involve all the body not only the neural system...

And consciousness can react to something that appear disruptive or disturbing as non musical and also non "musical" ... For example a British amateur of Puccini encountering what may appear to him , uneducated, "savage" didgeridoo music from Australia...Judgement is related to emotion and the amygdala too and to all the body history...

But the goal of human journey is the emergence of a larger consciousness from the already existing one through investigation and the crossing of our unconscious trends ...

In a more trivial way we can improve our musical and sound experience with a better knowledge , learning how to put our taste aside for a moment ...

In a more trivial way creating a good system /room playback ask for way more than "tastes" ...Psychoacoustics concepts and music concepts can do the job especially if the designer use them too and incorporate them in his design ...

As atmasphere in his design or Dr. Choueiri in his own had done ... And as Dr. Rudolf Gorike did it with his AKG headphone K240 and K340 which i am honored to own not because of my mere taste ( i did not like them right out of the box) but because the learning experience of this acoustically designed headphone with a grid of passively tuned resonators improve all my "musical" and musical experiences now ... ...To appreciate something we must learn how and why to use it , the amygdala reaction is not enough but nobody can do without his amigdala for sure ...

@mahgister : First the OP is about musical and not musicality and seconddddddd you have a misunderstood that I don’t accept " psychoaoutics: what I said is that all is included and lives in the Amygdala of all human beings through our life learning concious and inconcious and informed or uniformed.

What means the adjective "musical" and what is musicality are related...

You cannot separate them pointing to the amygdala...

It is preposterous and not even wrong ...Even acoustician use their amygdala for sure ...

In "musical" perception taste there is indeed , acquired or innate, but it is not about mere taste and never had been, it is about acoustics parameters too... The density of air or water is an acoustic parameter with which we can put the conditions of a not so musical experience or a better one (with or/and without the quotation marlk for the word musical )...

Add the heart to the amygdala 😉...It will not change the fact that the experience of sound can be and must be simultaneously an acoustically "musical" experience as well as a simple musical experience ...

it will not change the fact that a designer can add "musicality" to our musical experience when in his design he incorporate and take into account psychoacoustics universal facts about human hearings and tastes innate or acquired ( not only harmonics facts but for example facts about the way human ears interpreat non linearly in his own time domain the information pertaining to the treshold between frequencies and linear time ).

The amygdala existence does not contradict the fact that a designer can use psychoacoustics facts to increase the "musical" acoustic experience coming from his design in a way to improve the experience of music ...

Taste there is for sure, but it is not about mere taste here ...

Why are you so hell bent to gain a point against a common place fact: acoustics is not taste but include subjective taste as starting point with universal neurophisiological facts about hearing adding amygdala will not change that ...

More "musical" experience is not essentially and only about taste, it is about the link between musical concepts and acoustic concepts in a room and in the BODY and with the BODY and the room ( amygdala included) ...

Nobody can negate that an acoustician as a human being with a specifically charged amygdala by his own sound learning history can also study statistically all other owners of amygdala and doing so he can establish laws and principles about what is the "musical" optimum of an acoustic and musical experience in a great Hall or in a small room with a playback system, using atmasphere amplifier design or any other ...He will decide which appear more "musical" to him with not only with his emotions in his amygdala but with his objective knowledge in his conscious brain too ...

Nothing will stop another acoustician to make a new statistical study here to reach more refined conclusion about "musical" perception and musical perception ...

Taste is a always a starting point ,our taste must be educated for an always more "musical" and more musical experience ...

We may explore music with our taste or we may explore ourself with music and sound without our taste limitations and without our preferences as a set of experiments and then opening more windows about what is music and what is "musical" not only for us but for all ( musical anthropologist do so and has done it changing even classical music composition )...

Psychoacoustics explore also all musical productions of all cultures...

Tastes does not define what is "musical" and what is not "musical" at last and at the end ...Human creativity pushing the limits did so with the human active producing sound body/brain with an amygdala inside😊 and with  science never without it  ...

