What is meant exactly by the description 'more musical'?
Once in awhile, I hear the term 'this amp is more musical' for some amps. To describe sound, I know there is 'imaging' and 'sound stage'. What exactly is meant by 'more musical' when used to describe amp?
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.
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.
"musicality" is a term not only in the audiophile lingua...
It is a term for maestro, musician teachings and acousticians ...
It is a subjective quality which react to objective parameters change , be it the hands and fingers of a violonist or the tuning of a Helmholtz resonators or an EQ digital or analog or a specific way to spoke a language ...
Then calling "musicality" an arbitrary meaningless word derived from marketing is not false but it is not true either, it is confusing the informed meaning of the words with the uninformed use ...
Your description refer to the gear consumers reviewers not to his more constrainted use in music and small room acoustics courses or in achitecture of great Hall were musicality had a different more precise meaning ......
It is not because we cannot correlate a word to his objective complex set of parameters that the word means almost nothing save an opinion ... There exist informed opinions ...
"musicality" has nothing to do with the branded names behind gear choices, here the word reflect a mere buyers opinion... Like all the cliches about tubes and S.S. or analog versus digital etc ...
"Musicality" is clearly not a technical term - how could it be? Of course that applies to a lot of audiophile jargon, to varying degrees.
Best to keep it simple. I think it usually means "I really like this", or in the context of direct comparisons, it can be applied to one component to put the other component down "softly" - rather than a flat out "I think that one sounds bad". Unfortunately most of us spend too many words skirting around what we REALLY think of something.
"Musicality" is clearly not a technical term - how could it be? Of course that applies to a lot of audiophile jargon, to varying degrees.
Best to keep it simple. I think it usually means "I really like this", or in the context of direct comparisons, it can be applied to one component to put the other component down "softly" - rather than a flat out "I think that one sounds bad". Unfortunately most of us spend too many words skirting around what we REALLY think of something.
but still have rising distortion vs frequency often starting around 2khz. Is it correct to speculate that these amps, whether GanF, Hypex, purifi, etc. would sound more musical if the distortion increase could be pushed beyond 10 khz rather than just 2khz?
@atmasphere I’ve noticed than many of the newer vintage of class d amps have extremely low distortion… but still have rising distortion vs frequency often starting around 2khz. Is it correct to speculate that these amps, whether GanF, Hypex, purifi, etc. would sound more musical if the distortion increase could be pushed beyond 10 khz rather than just 2khz?
measure and listen = ….. theres even a switch for that on ( only ) the Ayre DAC. IMO it’s really the only approach if the goal is more than flavorizing or worse, blind ( deaf ) objectivism….
I mostly agree on same perceptual rules…until we encounter pitch perfect individuals….
@mglikYou are right but everyone uses the same hearing perceptual rules. Its a sort of common denominator.
Over time, as a designer you gain experience knowing how the distortion profile looks as compared to how it sounds. It gets to the point that you can predict how the equipment will sound if you have enough of the relevant measurements in front of you.
There is that old saw about trust your ears not the measurements. That was really true until sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Sometime in that period it became possible to measure the things that really tell what an amplifier (or preamp) might sound like. The knowledge that this is so is scarce, as is the understanding of the significance of some of the measurements.
At any rate, if the design issues I mentioned so far are not observed in a design, it is very likely it will not be deemed 'musical'. It might surprise you, but we've never relied on tuning any of our products by ear. We rely very heavily on measurements. Only after we get what we are looking for do we give it a listen. So far this technique has served us pretty well.
The sneaky pitfall is taking a waveform that has already happened, reducing it, flipping it out of phase and feeding it back and expecting it to heal a different waveform. The issue is can the ear brain perceive and evaluate this as “ musical “.
One reason why many but not all low to no negative FB designers use time and phase accurate speakers… Always cracks me up when phase accuracy obsession in electronics is swamped by higher order filters downstream.
I do have a lot of respect for Ralph, and i would say his gear is very musical. There are of course others working the same problems w different perspectives… and some probably now know the ANSWERS…thinking in particular of Roger and Charlie ( Ayre )
Ralph, I have to believe that musicality, immersion, involvement and, ultimately, suspension of disbelief has much to do with an amp designer’s taste and ear than simply harmonics and distortion.
I would say that your sensibilities as a musician have as much, or more, to do with your amp’s andpreamp’s sound as your technical abilities.
Interesting , some people can hear negative feedback = TIM and simple temporal distortion in addition to the various forms of harmonic distortion Ralph and a FEW ear/brain centric designers ( very rightly but not completely ) focus on.
