My little Leben 300 is more musical than a dozen other amps I've owned. The music just flows out of it. Some amps control more than others but maybe that's what some speakers need.
This is a difficult topic to nail down.
302 responses Add your response
It started for me in high school in the 70s, where we obsessed about specs—THD, bandwidth. Late 80s was post specs—perceived accuracy compared to live, for me based a lot on written reviews of golden ears types. Now, its simply what sounds enjoyable. Smooth and capable of loud at no more than $1,500 per component. Imaging is not important to me, so I dont have to spend for that. So, for me, ‘musical’ is what makes me feel good when I hear it. Most of that means not a lot of energy in the high frequencies such as crash cymbals and aggressive digital compression during mastering—and re-mastering. | |
Dear @dman777 : I agree in almost al@mapman @hilde45 already posted but for different reasons. " Musical " is a wrong word used for years as an adjective for any audio item in a room/system and not only amps. Why " wrong "? first because in reality says aolmost nothing about the audio item other that it's what the owner likes: his " taste " and each audiophile has different tastes. Yes 100% subjective. In audio " musical " is not true/reral related to distortion levels, feedback, soundstage, odd harmonics and the like of the audio items. Electronics today in the audio world are way different to the 60's designs specialy the SS units ( of course that gentlemans like atmasph still lives in the 60's. Today Is a myth that he likes to spread from several years now. Never mind. ) where iover the years its active and passive parts way improved order of magnitudes and yes designers improved too. The gentlemans that as me attend at least one time each week to listen live MUSIC never talk ( example ) that the concert with the Firebird score was " musical " or smoother, or about the " nuances " or the venue etc etc. Live MUSIC seated at near field is not smoot but even could be very agressive witgh brigthness or even harsness and all those is not about odd harmonics or clipping ( as with in the past electronics. Today designs comes with wide overload margin high headroom ) Any one of us can pprove what I'm telling here doing something simple: seat in a piano instrument ( top cover opened. ) and even with out be a piano player hit with your rigth hand 4-5 different notes and you will know what I'm talking about, no way to say " smooth ": it does not exist seated at near field. MUSIC has his natural brithness as its natural colors. Yes, if we are seated in the 20+ row things are different but things are that the recording microphones are not seated at the 30 row but at truly Near Field ". So from where comes in our system that " smoot " " nuances " " the venue ": it's what we want to " think " or bad audio item designs or bad pressings. Soundstage is an audio word with almost no meaning because the sounstage is developed between the speakers and room not in the recording. same systems in different room develops different soundstage. We audiophiles " invented " several words that are non adequated and were invented due to each one of us ignorance levels. I never in my audio life or MUSIC life talk of " musical ". Subjectivity several times plays a role against each one of us because each one of us as human beens has way difference Tolerance levels to distortions: THD/IMD or SP or frequency deviations. Btw, discussions in the VIV tonearm and Dava cartridge ( analog forum ) threads confirm exactkly what I posted here. Not for me but for the ones that like the word " musical " it's only taste and a word thatb even that is meaningless is a way trying to explain what each one of knowledge levels does not permit saying in precise way.