I read poetry...And for those who love poetry as me this fact, does not nullify the other facts, and it does not means that in audio "musicality ", for a musician, a designer, and acoustician or an audiophile, does not implies acoustics and mechanical and electrical parameters controls of the system/room and even the use of psychoacoustics parameters of the design "musicality" as explained by atmasphere about harmonics and "distortion" ...And it also implies our own heart feelings listening music and our brain acoustic biases history too .... As Michelangelo designing architecture implies these objective knowledge and his subjective feeling and perceptive history in his master pieces ...

Now if we means "musicality" in music , as a musician, a designer and an acoustician or as a music lover it is related first to the heart feelings and the brain biases history but also in second to the acoustics parameters and to our brain acoustic biases history...Any pianist test the piano objective health before playing and the acoustic Hall value before playing if he can ...

In the two cases the objective and subjective factors meet together in the same individual body/brain , mine for example when i optimize my system, listening a quartet music to test it and first appreciate the musical results in the two aspects acoustical and musical in my room for my heart as in classical or jazz music .....

i pick my gear pieces by statistical reviews impressions and then i optimize it in my room/system .. I cannot review it in a showroom with different pieces, different room than mine anyway...my taste has little to do with the gear choices ...I use subjective reviews and objective parameters to evaluate a possible synergy.. ... The rest is a failed or succeeding optimization and embedding process where for sure my acquired and innate biases play a great role , call them my taste if you want , but i use mainly mechanical, electrical and acoustical facts to test my gear with my "taste" .........

Then attacking the motives of an engineer as atmasphere with his understanding of music or poetry is beside the point made ...I presume atmasphere love classical music and jazz ...He seems to know psychoacoustics at least ...That matter a lot ...

As said the great mathematician Alexander Grothendieck, also a poet : «Nothing really important can be proved ». this sentence this maxim was aimed not only for mathematics but for anything in life ...

The second greatest mathematician of the century perhaps , Cantor , wrote that « the essence of Mathematics is pure freedom and creativity »..

Now take these two sentences together to understand what they means together...

They means that in mathematics as in life some deep problem cannot be solved in the past paradigm, as the parallell postulate , or the question of the actual infinite, for example , we must them not trying to solve the problem with a demonstration and a proof which are not possible anyway; in the opposite we must create first a new world to SHOW the hidden value of these problems as Cantor did , as Lobatchevsky or Bolyai did ...

It was no more a mere proof mechanism in a known world first but the heart feeling and the mind feeling about a new world , a new conceptual scheme living as an organism in the spirit of any genius; then first and last more a perception than a logical proof ...

Then even in mathematics the feeling and the concepts play together , as in acoustic, and as in music understanding, or as in any human endeavor ...

Pure reactive subjective romantism or pure objective materialism are blind alleys, the spiritual takes over the body and the heart together ... As illustrated by Goethe or William Blake in very different ways ...

We cannot prove God exist or anything of real value as love or Beauty, or musical or mathematical truth; but we can create a world for us together where these ca be perceived ...

«Any fact need a world where it is possible for it to exist»-- Anonymus Sherlock Holmes reader 🕵️‍♀️

«All trees dont grow above sand»-- Anonymus botanist

Then in "musical", taste there is, acquired and innate;but it is not about taste...It is also about truth ...

I think that atmasphere is nearer Rembrandt in his craftmanship than to the mechanical recipe of Sherwin-Williams paint colors...If you do not think so, then it is better to buy a cheap chinese  made product, so good it could be, i dont think it will rival atmasphere craftmanship in class d or in tubes design ... 

Engineer types explaining musicality.

Like Sherwin-Williams explaining Rembrandt.

Read Keats aloud and get back to me

"Musicality" in any system vary a bit with variation of the parameters which are numerous, electrical, mechanical and acoustical and also which are related to the gear design and not only to the way we embed it ...

Then if the gear amplifier is not "musical" by design with the recognized harmonic pleasing effect missing to begin with , no electrical or mechanical or acoustical work will change it ... I take atmasphere point in this way ...But at the end musicality is the well balanced sums of many factors , which are not of equal importance for everyone at the same degree... Then in this sense taste matter or taste there is for sure ...