@tomic601Timing usually isn’t a problem with negative feedback. Phase shift is (and can look like a timing problem if you’re only using a ’scope to see what’s going on). TIM really isn’t a problem with feedback so much as it was a problem associated with part of the (high feedback, solid state) amplifier that was outside the feedback loop: the base of the input transistor or perhaps the entire transistor, depending on the design... which would easily distort on transients.
Norman Crowhurst pointed to the problem of a non-linear feedback point (node) in an amplifier, such as the cathode of the input tube 65 years ago. He points out that due to that non-linearity, the feedback causes a noise floor of higher ordered harmonics as well as inharmonic (intermodulation) distortions. He did not propose a fix. Later, Peter Baxandall pointed to the same problem in solid state amps and simply proposed more feedback as a fix, which does not work; any signal distorted by that non-linearity (in this case, the base of a transistor) will not somehow magically be healed by more feedback.
The solution is to mix the feedback with the incoming signal using a resistor divider network, before the signal gets to the input of the amp (the way opamps do it). In that way the feedback signal is not distorted and so can do its job more effectively. FWIW this is how we’ve applied feedback in our OTLs for the last 35 years or so.
Since most people believed Baxandall and don’t remember Crowhurst talking about the same problem 20 years earlier, we wound up with a lot of amps that were less than musical in the last 70 years. The issue of increasing distortion with frequency really didn’t show up for decades after! So now you have something to look for in the measurements that relates directly to that mysterious ’musical’ aspect some amps have and some don’t.
So if you want the amp to be musical, its important that the distortion vs frequency is a flat line across the audio band (or nearly so- 10KHz is probably acceptable since harmonics at 20KHz won't get a lot of attention). Tube amps with little or no feedback have no problem doing this
has the answer, if its a bit obtuse. Any amp with zero feedback will have distortion vs frequency as a flat line. So it will have a good chance at being musical whether tube or solid state. There are other factors relating to topology of course so this isn't sure fire.
and IF you can’t hear how an amplifier destroys temporal information, try getting your system in phase… and or considering a speaker that passes the impulse test… Since getting the electronics in phase is free, start there….
the some people don’t like the Strad comment was all about taste…
The ear brain is king but tastes are the puppet master for most all of audio… and more..
Interesting , some people can hear negative feedback = TIM and simple temporal distortion in addition to the various forms of harmonic distortion Ralph and a FEW ear/brain centric designers ( very rightly but not completely ) focus on.
The comment about the long term ( listening) vs short term ear brain appeal is under rated…otherwise many a good listener would pay WAY more attention to level matching ( RIP Roger Modjeski…Lord, i miss you )
Thankfully music isn’t a sine wave, although i am sure there is a shoegazer sub variant approaching this… feedback looks great w sine waves…
IF you want an excellent evaluation of the temporal distortions get a variable negative feedback amplifier RM-9 , adjust for level and evaluate the stereo image using the excellent Opus 3 disc… Depth of Image
@atmasphereYou're right--a bit over my head on the technical side but i appreciate the effort. What about hybrid amps that don't use feedback--claiming to use zero feedback to "maintain harmonic integrity"--eg Aesthetix--still a problem? I'm not asking you to comment on that product line--just the design. Having owned both tube and ss amps i am looking at hybrids as a solution to the problems you outline above--basically a more "musical" amp to drive low efficiency speakers.
what is your take on hybrid amps that use both tubes and ss at the output stage--do these amps suffer from the same issue as ss amps? or are they better at dealing with the higher-order harmonics b/c of the tubes?
Most of these designs use feedback. When you use feedback in any design, you must have enough Gain Bandwidth Product to support the loop gain (which is the gain of the amp after the feedback is added). Most amps lack the GBP to do this properly, so when they run into that limit at a certain frequency, distortion will rise on a 6dB/octave (or greater) slope. This phenomena is usually perceived as harshness and brightness. Tube amps with feedback have this problem although its not as pronounced as in solid state since tube amps tend to have better distortion characteristics (to the human ear) when running open loop.
Put more simply, hybrid amps are a partial solution. Something I've not mentioned in this thread is how the feedback is received at the input of the amplifier; in most amps that point isn't linear (typically the base of a transistor) and so the feedback signal itself is distorted. That prevents it from doing its job properly, and since this practice is widespread, has given feedback a bad rap.
Feedback isn't bad if its applied properly. In a hybrid amp, the feedback is usually applied to the cathode of an input tube which is usually a lot more linear than a transistor in a solid state amp. This does help the amp be more musical, but since the GBP is very likely lacking, does not fix the problem (you can find this out by simply measuring distortion vs frequency).