Such is life.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
| |
I am not sure to understand your critics...😁 First i am totally with you about this sentence and you are totally right here :
But I can understand this second sentence in only one way :
Any acoustician will evaluate the acoustical working parameters of a room as worst or optimal for musicality perception ... In the same way architect acousticians will be able to design great Hall acoustic , which is an art based on science in a way more or less musical , and any acoustician can evaluate why some great Hall seems to be better than other because of the different parameter choices and informed trade-off choices ... Any musician or maestro will be able to qualify "musical" or non musical any room or Hall ... It is not mainly and merely taste , no, it is way more the results of their ears training ... Any designer who know what is doing will use objective derived psycho-acoustiocs facts about "musicality " in his own design for it to be minimally musical as atmasphere explained it ... Musicality has a meaningfull definition ONLY in acoustics and psycho-acoustics not in audio consumers market for sure ... Save if we use scientific consumers evaluation tools but this is no more "taste" as relative then but psycho-acoustics objective desc ription of "musicality" perception statistically revealed ... Psycho-acoustics rule the gear and the room ... It is musical or not ... My system well embedded is way nore musical now after what i did right than before what i did right out of their box ; and this will be perceived as such by anyone so huge difference it is , because of some synergy between components but mostly because of a good choices of the mechanical, electrical and acoustical working dimensions device controls i implemented ... Then claiming that the word musical is merely subjective and only a relative question of taste is not even wrong , it is beside any definition of the musicality concept in acoustic which for sure is a complex set of factors but these parameters , as the time domain , the harmonics etc exist objectively and we can learn to control them ... As atmasphere try with his own design , we can select some acoustic factors on which we can act in our own room and at the end calling that "musical" not by arbitrary taste but as the result of our conscious room design controls ... it is why i side here with atmasphere because amplifier musical quality design is no more the result of randomness than my room acoustic design ... Musicality vary, can be in a secondary way a taste question ; but it is not primarily a taste question but a knowledge acoustic question objectively testable .. | |
Another example any one could try is to listen say a sax alto or a trumpet at 2-3 meters where the player is playing at live event SPL's, no one can tolerate it by more than maybe 5-10 minutes or maybe less but with a violin at 1m. it's the same.
I think that we have to start " understanding " live MUSIC at near field listening and after that return home and try to " mimic " in our system what we listened then we will really know.
R. | |
Trying to " mimic" live events will not do anything and means what ? If we try to understand the verb "mimic" in an audio context ? It means almost nothing if we speak about a method of doing it ... The only way to doing it , is not going to one hundred live events , so useful it can be to know how sound a piano timbre in near listening ; it is learning to control all acoustic concepts in our room/system for doing it right ... Nothing else will do ... Recognizing that a system in some room is better for reproducing a live event playback than another system in another room will not taught you how to do it ... Learning basic acoustics concepts and experimenting will do ...Nothing else especially not upgrading the gear without knowing basic acoustics BEFORE ... By the way basic acoustics concepts are not only about room acoustics ... | |
Dear @mahgister : I agree to disagree with you and I have to tell you that I have first hand experiences witrh the SS electronic design and when José and I was in the live design and choosing active/passive parts first step was reading the part manufacturers whole sheet and under which electrical conditions comes those part specs, second step was to make a measures by our self to mate those specs looking for " zero " tolerance/accurated ( MUSIC is accurate. ) and third step was listen it inside the board and " see " its good or bad relationship through the overall design voicing. Other that all measurements on the audio item we made " hundreds " of voicing tests in our room/systems and in several other room/systems and the audio item was listened by many other audio/MUSIC friends. José and I never said: " hey sounds " musical " don’t you think? " but we ask by our self first what we ( each one ) don’t like and why and after that what we like and from here think if we could find out how to improve that " don’t like ".
But what are behind that " voicing "? well it’s a mix of true objectivity along subjectivity where science is behind the objectivity and behind subjectivity full of first hand experiences achieved over our audio life listening to home reproduced MUSIC and live attended to listen MUSIC at near field and at normal position and even in " odd " positions. Never our target , not even in the paper, was that our unit be " musical " but only that performed with top top quality level in any audio system and bullet proof against " deaf " gentlemans. At the end the target our target is to stay truer to the recording adding and losting almost " nothing " to the audio signal. The SS unit is accurated but not clinical bu emotionally engaging/it takes you. I think that from some years now that kind of target is the one in any audio item design and by any designer inside a market price point. It’s not that if it’s " musical " but if it’s right. I have to say that overall my levels of tolerance at both frequency extremes is really low and no I have not golden ears and I know that as any one else I tolerate THD/IMD at higher levels that what I or we can imagine. Those 2 threads I mentioned confirm this. Speaking of " golden ears " and several years ago Ortofon decided on porpose to tilt around + 1db-2db the high frequency, so it’s not that Ortofon can’t build a flat frequency cartridge no exist reasons to that tilt: they made it several tests with its Golden Ear listeners panel with gentlemans that were instrument players, composers, audiophiles, MUSIC lovers, woman/man, etc. The test was to listen ( with different cartridge models ) the same cartridge model that comes with flat frequency and the same model with tilted HF and over the testing time the conclusion was that that Golden Ear ( as a fact 2 panels with different people. ) panel always prefered the cartridge with tilted HF. No one there ( Ortofon ). said nothing of more " musical " / less " musical ".