But at the end musicality is a subjective perception objectively controlled by the various controls we can exercise on the three working dimensions and on the gear design by knowledge and new technology ...Nothing less nothing more...Then in this sense even if taste there is, just mere taste it is not ....

Musical is then and adjective which cannot be defined only subjectively nor with only a short set of electrical measures, it ask for psychoacoustics more deep knowledge and objective recognized factors as for the point raised by atamasphere about harmonics and distortion which is only a psychoacoustic fact ...

I dont understand why Raul dont accept this elementary fact ...

It seems psychoacoustics which is a deep science investigating sound qualities and doing so, transcend the separation between object and subject by putting them together in one or many experiment escape the understanding of some  objectivist as well as  some subjectivist audiophiles ...

Anyway i wish to all a warm christmas... 🎄

Unfortunately I think each of us has our own set of these performance priorities that must be met before we consider something to be musical, hence as an adjective it isn’t a lot of use in relaying a performance measurement that can be understood by a community. It’s like saying “I’m pleased with it”.

Exactly!

We have all our own tastes order priorities born from the biases acquired or innate and from our own learning history and from our own system/room limits and knowledege ...

But it does not change the fact that "musicality" must be defined by trained musicians and acousticians working together in experiments when we learned how to control and vary all parameters in an optimal way ...

We learned this way for example how some trained musicians can beat the mathematical computed Fourier limits between time and frequencies perhaps 13 times...Because the ears brain work non linearly and in his own time domain territory trained by evolution for music and speech for social and survival reasons and by professional conscious training ...

Taste there is , but it is not about taste when we use the word "musical" ...

They are inherited as is inherited for example the specific geometry of our pinnae and other inner ears factors conditioning our tastes and our tastes are  learned at the same time as a top maestro biases cumulating history ...All  hearing biases could be innate on some aspect and learned on some other...

As psychoustics investigate taste and personal hearing histories in a statistical way using objective controls parameters determined by acoustics experimental history then acoustics is able to let emerge the general principle and controls parameters behind human hearings evaluation of information and perceived qualities...

Taste there is as Raul said, but this is not about mere taste as atmasphere claim rightfully too ...

The two are right then, but if we spoke about "musicality" as a quality , reducing it to relative hearing human tastes, be it acquired or innated , is common place not very significative fact ...it become interesting when psychoacoustics investigate it statistically to isolate fundamental factors and parameters for audio industry for example or hearing aids etc ...

But at the end so useful are Fourier maps they do not explain hearing because no map so good it is can be confused with the territory of human hearing which is non linear and has created by evolution his own time domain ... We do not have a unanimous single hearing theory explaining it all ...We have a powerful technology yes, but technology is not science , only a tool ...

I will only add that our brain care a lot , not necessarily our ego though 😁, about frequencies and SPL because with the HTRF functions differentials our 2 ears can localize the source of sound in space , very useful when you hunt to give meat to your children for millions of years ...

And precisely to complete atmasphere right comment , taste and general rules of hearings are correlated specifically in hearing aids technology ...

Taste there is, but acoustic and musicality is not first and last about taste ...

Then defining musicality by tastes only is a hidden vicious circle....or said in another way a common place useless fact ...Or using the title of a very known book who spoke about some physical theory impossible to verify, it is  "not even wrong "...

Nobody said that "taste", (innate individual specific ears filters for example or acquired trained perceptive biases) is not important , individual taste can and must play a role in what is perceived as "musical" but in a psycho-acoustics perspective not the main role ...Psycho-acoustics as science EXTRACT the essence of what constitute a musical timbre perception from a set of many subjects , and do not use one particular "taste" ...

For example in timbre experiments, perceptive abilities and evaluation of taste and of innate biases are made then tastes there is but psycho-acoustics is not reducible to taste and is not only about taste ...

Psycho-acoustics maps are necessary precisely because each individual hearing differ a bit from all others , each hearing individual is a specific territory, then we need an encompassing map including all of what is common to all humans hearings specificities... ( the fact that the Fourier possible set of linear maps for example are not the territory even if these maps are necessary is for another discussion 😁)

Timbre present objective acoustical characteristics ,at least 5 , with specific measurable controlable parameters; but without a set of human perceiving subjects , each one with his own trained or untrained biases , there is no experience of timbre and no precise concepts either only noise ...