Sorry if this is a bit technical!
The reason why distortion vs frequency is so important has to do with how the ear perceives distortion. I'll give you a typical example. A common frequency where many solid state amps reach their GBP limit is only 1KHz. Imagine a signal at 1KHz; it might be low distortion, but you can have a harmonic at 7KHz that is considerably higher than that 1KHz THD figure would suggest- and the 7th harmonic is not only amusical, the ear is also keenly sensitive to it because higher orders are used by the ear to sense how loud sounds are. Sticks out like a sore thumb.
So if you want the amp to be musical, its important that the distortion vs frequency is a flat line across the audio band (or nearly so- 10KHz is probably acceptable since harmonics at 20KHz won't get a lot of attention). Tube amps with little or no feedback have no problem doing this; its part of why SETs have a foothold in modern times.
But SETs are really obsolete (IMO there is no reason for them at all); the only reason they get by is due to their distortion signature and distortion vs frequency being a flat line. You don't need the amp to be SET to do that and so there are musical amplifiers that aren't SETs (which make a lot more power and are more transparent).
But most people that are involved with SETs do not understand the facts I've laid out here. This includes a lot of SET designers. I'm sure I'll get pushback on this, but engineering is why tubes exist, why airplanes fly and why lights come on when you turn their switch on; engineering coupled with an understanding of human hearing rules is at the heart of this.
@atmasphereLike many here i've followed this discussion with interest, especially as relates to the discussion re sound or "musicality" of tube amps v ss--and i will say that in general i agree with you--just never knew the reason why--but as an expert amp designer what is your take on hybrid amps that use both tubes and ss at the output stage--do these amps suffer from the same issue as ss amps? or are they better at dealing with the higher-order harmonics b/c of the tubes? i.e. is having a ss output stage going to inherently have the unmasked higher order harmonics?
I'd like to try an analogy. A lot of equipment is sorta like the pictures from a Kodak 110 film camera. They provide an image the photographer intended, at least most of the time. Colors are close, image lacks detail or controlled depth of focus. A picture. Compare that to a photograph from a large format 4 x 5 camera with a top quality lens in the hands of a master photographer. The finest details are part of the life captured in the picture. Accurate color and subtle shading, light and exposure tightly controlled to bring to life the subject of the image as well as the fine details in the rest of the picture. It is a work of life brought to an artful image that is precisely what the artist / photographer intended.
In the context of the OP's original question, music is notes. Musicality is bringing the notes to life as intended by the artist. The dynamic reproduction of the event, not the simple tune. The fine details, the small changes in dynamics, the correct coloration of the instruments including changes to instrumental timbre as performed by the musician / artist.
For sure different road can be chosen by each amplifier designer, but the road is chosen around the same center : human hearing characteristics ; then putting the emphasis on the way the ears/brain perceive harmonics or the way the ears/brain inhabit his own non-linear time domain; but these differences in design approach will never obey the mere taste of the designer so much as they will obey the specific psycho-acoustic facts and principles by which he will attack the designed "musicality" problem ...
No taste relativity then to begin with and at the end of the design process .., But for marketing taste is first and last , because no design is perfect, marketers will call the customers and spoke to him about his tastes for "musicality" ...But there is not so much taste in the way we evaluate "musicality" as much as different levels and different acoustic aspects of this complex phenomena ,"musicality", where subjective evaluation is always conditioned by objective factors ......As musicians and acousticians and trained specialist and maestros or most designers knows already ...
All this sounds simple yet we have many amplifier makers. I suppose most have gotten the "bad" distortion out of their designs, though.
@hilde45 If that were true there would not be a tubes vs transistors debate older than the Internet itself!
Its a bit more complex than that. Many designers don't pay much attention to how the ear/brain system works. So they often just go for the least amount of distortion: your typical solid state amp. Solid state amps have had a reputation since the 1960s of being harsh and bright compared to tubes for the simple reason that the distortion of the solid state amp has unmasked higher ordered harmonics- the source of the harshness and brightness.
Such amps do not tend to get a reputation of being musical and are part of why tubes are still around!
A good amplifier can be referred to as a musical amplifier. It is not simply a technical term; it expresses how much you love the amplifier.
It's that simple.
In fact, we have our measurement of a good amplifier. If you can continue listening for more than 8 hours, and you still want to listen, that is a good amplifier for you. So, do not judge in a short period of time.