What you listen at your place it’s musical ? I can say no it’s not, over the years all modifications you did it in your room/system put you here because it’s what you like what it sounds right to you. In may case is exactly like that. Can I be wrong? yes I can but this is what I learned through my audioMUSIC life.
R.
| |
I’ve had gear, some of it expensive and well reviewed that was not enjoyable to listen to… to my way of thinking it was not musical for me. I’ve had other gear that made me want to listen, made me smile and produced sound that was enjoyable to me… that was musical. If I try to analyze it further… I’ll get hung up saying things like pianos sound like pianos… or the soundstage and dynamics were great… or there was no sibilance…but those words don’t capture the essence of “enjoyable…fun…emotional”. | |
We cannot disagree because you do not understand what i spoke about when i spoke about acoustics... All your post is about the gear pieces measured specs and perception ...And golden ears ... I spoke about acoustics concepts and the way to understand and control them in a room /system NEVERMIND THE GEAR CHOICES ... Your are not even wrong ...you missed the point ... You spoke of "golden ears"; this is an insult used in the objectivist crowd to mock the marketing consumers credulous audiophiles ... I am neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist ...Two wrong perspectives ... I spoke about ACOUSTICS science ... trained ears in some room because they learned how to control it for a RELATIVE experience in musicality which will not be dependant on marketing conditioning "upgrades" ... I am not a gear fetichist , even it for sure all gear are not equal... I try to do the best with the only tools we have : embeddings mechanical and electrical controls and especially acoustic science and controls ... The gear choice dont matter because it is relative to your wallet ...But acoustic dont change his laws with the price tags variation and the design qualities , nor electrical and mechanical controls change their laws with the price tag of the gear or when change their measured specs and design qualities ... Acoustics science dont change ...
Most audiophile consumers had never read an acoustic science article and think that acoustics is about panels on a wall ...😁
| |
@snapsc : " Expensive " in audio means that " expensive " and nothing more and you like what you like, you like what is right for you.
R. | |
Musical as in personal taste choice means nothing as a sentence ... It is a tautology .... Then i could not even oppose to this meaningless common place.. 😁 Why not investigate acoustics science about musicality perception, experience, conditions and meaning ? If not, repeat this useless mantra : musical is personal taste ...🤣 Dont forget to add that this piece of gear , which branded name is .... is your musical taste ... Wow! now we learn something about musicality ... We must buy the same piece of gear because it is "musical" for your meaningless taste ... Incredible! I prefer acoustics investigation and experiments ... Guess why ? Because they apply to IMPROVE any piece of gear at any price for a BETTER MUSICALITY defined here by specific conditions and controls with your own ears piloting in your own room the reverberation ratio or the absorbing /reflective ratio the level of reflection and their location , the location of the listener and the way we will use crosstalk to our advantage in a better way when we understand what it is ... etc ... ...
| |
@mahgister : " I prefer acoustics investigation and experiments..."
that statement seems to me as if you are the only audiophile that do that.
You can be sure that almost all of the gentlemans in this thread and over the audio world through our audio life already did it and do it what you posted. Why almost all did it? , simple and obvious: is part of the room/system fine tunning that we are enjoying today. Endless fine tunning for many of us.