Timbre exist no more without biased human ears ...But this does not means that timbre, interpreted as musical or not musical, is only defined by "tastes" , it is also defined by the set of measurables and controlled parameters which are proposed to the set of perceiving subjects in the experiments ... The acoustic map is common to all even if the hearing territory differ a bit in each case ...

Then if someone design an amplifier he can use these psycho-acoustic results in his design to make it more "musical" and not only his mere personal taste ...

Taste there is for sure, but it is not mere taste here this is all about ......😊

Musicality is an acoustic concept and experience not a mere taste ...

Very well said...

This reveal why pure subjective characterisation of what is "musical" may become meaningless pleonasm if we do not identify also what are the acoustics and psycho-acoustics conditions that may impede or increase the emotional and gesturing body impact of the musician as well as of the listener ... The fingers of the violonist moves and our body parts moves with him ...

In a word, we may become analytic , critical, and distant from the music , the moment the sound loose for us and for our specific ears/brain characteristics the refined balance, what you called the tipping point , between all acoustic factors implied , some distortion or some harmonics, or some level of noise, or some excess of reflection or excess of absorption in a room or a bad timing between direct and reflected waves etc ...

For sure there is always a subjective relative acquired taste in the definition of "musical" ; for example for me nothing is less musical than a rock concert at high decibels levels...For others it will be an epiphany of musical collective trance ... But if music can participate to collective trance i dont think that music as contemplation and healing is associated with the collective hysteria of a crowd at high decibels levels ...Something work no more here for my limbic musical brain and my cortex want my legs to go near the silence ....For others it is the opposite, their limbic system is happy with a collective noisy crowd...

Acoustics define music as meaningful sound first and last , and it goes far more deep than our taste for a specific set of frequencies and decibels ...

For example all the details of information communicated through  the meaningful sound of a sentence  spoken and articulated and rythimically throw in a certain way ...this set of information could fill a book  about a character deciphered by an attentive experienced listener or by our unconscious limbic system  while our cortex sleep awake ...😊

Music is processed by the limbic system of the brain. But if there is something wrong (like distortion) the processing is unconsciously moved to the cerebral cortex.

The problem with "non fatiguing" as the main definition of the adjective "musical" or of the name musicality , is that in audio threads most of the time refering to a gear system as "non fatiguing" are refering to a gear system or to some gear pieces as being the cause of a fatiguing state ...

Then defining "musical" by electrical specs of the gear pairing and coupling or by the tendency of a dac or from some speakers to create tinnitus or fatigue , or some S.S. badly designed amplifier etc all these non musical characteristics dont come from acoustical parameters of the embedded gear but mostly from the bad design or the bad synergy ...

It is a consequence of the marketing that so much people are more bent toward the gear specs and coupling , the necessary synergy , than forgetting to add to that necessary synergy all the acoustics parameters included in the musicality experience of sound ...

Then it is not even wrong to say so that a system which is fatiguing cannot be "musical" ...

But the truth is "musical" cannot be really understood out of the complex set of acoustic parameters if we want an enghlitened positive definition and not only a negative one as in : musical means a non fatiguing system ... it is not even wrong and more importantly it is not enough at all for the definition of "musicality" ...

As an example of an other characteristic as non fatiguing which may contribute to the definition of "musical" in acoustic , we know from this science and by simple experiments that all stereo system are flawed by their perceived crosstalk interaction as two speakers then two sources impeded the brain creation and retrieval of all spatial characteristics of the sound ... Musical in acoustic can then among other acoustics parameter means using some set of filters to correct this : as with BACCH filters of Dr, Choueiri which will then made any stereo system at any price more "musical" ...

There is many others aspects of what is "musical" in acoustic experience ...

"Pleasant " for example is not a "taste" experience but more an acoustic one related to the way any system/room can deliver in a balance way the 5 characteristics of any "timbre" perception and make them "natural" not artificial ...