In a word the fact that musical taste vary as much as the gear choices does not means that the concept of "musicality" is meaningless or purely subjective nor that the experience of "musicality" lack any objective ground ...
Most consumers are ignorant and interpret their blissful ignorance as a freedom of choice according to their fancy , but informed audiophiles, studies acoustics to know what is a "musicality" experience conditions and factors with any piece of gear and in any room at any price ... We go with our brain but also with our wallet ...
Ok i stop and apologize because my "word" is already two paragraphs ... 😁
There is no physical or psychological law which can determine the outcome, because the outcome emerges at a stage of experience where causes (physical, physiological) become reasons (logical, semantic). That is where the "spade turns" and one can dig no further.
The fact that in front of an image some human can perceive a duck objectively and can then label as an illusion or a subjective fact the perception of a rabbit or the reverse ; this paradox is also at the root of psycho-acoustic as it is at the root of visual perception ...
This image of a duck/rabbit does not show so much a vicious circle here in this discussion but a virtuous time spiral revealing how the interaction of subjective and objective factors as much as internal neurophysiological one and external physical and material acoustic one are interrelated without being ever apart from one another and more participating together in an emerging NEW phenomena instead of competing with each other ...
" Musical" in acoustic is explained in a relative way by analysing the contributions of all objective and subjective factors and all internal and external factors then musicality is not so much the result of a capricious taste exhibited by individual consumers behaviour but the result of our evolutive Brain/ears system and his long history in TIME and timing ...
The experience of sound as "musical" for example in acoustic architecture is not the matter of an exploratory taste in an esthetical fashion but a matter of pragmatism when we put together the human neuro physiology of sound perception and the material conditions related to the experience of sound in a closed construction ...
This pragmatism is the root of acoustics as of all science if we go along with Peirce semiotic instead of Wittgenstein criticism here... With Peirce , signs are " causes (physical, physiological) and become reasons (logical, semantic)" but also the reverse reasons can become causes.... What set apart the Peircean semiotics from the Wittgensteinian critique is time and evolution ... It is well said here :
« The principle “meaning is use” is a common topic in the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Charles Peirce. Both maintain that the use of words, tools and the like is a spatio-temporal phenomenon, but according to Wittgenstein meanings as objects of thought are timeless while for Peirce thought and objects of thought are temporal phenomena.»
Now going back to "musicality", this concept and word is born from a long evolutive history of the brain/ears where causes and reasons worked together creating a non arbitrary concept of "musicality" which can be today investigated and analysed by psycho-acoustic , inspiring some designer as atmasphere to use some fact about harmonics for example interpreted by them in some way to create a design, in a non arbitrary way ,deemed "musical " ...
Some other designer can even explore other acoustic concept to create also more "musical" design, as van Maanen investigating the concrete non linear time domain proper to the human ears/brain versus the abstract linear Fourier mapping for the needs of his specific audio designs...it is not contradictory , harmonics and the non linear time domain are each one of them separately or together factors that explain "musicality" perception, because if "musicality" is not an arbitrary concept or a word relating to a mere taste or fancy , it is for sure a complex concept ...
As atmasphere do, this designer Dr, van MAANEN look also for a better musicality too with psycho-acoustic knowledge :
These two designers atmasphere and van Maanen will exclude fancy or arbitrary factors as the causes and reasons explaining perceived "musicality" ..."Musicality" as a free choice taste of the consumers is an idea in marketing not in design nor in science ...
If we ask a crocodile why he eat people sometimes letting them rot before eating them or prefering rot meat over fresh meat , he will claim that it is only and just his taste ...But his taste is not an arbitrary free fancy it is programmed and explained by its metabolism and mouth/dentition and the specific properties and qualities of rotten meat easier to break compared to fresh meatby the properties of his jaws mechanics ...
In the same way perceived "musicality" for human is not a quality always different and variable resulting from the arbitrary and free fancy of the consumers buying a piece of gear, it is first and last a quality that correspond to many complex facts and conditions known by psycho-acoustics and acousticians ...
The fact for example that a stereo system by the disruptive effect of crosstalk is less "musical" than a stereo system where this crosstalk effect is cancelled by specific designed filters is a psycho-acoustic discovery of Dr. Choueiri, the fact that these filters increase the musicality associated with a better timbre and a better localization demonstrate well that the concept of "musicality" has an objective ground in acoustics ... ...