R. | |
I dont doubt that most audiophiles plays with room acoustic in a way or in another ... I am not alone ... But there is difference of level and control between putting panels on a wall and designing and distributing resonators in a room and all other mechanical possibilities without forgetting the electronical one as EQ and DSP as tools ...... And reading threads i know for sure that many audiophile confuse acoustics with room acoustic , and not only that but reduce room acoustic to a few panels installation ... One thing is sure : "musicality" is determined by the relation between the system/ room way more than by a gear upgrade in most case save if a piece of gear is way worst than the other pieces ... Musicality which you claimed is only a subjective arbitrary taste is precisely determined by the control of all acoustic factors ...Not only by the amplifier design etc ... I deduce from my experiments and reading threads that more than half of audiophiles at least ignore the huge impact of acoustics conditions and controls over their gear fetichism ... And they call their gear fetichism their taste and they claim that it is the main source of musicality , their gear choice branded name favorite win as being the most important factor of S.Q. not acoustics ... musicality is not only a subjective perception it is an objective set of correlated conditions and controls parameters in the system/room ... As for acoustics basics , electrical noise floor control and mechanical vibrations controlos together are on par in importance with gear choice at any price ...I spoke about perceptual impact ... The reason for that is simple : most people dont have the dedicated room to play and learn with and the gear user manual is simplest to peak into and understand that the very complex concepts of acoustics ... 😊 Musicality is characterized as a mere subjective taste only in this case of acoustics ignorance ... Musicality levels are acoustical states of a system/room under controls at any price....These controls depend on parameters not on taste only and essentially ... It takes an acoustician to observe the level of acoustic information degradation caused by crosstalk between all stereo speakers nevermind their price , gear designers when they observed it, proposed only very partial solutions ... Dr. Choueiri solved it ... This has noting to do with taste and is at the core experience of what musicality is about : timbre experience, immersiveness and spatial dimensions of acoustic information ...Nothing here is about taste ... Acoustics as medecine is grounded in science but own a heart : an artform and practice ... | |
A part of acoustics is about what are the factors of "musicality", then not as a mere taste without content or meaning, but as a precise set of controlled factors contributing to subjective perception experiments ... Musicality is objectively desc- ribed by acoustics and psycho-acoustics ... Read about it ...
| |
Once we agree speakers and components can interact with varying results then I can say something is more musical 'in my system' without hurting anybody's feelings. When I bought the Hegel H360 I had a pair of Revel salon 1 speakers and of everything I could fford the hegel was the most musical 1, Allowed the speakers to play dynamically without adding emphasis to any fq or dulling others. Some competition made the salon sound chesty, some made the top end sizzle another didn't allow the bass to fill the room, so with those speakers in that budget the h360 was the most musical. When I upgraded to the Salon 2 I lost that musicality to a clinical, anemic, bass light sound that, while doing some things well didn't create a believable sound. Musicality is about room, speaker and component matching. Some experts say dsp can compensate, but I've never found a dsp able to change a speakers fundamental sound enough to fix the room and component misalignment instead you get a flat measured response lac king in dynamics. I'll qualify this with. Component matching for great results can bankrupt the average Joe.and with that consideration developing a relationship with a dealer can save money in the long haul. | |
| Post removed | |
+1, absolutely my experience. And I don't place room acoustics above the importance of component matching. They are at least equally important. | |
| Post removed | |
I will simply second what @atmasphere has said. | |
The adjective or noun musical and musicality can be a taste question...But saying this as main argument , is so trivial it is like saying nothing ...😊 Correcting me about the noun or the adjective use is pedantry which will not change your claim that musical or musicality is an attribute only subjective and purely relative ... This claim as i said above is not even wrong ... musical or musicality for sure need a perceiving subject who , and it is my point , can be educated and trained by acoustics concepts and acoustic experiments ( not by some mere simple room acoustic ) Musicality or musical is an attribute that does not result so much from merely upgrading purchase but by electrical,mechanical and acoustical working dimensions controls devices and method unvaluable for any gear at any price .. Then accusing me who contradict your claim about musical as being a mere taste , with my arguments to be a pretentious dude who think he is the Bible is simply an ad hominem argument because you had no other argument ..😁 I never attack people ... I attack argument with counter argument ... imitate me on this ...😊
When i am wrong i admit it ... musical is not a pure taste relative attribute, save in marketing discourse , but an attribute audio knowledge related to the psycho-acoustic and acoustics knowledge behind any gear design and any room design , from knowledge more than from luck ... Dont try to contradict this you will loose the argument ... Someone must learn when to stay silent if he had no argument ... And i dont say this because i think i am the audio Bible as you falsely accuse me to think i am ... 😉 it is a basic audio fact ...