"Engaging" conditions for a system/room/ ears is related to the ratio Listener envelopment (LV) and the sound source width( ASW) and also to immersiveness which is the way the acoustic recorded conditions are translated by the system/room/ears in the listener room ... Am i on the scene with the musician or is the musicians are in my room in front of me ? In the the two case the listener is immersed in a different way in the music ... Immersiveness is acoustically more complex to set than imaging differentiation and soundstage dimensions alone and encompass them ...

Then there is an acquired and trained "taste" for good acoustic experience and conditions and qualities , but acoustic is not about taste "per se"  ...

Taste there is, taste it is not ...

Musical at the end is not gear related ( even if some gear piece are well designed to be more "musical" )  but acoustically defined ...

Musical means it sounds right. Isn’t it obvious ?

Musical means acoustically right ...Because here we speak about sounds not about music per se ...

Something can be musically right , as the Furtwangler interpretation of the Bruckner symphony under bombs in 1945 Berlin and be acoustically wrong or defectuous or lacking ...

If you suppress the word acoustic , the meaning is a common place like : " i like it because it is my taste as an argument of a  5 years old arguing with his mother " ...

Thanks ... Your compliment touch me ...😊

We can differ about perspective and be friendly ...

In the other way I don’t like to talk with stupid people but with gentlemans as you.

 

Live music cannot be equivalent to a recorded music piece... Because the recorded  playback system translate the recording trade-off process taken by  the sound engineer location of mics and types into the acoustic content and control of the listener room ...

The best possible road here will be to use , apart from a very well engineered system for timbre reproduction , a DSP as the BACCH filters to recreate all the spatial dimensions of sound qualities information which are lost with crosstalk destructive effect on the ears/ brain ...

First i dont mention live music because at my age i had been  at some live events multiple times  ...

And the sound of a real piano is familiar to me for my children memory because we had one  ... I used piano timbre and dynamic as a meter for tuning my room for the timbre aspect ... For other spatial aspects i used opera well recorded etc ...

Second there is no understanding of acoustic concepts  with no experiments ... why ? because acoustics concepts cannot be understood mathematically only but by the listening body modifying his position and modifying the physical content and controls of the room ...

Simple ...

You dont oppose to me any valid argument  to my claim that in audio , taste there is for sure but it is not and never has been about taste if we want to understand how fine tuning the relation between any system at any price and the room and the ears ...

It is not as you said  already to me necessary to reply ... 😁

Taste there is, taste it is not ....

@mahgister  It’s curios that not only in your last post but in any other you don’t reffer to LIVE MUSIC. You post about experiments/tests/audiophile adjectives and the like but not live MUSIC. No pun intented.

 

All people, some conscious of it and other not, " know " about acoustic concepts some way or the other and at different knowledge levels designers or not reviewers or not. Every one know about " acoustic perception " ( example ) even if never read it about in so specific way as you.

 

" When acoustic of the room is relatively under your controls, inspired by experiments grounded in basic acoustics, you reach this minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold. "

 

That minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold has a " flavor " as all the experiemnets have a specific flavor and when we don’t like that flavor then we follow experimenting till arrive that threshold and flavor means TASTE even that you don’t like the word and even with all your explanations about.

 

Look, I was following this dialogue with you trying to discover something that I did not do it even that I arrived at least to that satisfaction threshold with no discover success that could be my fault.

For all those and with all respect I don’t need any following response by you about. I think you already shared very clar and with wider explanations your point. Thank’s for that but for me is enough to read more of the same.

 

R.

Dear @mahgister : Which was your target and your sound /music reference that permits you be satisfied ? in other words: against what you already made evaluation/comparisons to be sure you are satisfied.

My target is also my starting point : ears/brain training ....It is a learning spirals around acoustic concepts and my way to work on them : timbre, dynamic, transients, crosstalk, listener envelopment, listener position, Balance ratio between reflection/diffusion/absorption, I used tuned resonators, foldable screen, and all devices homemade...The only cost was time and a dedicated room ...

Acoustics concepts and basic experiments in my room for one year full time ...