Now to have an idea of the effect of harmonics on "musicality" perception , this post in another forum is very interesting :
You're right. I had a knee jerk reaction. I have actually read some thoughtful responses on this thread, as well as other threads that were repeats of earlier threads, like the recent one started by @calvinj about speakers you have owned. seen. Thanks for the nudge buddy, and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
The outcome -- what is deemed "musical" -- is influenced in part by distortion, and that human reactions (to distortion) follow universal laws of human perception.
That's why an amp maker who pays attention to these laws (physical and perceptual) is guided in making an amp that sounds pleasing. Or, more cautiously, knows what to avoid in their design which would make the amp sound not-pleasing.
(All this sounds simple yet we have many amplifier makers. I suppose most have gotten the "bad" distortion out of their designs, though.)
I hope I have understood you correctly.
Wittgenstein is well know for his "duck-rabbit" example. (It's meant to point out that objects do not simply appear to our senses, but are "seen as" something. All seeing is seeing-as.)
In this example, the laws of physics and perception (by sight) are well known.
And yet some people see the figure below as a duck and others as a rabbit.
There is no physical or psychological law which can determine the outcome, because the outcome emerges at a stage of experience where causes (physical, physiological) become reasons (logical, semantic). That is where the "spade turns" and one can dig no further.
If I understood how "deemed musical" in your explanation differed from "deemed rabbit (or duck)" I would be more comfortable seeing the philosophical problem go away. At the moment, I see a correlation between distortion and musicality but I don't see that it is necessitated. All manufacturers really need to do is some people some of the time, so they don't need more than a correlation to design amps and make a good living.
I appreciate your reply, though I believe we are going in circles. However, I'll think about your answer some more. Thank you.
I used to read here on Audiogon about all of the descriptive high-sounding adjectives to describe the sounds coming from a system....’soundstage’, ’layering’, ’decay’, ’imaging’, ’slam’, ’attack’, ’front-to-back’, ’height and width’, ’PRAT’, ’air’, ’deeper bass’, ’sweet spot’, etc. .............and in the beginning, I thought it was a bunch of hogwash. But, as I moved up the hifi food chain, all of those adjectives made themselves known and very apparent to me one by one without anyone having to explain it to me. I knew what each one was immediately the first time I heard them. Some of the adjectives upon hearing them the first time was almost like a religious experience....and I kept throwing money at the hobby as faithfully as a religious person pays tithes. In other words, you’ll know it when you hear it...and you’ll miss it when or if it leaves your system.
After all that, I am still unable to explain those adjectives to a nonaudiophile.
....you’ll immediatley know what it is when you hear it.
We will go along well because i know for a fact without being a doctor that healing and preventive medecine had nothing to do with corporate medecine controlled by big pharma from the Flexner report till today ...
Because you want to heal you know that medecine cannot be reduced to chirurgy nor to artificial corporate drugs exclusively made for profit ...i think Hells Angels bikers are chorus boys compared to big corporations ...
medecine is an art as any human activities coordinating the two part of our brain and our heart together ...
I recommend to you a book because it was my job all my life with the students : man and Mammals by wolfgang schad ....if you read it you will be astonished ...You can also bought but it is costlier his mammoth 2 books :
the art to advise and motivate students was in the way to advise to them the right book at the right time ...
here a description :
«The result of over 50 years of research, Threefoldness in Humans and Mammals is the beautiful, authorized edition of Wolfgang Schad’s life’s work. In chapter after chapter of this monumental two-volume work, Schad demonstrates in detail how the dynamic concept of the threefold organism―first described by Rudolf Steiner a century ago―sheds new light on aspects of mammals, including size, form, coloration, physiology, embryonic development, behavior, and habitat. Indeed, he shows how the threefoldness of the organism―comprised of the polarity of nerve-sense and metabolic-limb systems and the mediating circulatory-respiratory system―is a key to understanding the extraordinary diversity of our closest animal relatives.
Reading this book, we experience a growing sense of satisfaction―even wonder―realizing that each species, through its unique constitution, actually explains itself, that right down to specific features such as dentition and coloration, it is a unique embodiment of the threefold organization. In addition, we begin to experience the threefold organism itself―not as an abstract, rigid thought construct that allows us to determine a mammal's taxonomy, but as a creative lawfulness that comes to one-sided expression in each species.
Thus, Wolfgang Schad follows in the footsteps of Goethe, who said of his scientific pursuits: “The ultimate goal would be to grasp that everything in the realm of fact is already theory.... Let’s not look for something behind the phenomena―they themselves are the theory.”
In the first volume, a masterful, comprehensive description of the threefold human organism lays the foundation for an in-depth consideration of the most familiar groups of mammals, including stunning chapters on antelopes and deer with their horns and antlers, as well as a concluding chapter on mammals’ intimate relationship with their natural environment.