| |
Yes, I should have been more descriptive, more clear. Maybe in the purest sense, the definition of musicality can't be "owned" by one individual. Nevertheless, I believe that there are aspects of describing how music sounds when played back that need to be present for many people to say that the sound is musical (for them)...examples might be the tone, the dynamics, the flow, the lack of harshness...but for any individual, that combination of characteristics that makes something musical is personal (to them). And yes, maybe there are numerous psycho acoustic things, some of which are known and identified that also need to be taken into consideration if an "overall" definition were to be agreed upon. I suspect this subject should be very important for an equipment designer, the more of these characteristics they can identify...and then make sure are present in their equipment, the more appeal they will have to a larger group of potential buyers.
| |
My only point , once is said that the common place fact which related musicality to a subjective experience for sure, my only point is that it is not just a "taste" ; my only point was that for understanding musicality we must investigate the acoustic multiple factors which are behind this way less variable and arbitrary perception than the word "taste" suggest ... A so simple observation cannot be contradict by those who claim that musicality is at the end only a purely relative taste with no deep meaning behind ... This deep meaning and factors are in acoustics science ...No one can dismiss acoustic science for the benefit of a tautology presented as a fact ...Musicality is an acoustic phenomenon investigated by acoustics not a mere relative idyosincrasic taste ... It is incredible that many people are in the obligation to repeat that ... Psycho-acoustics rule and explain musicality experience which is more than just an individual taste ...
«Taste there is, but taste it is not »-- Groucho Marx 🤓
| |
sorry but my finger error.
@mahgister : " I dont doubt that most audiophiles plays with room acoustic in a way or in another ... I am not alone ... But there is difference of level and control between putting panels on a wall and designing and distributing resonators in a room...."
Yes there are differences as how each one of us and at what level are " there " : so what?. I'm satisfied with my room/system quality MUSIC reproduction and you are satisfied with yours as several other room/system owners Exist diffeent paths/roads to arrive Rome, that choosed " road " is each one privilege and you and any one else CAN'T questioning it as we can't questioning what any one else " likes ". I respect you but you are not the Bible in that regards or in any other about.
" Musicality which you claimed is only a subjective arbitrary taste..." first I never mentioned " musicality " but " musical ", so please don't put words in my mouth.
Here Cambridge Dictionary on the subject examples:
"In his view, musical talent refers to the capacity for musical performance, whereas musicality is the capacity for musical reception. "
in the other side:
"
No pun intented and remember that you as all of us are only a human being with different characteristics and different knowledge and ignorance levels and as any other of us you are not the Bible in any audio subjects. R.
| |
😊😊 you are opinionated it seems ... I am also opinionated ... 😉
By the way the fact that there is many roads to reach musical experience does not means that there is no acoustics concepts behind all these different choices nor does it means that these roads if successful will be so only because some has more "taste" than others ... Musicality is explained as a set of psycho-acoustices necessary conditions and as a set of acoustics factors that are the same for everyone... If it was not the case , no acoustician, no musician, no maestro , no informed audiophiles, no gear designers , could be relatively in accord about "musicality" when they encounter it in gear design , in a system/ room playback experience , or in a living event acoustic rendition ... There is more or so universal consensus about what is a good recording event , and there is rules for it as there is universal consensus among musicians about what is a good great Hall or what are the worst one where to put a playing orchestra ... Even in ancient architecture master taught how to design a theater and a church for acoustical musical experience ...
«Musicality is like wine, tasting is not understanding wineries »Anonymus drunk maestro🧐
| |
@mahgister : " does not means that there is no acoustics concepts behind all these different choices. "
I never said " there is no acoustics concepts behind " and as a fact I " said " the other way around when I posted that agree with @mapman @hilde45 .