When acoustic of the room is relatively under your controls, inspired by experiments grounded in basic acoustics, you reach this minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...This threshold though is so amazing when you live through that there is no comparison between before and after ...For sure you can pay high cost and reach the maximum acoustical satisfaction threshold using the same method of mechanical,electrical and acoustical workings controls......

It is possible to go with better results than mine as with more sophisticated materials instead of homemade , with electronical tool also instead of only homemade mechanical tuned resonators , but it was enough for me ...😊

I know enough now to understand why most people had no idea of the huge impact of a dedicated controlled room ... Because of that they try costlier upgrade and sometimes stay frustrated ... They dont own a dedicated room and lact the heavy amount of time for learning alas! But nothing replace acoustics concepts experience, sorry ...

I am satisfied with my musical/sound experience because it is basically good and cost little but it cost me a big amount of time to go there ... i am retired ... If not i would had never go there because of the cost in time ...

One thing is sure it is not my " taste" who guide me so much as the learning curve in acoustics ...What i learned can be applied on any system at any price ... Add to acoustics the importance of vibrations/resonance controls and electrical noise floor level importance , this was enough for me to reach my sonic minimally satisfying acoustic threshold ...

This threshold is related to a balance ratio between all acoustics factors at play ...

These results had no relation with any "taste" because they were obtained by methods of learning and experiment which are independant of the gear price tag or design ...Taste there is because i had tastes too ,( uninformed biases), but there is no taste at last as much as  a new  acquired set of informed biases from acoustics learning which cannot be call mere "tastes"... ...

The definition of timbre in acoustic for example had at least 5 parameters, knowing them help to understand how to work for improving them for a better perception of the recorded timbre quality with your system then optimized  ...You need your ears training to modify these parameters and play with them but the end result is a better objective timbre experience, it is not  the results of a the owner " taste"  when he justify his buying of a piece of gear for example ...😊

When you damp speakers box and play with the mechanical tuning of the speakers to control vibrations and resonance , you need ears to fine tune the results , calling it "taste" is not even wrong ...Because timbre perception is the result of training not so much of " taste"  ...

If someone design an amplifier, i will better trust the engineer who will use acoustics knowledge not only his taste but a trained set of biases , as harmonics perceptive interpretation by the brain as atmasphere , or the non linear time dimension of the brain for Dr. Van Maanen in his design , or the destructive stereo crosstalk effect on the brain as Dr. Choueiri in his design filters ... Etc ..

Taste there is for sure but this is not mere taste; but acoustics ...Taste is a marketing concept, or an argument used by subjectivist opposing to objectivist in an audiophile war ...I am neither subjectivist nor objectivist, because this distinction loose his meaning when you are grounded in psycho-acoustics concepts  and not focussed on the gear market ...

Thanks for your clarification ...

We can differ without negative feelings ..

My very best to you ...

No, it's not sarcasm and was not my intention. Sorry you took that way.

I did not wanted to go further with you in this debate ...i even tried to create a better communication with a mid ground position between you and me in a post above ...

But i must reply to your sarcasm and twisted interpretation to suit your "taste" ...

But you seems to use a lot AD HOMINEM arguments or sarcasms ... I dont used these attacks ... I explained why i think that if taste play a role in audio it does not play the most important role which main role is training ourself in acoustics understanding not mere room acoustic among other things ...

But here you misread me for the sake of attacking my character or i perhaps lacked clarity ...😁

I never said that i was satisfied myself with a stop gap low cost system...

I said explicitly that BEFORE reading about acoustics and before to learn how to go with experiments in my room , BEFORE learning about vibrations and resonance controls and making my own experiments , and BEFORE learning a bit about noise floor level controls and EMI shielding , BEFORE all that i was ignorant and i did not know how to upgrade my system and how to be satisfied completely and not frustrated ...

I learned , i had read, i experimented ; now i am happy and i know why and how ...And it has nothing to do with taste ...

" I used acoustics concepts applied full time for more than one year ... Why? Because before i experimented my "taste" was completely uninformed and i did not know how to be satisfied by sound in my room with my system. "

 

"" i did not know how to be satisfied by sound in my room with my system. "

That explain almost everything about you as an audiophile .