The second volume begins with chapters on the more primitive mammals and continues with studies of mammalian embryology, milk, emotional life, and relationship to death. The author then returns to the theme of human threefoldness in the final chapter. The balanced threefoldness of the human organism contrasts with its extraordinarily diverse, though one-sided, expressions in the mammals, which in turn emphasize aspects of our own humanity. A growing awareness of this intimate reciprocal relationship leads to a deepening empathy for our animal brothers and sisters.
The reader will do well to begin with the first chapters in volume 1, which introduce the main recurring motifs and build throughout the book. Although the content includes a great deal of specialized knowledge, it is presented in language accessible to the general reader. The text is richly illustrated with well-chosen photographs and drawings. Numerous diagrams illumine the dynamic interrelationships within various groups of mammals.
This two-volume set is protected in a handsome slip case. In both form and content, this is a classic edition of a groundbreaking work that should find its place in every home, school, biology department, and library.»
my respectful salutations
@mahgisterI find it interesting, what you have to say about medicine. Are you a doctor of some sort?
My experience is that traditional medicine here in the US has become much more about the science and almost devoid of art. I think doctors who participate in managed care have their hands tied behind their back when it comes to the art part because they’re so bound by protocols. This is what I’ve been told by other doctors who’ve sought my help along the way.
The reason I appreciate what you say about the art and science is because I practice a type of healing that I perform with my hands, which gives it a very heavy artistic component. And that’s something I love about the work I do, it’s very much a science, but imo even more of an art, which is why it’s been such a rewarding career for me personally.
The objective of the treatment is to restore as much of the normal movement of the tissues of the musculoskeletal system as possible, and the lesion that I’m treating with my hands is the restriction in the vertebral joint. As the normal movement is restored to whatever degree possible, it allows the body to do what it was intended to do in the first place, which is to heal itself.
@hilde45I think I can boil this down a bit. In the text below, I'm repeating myself in several different ways.
For a designer's point of view, if they understand the rules of human hearing perception, they can design (if they understand the technology well enough), an amplifier, preamp or loudspeaker that will be deemed musical by those that hear it.
This is because the rules of human hearing perception are universal.
People ascribe taste to music itself. That's different. They might also want to hear more or less bass, more or less treble. That is still in the realm of taste, providing:
The distinction I am making is that as long as tonality is not induced by distortion, in particular the higher frequencies, then the amp or whatever will be deemed musical. If tonality comes from tone controls and is not induced by distortion, that is perceived as 'taste'.
It took me a while to understand how distortion imparts tonality. I've come to the conclusion that if a designer is pragmatic about that, then that allows access to designing an amp or whatever that will be musical, having nothing to do with taste (which has everything to do with the signal you put thru that amp or whatever).
Does that make more sense to you? This really isn't about philosophy and rabbit holes. Its simply the distinction between taste and common physiology.
@mahgisterI find it interesting, what you have to say about medicine. Are you a doctor of some sort?
My experience is that traditional medicine here in the US has become much more about the science and almost devoid of art. I think doctors who participate in managed care have their hands tied behind their back when it comes to the art part because they're so bound by protocols. This is what I've been told by other doctors who've sought my help along the way.
The reason I appreciate what you say about the art and science is because I practice a type of healing that I perform with my hands, which gives it a very heavy artistic component. And that's something I love about the work I do, it's very much a science, but imo even more of an art, which is why it's been such a rewarding career for me personally.
The objective of the treatment is to restore as much of the normal movement of the tissues of the musculoskeletal system as possible, and the lesion that I'm treating with my hands is the restriction in the vertebral joint. As the normal movement is restored to whatever degree possible, it allows the body to do what it was intended to do in the first place, which is to heal itself.
Thanks for your interest but i posted already many post about musicality in this thread ...😁
And yes it help to be an artist ... As medecine based on science is an art , acoustics based on pure science may be also an art ...
And even listening is an art ...
Only transhumanist could think that replacing the human part of science which is art by an artefact could dream about the replacement of all artists by machine and anyway the end of mankind for a meaningless nightmare ... but i am out of the matter as often ... I apologize ...
My best to you ...😊
@mahgisterwould love to hear your perspective on this.