Btw, just think why you can't argue against ( inside MUSIC reproduction at home ) what other gentleman likes. Maybe you can say: " is wrong or way deaf " but these are no true arguments against that " I like " of that gentleman even if you don't like what he likes/taste. R. | |
How do you match a speakers and a desk when putting a tuned load on them for example without acoustic response by the room, you need the room response perceived by the ears/brain which will add or substract 100 gram from the damping load to reach more "musical" timbre experience result and so optimising the damping tuning process ? How do we know that an electrical match exist as optimal at the end between two components ? if not by acoustic interpretation in some room and not in another and for some location ? Electrical specs compatibility does not tell all the story, neither mechanical matching ... We need the three working dimensions , and the more important one is acoustics ( not mere room acoustic but also psycho-acoustics concepts) "component matching" are always electrical,mechanical and acoustical matching ... They go together ... Because musicality experience is not a taste after electrical specs matching, it is the convergence of three type of working dimensions controls... Acoustics being the more fundamental ...
| |
Let's look at objective measurements of four audiophile-grade amplifiers mentioned in this thread as "musical" (some of them may be not exact model mentioned, yet shall be close enough in "amp family sound"): https://www.stereophile.com/content/plinius-sa-reference-power-amplifier-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/plinius-sa-100-mkii-power-amplifier-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/leben-cs300-integrated-amplifier-measurements All of them would be characterized by objectivists as highly distorting. And yet these amplifiers find many buyers who consider them thoroughly enjoyable. At one time or another, this or that authoritative reviewer would call them musical. There could be many common perceptual phenomena at work, as well as individual hearing system differences. Also, preferred most often listened to music genres, and even specific artists. It is no different from widely differing preferences in food, wine, closing, cars etc.Yes, there are common qualities that have to be present in all of them, yet it's the differences that make them unique enough for a specific buyer to choose. I once had a conversation with a man who is both an accomplished audio gear designer and a successful businessman. He keeps multiple authentic vintage audio systems, almost all of them objectively highly distorting. Why? Because each of the systems is best for reproducing a specific genre of music originating in a specific era. If one wants to hear the artist's intent, he better listen on a system that this artist used to approve the master mix. 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. | |
Electrical and mechanical matching of gear need the ears (acoustics) ... And it is less about our taste than about the parameters of our ears coupled to the parameters of the system/room ... If i want to tune my speakers with vibrations control with a damping load which must be fine tuned under 100 gram of precision for an optimal result , be it with springs or with a sandwich of various materials we must use our ears to fine tune it .. if we want to pick an amplifier over another amplifier choice we must put them in a specfic room and couple them with specific speakers for our ears to judge ...Electricals specs matching are not enough and will not tell all the story to be told ... And it is less about taste than about our ears catching in an optimal way the acoustic factors at play with this speakers room or this other one ... Taste there is, but taste it is not .... Taste in audio, contrary to all the marketing aiming at the consumers ignorance, is secondary ; acoustics and psycho-acoustics knowledge primary ... All that i described is basic...I dont know way much than you for sure and perhaps less on many others aspects but at least i know that ...
| |
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 👩⚕️ | |
Dear @fair : " Also, preferred most often listened to music genres, and even specific artists. " as with your friend mentioned. Perhaps in those old days (n 1997 as Plinius. ) those kind of electronics behavior could happened but today electronics/audio items normally performs almost evenly it does not matters the genre of MUSIC or artist. A good design means that: evenly quality performance levels where MUSIC genre/artist is not an issue.
" yet it’s the differences that make them unique enough for a specific buyer to choose. " " yet is heavily influenced by specific individual hearing system peculiarities, "
Key words on those statements: UNIQUE nad SPËCIFIC INDIVIDUAL,
From those words came what each one of us ( individual and unique ) like/taste. As you said: " there are common qualities that have to be present in all of them " but the taste is totally specific and unique/individual to each one of us.