 

One year ago your knowledge level on your " new toy " was very low and now you are satisfied: good.Now you are a " skilled " gentleman. Good, to each his own.

What define a good sound depend of a set of basic measures realatively easy to understand ...

This does not means that taste does not exist...

Taste there is, but taste it is not ...

Electrical measures guided by psycho-aqcoustics information about amplifier design or any pieces of gear, any DSP , or any tools matter ..

Mechanical measures about vibrations and resonance matter a lot ...

Acoustical physical and material measures and inner ears and HTRF measures matter a lot and other psycho-acoustics concepts ...

When all this set of measures are used and when a trained set of ears is used to guide all this toward an optimization of the three working dimensions , any system at any price will sound at his OWN optimal level of S.Q. ...

This does not means that inferior design will sound better than superior design ... This means that when all is set right we reach and pass the minimal acoustic threshold of satisfaction, this is true for all of us ...

Then designer like atmasphere dont claim that they understand everything , they claim if i read him right that they use psycho-acoustics facts about the way human perceive harmonics impact to create a better design in tube amp or S.S. amp of any class ... No designer can do this with only educated taste ...He needs knowledge first and last ...

It is the same in acoustics ( do not confuse with mere room acoustic ) The taste of Dr. Choueri for classical music indicate to him what was missing in any stereo system by crosstalk destructive impact of the spatial information for the perceiving brain ...He corrected it with his set of filters , psycho-acoustics revolution ...

I dont understand why some stuck with taste, informed taste or uinformed taste to explain S.Q.

I used acoustics concepts applied full time for more than one year ... Why? Because before i experimented my "taste" was completely uninformed and i did not know how to be satisfied by sound in my room with my system ... And i could not afford 50,000 bucks system ...I was lucky being in lack of money , i discovered how to do it with any system and be happy ...

The fact that musical satisfaction has nothing to do with acoustics knowledge or amplifier design dont invalidate the fact that psycho-acoustics rule audio experience ...

Psycho-acoustics dont rule musical interpretation or musical taste ... You are right .. but is it not a common place fact that has nothing to do with sound quality ?

 By the way when i spoke myself of acoustic controls of the room i spoke about HEAR control not only with tools but with my ears/brain working  first and last ...

Do you need this thread to say that mere  taste rule anything in audio and excluding disturbing common sense voice or experts as atmasphere asking for more psycho-acoustics information and experiments  ?

You seems to feel happy in this small world where by ignorance people are divided in objectivists and subjectivists? Do you want censorship of discordant voices ?

This audio thread war make no sense in psycho-acoustics science for a good reason ...

Now could be of some interest for some of us to know for example why some one likes more the Firebird than the Berlioz Fantastique played by the London simphonic orchestra but the other way around two days after the first session all those by live measurements that at the end those bullet proof measurements explanation could be useless for the listener.

Dear @mahgister, @rauliruegas, we agree on about 75%, yet there is still a remaining topic of the gear that musicians, recording engineers, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers use.

These music professionals pick the gear according to their own at times very peculiar preferences, and tune the stages of recording/mixing/mastering chain in very specific ways: sometimes for a whole album, sometimes for a specific song, and sometimes just for a short music phrase.

It seems we dont speak about the same things ... 😊

Welcome here fair by the way ...

There is music as a commercial manufactured product ...

There is music as an artistic recorded event ...

In the first case all is about mixing and the mixing is the true source ...

In the second case, the source is the recording of an organ playing in a church for example ...Here the source is the original lived event captured by the microphone and craftmanship of the recording engineer AT THE SERVICE of the event not his creator in his studio as in the case of music more as a commercial manufactured product in studio ...

The source of music is not the mixing, it is the acoustic atmosphere captured by the mics and translated in our own room system acoustics ...Mixing must be a cherry on a cake not the cake when we recorded a violin or an opera singer...

The recording of acoustics spatial information is lost in all stereo playback ... It is known by acousticians studying the effect of crosstalk on spatial duimensions sound perceptions then on timbre also ... It is the discovery of Dr. Choueiri  who was able to create filters adressing this problem ... Using these filters then any high end system with them not without them can give a quality experience rivalling any studio which did not use them in their system  ...