@dman777, you're 100% correct. AS3200 is very tube sounding. And a amp I'll be enjoying for a while. When you listen to the Luxman 590II vs AS3200 they are completely different. Luxman has the detail, refiness and precision that a class A is known for. The speaker matching is very important. I've never own McIntosh gear so I cant say much of their characteristics. I know people aren't fans of Yamaha gear on Agon, but when you look at their company history, technology and musical instruments. Yamaha knows what they are making and selling. I'm a character of less is better and amps that are 100w fall in my category. For me its always music first, but man, equipment that looks nice just makes it so much satisfying to own and hear.
@zloneYou should do some reading about Lyngdorf’s approach. Their integrated offerings is sort of a big brother, little brother situation, whichever one you can afford. It’s literally the same level of both performance and sound, one with considerably more power than the other, and also flexibility in how you can use it b/c you can add on modules if you like. I actually have the first generation, which I would say is the middle child b/c it has the adaptability of the additional modules, and also a lil more power than the little guy.
All of the reviews I read said that the little guy is completely competent and that it’s sort of an identical sound ... the bigger more expensive model literally just has more power and adaptability. They are both very musical.
The Room Perfect software is what makes the magic happen. I recommend you check it out, in your search.
And systems tend to be like paintings, in a sense. If you think about it, the painting is the artist’s interpretation of their own reality. And their expression is the way they’re presenting that! reality.
Lots of elements are involved IN the interpretation, the making of it. The same way our systems create the sound we perceive in our brains. The Musicality.
I guess you sort of have to have an artist’s mind to view it this way. Probably also helps if you smoke a lil weed. : )
@mahgisterwould love to hear your perspective on this.
but as time has passed for me clicking onto this forum, i have gotten more comfortable with the fact that there is much repetition of topics... i guess i view this in a more sanguine manner than before
some valuable nuggets, concepts, ideas, hints etc are probably worth repeating, first to help newcomers to the hobby, and sometimes, also to remind ourselves what’s important to remember
My summation: INVOLVING. Takes your full attention, pulls you into magical moments (to a greater or lesser degree).
1st, an involving performance: composition, music and/or words, musicians, recording skills, engineering skills, production skills, puts a terrifically involving product in your hands
Now: total system: produces excellent Involvement?
Next: evaluate a change of something: equally involving? surprisingly more involving?
Verify the change is real (nothing errantly changed during the gear switch); buy it!
I feel that this is what is lacking in my system right now, and I am cycling through preamps in search of the right sound. I am trying to stay with solid state as it fits my lifestyle, but I may have venture into the tube world. I will know it when I hear it.
"Musical is a qualitative term not a quantitative measure."
This is right. I'd only add that the presence of quality in our experience can be causally linked to our environment. In this respect, the quantitative measurements of science can help predict when we will experience a quality. (See the example about a 'red' stoplight, below.) But they fall short of fully explaining why we arrive at our qualitative judgments because those involve our qualitative preferences and goals.
Thank you for your reply. It’s excellent pushback on what I wrote. You have made me more uncertain about my position and I need to think about it a bit more. Thank you for taking the time to unsettle me.
I’ve become uncertain about what question is at stake, now. Your last post said, "Taste is entirely different. No accounting for it."
I thought that’s what we were debating -- whether the word "musical" (a "taste"" word) is one which scientific measurements can determine.
Let me recap where I think we’ve wound up.
The question, I thought was, "What makes a piece of audio equipment sound ’musical’"?
I thought your answer was something like, "We know what does this. It’s XYZ physical laws plus ABC physiological facts."
I replied that scientific answers can only partially explain what "musical" means other factors can enter into what "musical" means.
These would include cultural factors -- personal taste, previous experience, and social context -- to name just a few.
[N.B. I didn’t say science couldn’t help. Nor did I say that everything was interpretation, or "whim" (your word). Some things are settled by scientific conclusions, but not enough to establish what "musical" means.]
So far so good?
You are now replying that if I lose my keys in my house, my perception won’t change that fact. Or that I must stop when the traffic light is "red."
Such examples betray a tactic. They would substitute simple and obvious cases for complex and fuzzy ones. "Where are my keys?" is a categorically different problem than "What makes an audio component(s) ’musical’?" Why? because the keys question is straightforward -- because it has well-understood parameters. The nature of the question and answer are bounded by well-established conventions, past practices, and simple goals. There is not a wide range of meanings for what it means to "find keys." What it means to "find love" is much more in doubt; what it means for a system to be musical is also fuzzier. Those examples are not straightforward; their conventions, past practices, and goals are not settled. Nor can science settle them.