Now the TASTE word is fully charged ( conscious or not. ) at different levels in each one of us of what almost all posted in the thread as: @mapman @hilde45 @mulveling @mahgister including me. Designers/manufacturers are there too. There is no objectivity over subjectivity but a blended " history " and exist several limitations at both sides. Till today does not exist a precise measurements that can tell us ( bullet proof. ) why we like what we like and audio item specs alone can’t tell us if that audio item will match our taste till we tasted. Not even by psycho-acoustics because neurologists and scientifics confirm that no one no human being knows in true and with facts not even the 25% of the human being operation brain and what surrounded it. So science shows us answers totally incomplete because can’t advance over that 25% with almost useless conclusions. There is no knowledge science after that. Maybe in the future. The MUSIC therapies is an example because it function with some people and not with other similar persons. The fully operation of the whole human being is truly unknow, we know maybe more from the study of Universe that our organism/brain. Yes TASTE is all what we can imagine is charged.
R.
| |
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 :
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 .... 😊
| |
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.Also, their hearing systems are quite different from each other and from the listeners’, albeit accomplished professionals tend to know well how to account for and somewhat compensate those differences.To give you a couple of simple examples of just one stage of the chain - mixing studio monitors: Michael Cretu (Enigma) used large Quested monitors for his album Love Sensuality Devotion. These monitors were known for their high power and low harmonic distortion across the full audio spectrum, yet their woofers were massive and relatively underdamped - they started slowly and kept going for a split second after a bass tone was already over. For the kind of music that Michael Cretu created, this was beneficial. It emphasized the smooth continuous dreamy aspects of his music. Boris Blank from Yello chose PSI Audio A21-M studio monitor for mixing his group’s album Toy. In addition to also being powerful, full range, and low-distorting, the PSIs are especially known for their precise response in time domain. Their group delay is surprisingly stable across the frequency range, and they start and stop on a dime. Fittingly, songs on this album are full of intricately interwoven sharp transients, which would be significantly more difficult to get right on less precise studio monitors. When it gets to listening, Michael Cretu’s music would feel more natural on speakers resembling Quested - smooth, eager to fill out short pauses between notes. Boris Blank’s mixes world probably sound less exciting on such "super-smooth" speakers, yet would come to life on sharp-hitting "analytical" speakers. So here you have it - the artists preferences in sound and corresponding gear choices do matter! | |
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 ... | |
This statement was true in the 1960s and 70s. It is not true today- measurement technology, like all technologies, as advanced quite a lot since then. The understanding of what the newer measurements tell us is apparently still lacking; that ignorance causes audiophiles to act as if the above statement were still true. | |
Dear @fair : " yet there is still a remaining topic of the gear that musicians, recording engineers, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers use. " As an audiophile and MUSIC lover I almost do not care about but anyway all what happens down there at the end comes in the listener tastes in what we like. Well, at least that’s my take.
R. | |
I don’t want to open a new window in this thread because it’s useless and even futile and only want to tell that today is STILL TRUE .
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.
Anyway, open a new thread with the facts, examples measurements and the like on that specific issue.
R | |
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 ...
| |
Dear @mahgister : " informed and uninformed biases. " I understand your point about and by my comon sense tells me that exist diffrent levels/gradation of informed/uninformed biases in all of us and in some ways some psycho-acoustics concepts are inside that taste because I can't explain for my self how that should not be. Again exist gradation levels.
" 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 thaqn superior design ... This means that when all is set right we reach and pass the minimal acoustic threshold of satisfaction, "
Agree with. Your " gradation " level is different from mine and mine different for other gentlemans.
R.
| |
" 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.
Same for me and as you I'm satisfied with the quality performance in my system.
R.
| |
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 ...
| |
No, it's not sarcasm and was not my intention. Sorry you took that way.
To each his own is the same way to say things for you and me. There is no attack in anyway and tha's not my attitude. Taste or not taste ( ? ) you as me are satisfied and at the end it's what almost all of us are looking for with the MUSIC home reproduction.
R. | |
🤣 Funny how we still have talk like this when the technology to show what the 'mysterious' aspect is that causes the 'magic' in our systems has been measurable since sometime in the 1980s. Its like advocating for flat head engines as opposed to overhead cam... |