Heavily mixed music is not ideal by the way and my goal in audio, listening Bach for example, is not retrieving the mix formula of the studio engineer but the acoustic atmosphere specific in the recorded church /organ playing for example .. the mixing engineer here must obey the playing instrument acoustic constrainst in that space ...... I dont need the same audio materials for that as those used by the studio engineer ...Here i will need the BACCH filters with any high end system in a dedicated acoustic room for sure , not the same playback system as in the studio is necessary  ...😁

I dont mind about the mix engineer specific intention by the way , i mind about the organ recorded playing in this or in that church ...The artist here for me is the musician not the engineer ... ( even if any great sound engineer is an artist in his own way ) i listen music and a musician playing Bach not a bunch of mixed sounds ...

Dear R.

Now that you have clarified a bit your posts i can concur with almost of all you just said ...

I will only add that what you call "taste" is in my understanding a set of biases mostly acquired by our own audio,acoustic,musical personal history ...But acuired by the haphazard of our own history they are not completely informed ...

These "tastes" which are uninformed biases or untrained biases mostly must be educated by acoustics and psycho-acoustic  concepts and experiments not by gear buyings upgrades collections ...That is my point ...

You are right also about this :

The fully operation of the whole human being is truly unknow, we know maybe more from the study of Universe that our organism/brain.

But this does not means that we are stuck with our innate or acquired  "taste" as they are in audio experience, because as audiophile we must train ourself replacing uninformed biases by more educated one ...

You are right about hearing science , which is technologically more and more spectacular but we dont know yet how we hear audible Qualia or sounds ... There is many hearing competing theories ... The Fourier mapping of sound so powerful it is must  not to be confused with the real territory...

Then we will end our divergence of opinion if you understand that by : "taste" i understand myself uninformed biases; then i reject them as a basis in audio design and acoustic experience ... I myself can read your defense of "taste" rights then as the defense of informed biases ... If so we could begin to understand each other ...

My deepest respect and i apologized for being opinionated .... 😊

So, my take is that "musical" has correlation with objective metrics, yet is heavily influenced by specific individual hearing system peculiarities, and specific gear that specific music piece was recorded and produced with.

You are right for the part i underline ...

But a good designed amplifier will be TESTED for optimal results and for specific ears in a dedicated acoustic room designed around the chosen speakers and the specific ears ...

Then a well designed speakers will play everything well and this nevermind the styles of music ...

But in a non dedicated room , with inferior design , we can imagine customers picking different amplifiers for different music styles ... But this reflect a lack in design or a lack in room acoustics or the two at the same time ... If not a bad synergy between each gear pieces and between the speakers and the room ...

And for your observation that we must buy the same gear than the recording studio, it reflect a confusion and the conflating of the recorded spatial acoustic information and timbre parameters with the different vehicles and coding (digital/analog,dac versus vinyl) but acoustics information can be coded but is not a code , it is a perceived qualia ...Then we must instead of buying the same gear pieces as the recording studio created a better room acoustics for ourself then putting ourself in position for the recreation of the original acoustics information (qualia) in our listening room ... And also buying a BACCH filters DSP to beat even any studio gear which work without them ...

Psycho-acoustics rule the gear, not the reverse... And taste must be educated and rules nothing but only marketing, or sleepwalking consumers , not audio design or experience...

Acoustics moves not only the brain but the heart, it is why acoustics as medecine is an art based on sciences as physics and neurophysiology of hearing not only a technology ...

The most important core fact in acoustics is the active human body producing sounds and perceiving them at the same time ....It is speech/music with his social motivation (meanings) .... We were trained by evolution forces to perceive meaningful natural sounds but more than that we created ourself meaningful sounds ...Our hearing system live then in his own time dimension and cannot be described and explaimed by linear mappings .. Meaning is a non linear symbolic form, it is an embodied form...... I will stop philosophy here ... 😊

«Men are walking idea  born from real women»-- Anonymus midwife 👩‍⚕️