So, your keys example works for your argument by implying that that fuzzy cases -- like what "musical" means -- is the same as easy cases. Not really a fair example. You might as well say that the rules of soccer are as simple and clear as the rules of chess. The rules of chess are stipulated and determinative in a way that the rules of soccer cannot be. The word "musical" is more fuzzy, by nature; more like a "game". Not all words are bounded by rules, though. In some cases the meaning of a term is only partially captured by scientific language -- then it must open out to the various forms of life in which it becomes meaningful.
My previous reply tried to offer some common ground to your position. You did not give me credit for it. I said,
I would agree with you (and science) on this, only: that "taste" outside of the lab is often too wild, too unregulated in procedure, too unstable in judgment to be reliable. That’s fair. Where I disagree is that the scientist/engineer somehow can "anchor" laws of perception in reality in a way that is capable of correcting interpretative judgment. If someone hears a 2nd order harmonic as unpleasant, would they be wrong? No, what we’d say is that some people are not "wired" to enjoy the 2nd harmonic -- just as some people are "wired" to dislike even mildly spicy food.
But I put the word "wired" in quotes because it’s really a misleading (because physicalist) word. It’s not really wiring at all. Rather, there is a complete system of human physiology, habituated expectation, and linguistic training at work, here. These include what seems to be only the "last" node, the listener (or eater). What some scientists get wrong is that the listener doesn’t just receive a stimulus (a 2nd order harmonic) and then have a response (pleasure); rather, every listener approaches a stimulus with previous experiences that condition how the stimulus is received. There is a circuit at work which includes the context, past and present, of the listener. That includes their wants, needs, desires, expectations at the level of meaning and interpretation.
Is there a correlation between 2nd harmonics and the way we measure the brain? Sure. Just as there is between the chemical composition of sugar and the taste buds -- and the sections of the brain which register "sweetness." But preference for sweetness also requires habituation in conduct; one can habituate to dislike sweetness and other "natural" preferences. Often, how one is raised plays a role, here. (Cf. Bourdieu on habitus.) The brain is a plastic instrument.
To repeat what I said at the top, here -- we may be missing each other because we are not really clear about the issue we’re debating. I may be the one who has blurred things. If so, I apologize.
Musicality is more related to the sound from the perspective of the gear in the mind of the average consumers ...
But in reality any gear experience evaluation AT LAST is conditioned by the relation between this gear system synergetical or not as chosen and the room acoustic ...( it is even conditioned by the mechanical embeddings working dimension ( vibrations/resonance) and also the electrical embeddings which is mostly the electrical noise floor level of the system/house) ...
Then i prefer the term immersiveness instead of musicality alone , it implicate the listener engulfed in the acoustic space of the recording himself , included in it or part of it with his own brain and room ...
But the real meaning of musicality acoustically speaking and out of any marketing vocabulary cover two aspects of sound related to two acoustics concepts , the timbre experience and the immersiveness experience which immersiveness is related to the ratio of the listener envelopment concept ( LV) in acoustic and his dual concept of the location and width of the sound source ( ASW) .
Then musicality is an objective acoustic concept which we can control from inside the gear and from the room and from the relation between the two ...This objective concept and his related set of controls instances can be measured in many ways and also subjectively evaluated ...
It's a subjective descriptor. It means that the whole of the component's sound conveys music in a way that pleases. Or a way that conveys the emotional content of the music. It's the most important descriptor. It is my bottom line when evaluating a component.
@webking185wow, I think it’s cool that you have that collection. To me, my Yamaha setup is a bit more detailed because it has more of a holographic stage than my Luxman 595.
I love my Yamaha setup which is a r n2000a used as a preamp to a AS-3200. I never thought Yamaha would be this good. I plan on buying a Macintosh 12000. It might break my heart if I use it more than the Yamaha cuz the Yamaha is so good.... I am emotionally attached.
When a amp is not harsh and bright, tonally balanced and your sound is smooth with treble and bass. Some amps can have a strong bass oitput and become very punchy. For me the some Yamaha amps are very musical, while others can be bright. My Luxman 590 is very detailed and the music is refined to hearing the clean crisp sound. Its a matter of taste and preference, i have Yamaha, Luxman, NAD and Emotiva EQ. You tell me.
Everything in audio is of course subjective because we are all a bit different. I bave Plinius amplification in two systems. I have tried many different amplifiers but I do not get the full rounded sound from other amps as compared to my Plinius. They maybe good amps with great detail and sound stage but to me they lack the full rounded balance of sound that I get with Plinius gear. what I mean is that across the frequency spectrum they are very balanced and full sounding. Perhaps slightly warm but detailed as well. Thatvto me is musicality.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
