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

Mahgister, thanks for the clarification on "taste marketing", apparently, I did misunderstand you in this issue, which is a relevant point. but, if I am not wrong, here the aim of marketing is to "establish and control" audiophile tastes, not visa-versa, to create gear according to some hypothetical audiophile tastes. 

I also agree acoustics is relevant to the "musicality" but not definitive: Imagine a live concert in an open field or an audiophile that sets up his equipment in an open area.  He has an ideal "acoustics" (which is "no acoustics"), and he wishes to enjoy the music at the maximum possible level of the joy. 

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

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

Is it not "musical" ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No need for taste either ? 😁

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

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

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

For sure you are right...😊

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

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

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

musicians have no idea what audiophiles talk about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a drummer and one who has played gigs with people who have been on gold and platinum Lps and even a gig with a 9 time grammy nominee who turned to me after the 4th song and said "you guys can really play "

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

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

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

musicians have no idea what audiophiles talk about...the list of words is endless

In my findings....the more words used to describe a system....the less musical it is.

*talks* —“thoughts”, sorry for the misprint 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i hope to had been clear ...

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

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

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

😊

It is good to talk on motivations and fundamentals of our audiophile hobby... Too many posts, was basically able to read the beginning of this nice thread.

I agree that subjectivity factor cannot be ignored, we may perceive things in different ways dispite that our basic perception organs are working similarly. It also depends in which mood are we currently. And one cannot ignore the music itself. There is music that makes one feel good but doesn't somebody else, and visa versa. What matters finally is which kind of feelings provokes in you certain audio equipment while auditioning certain music. 

In practical terms, I would say that one's audio equipment is "musical" if it allows to experience the best feelings that one is able to experience auditioning a particular piece of music. As in love we associate our feelings with a particular personality, we may associate a particular audio equipment (and a piece of music) with musicality. A musical equipment would maximize the positive emotions that one is able to experience while auditioning certain music. The musical equipment would make you feel completely satisfied.

And it was said a lot what technical features a musical system should have in absolute terms. Still, some of these "absolute" features may not be that universal but can rather can be subjective. 

I understand what you are saying; however I personally think I might describe that as accuracy more than musical. Not to protract this any further, but I am good with Webster’s definition (paraphrasing) of musical having to do with being pleasing and harmonious, and back in the ’70s and ’80s when the live venues we were going to were mostly coliseums or amphitheaters I really don’t remember the SQ being very good at all.

@immatthewj 

It wasn't: it wasn't musical. If the presentation is accurate, it will also be musical because it reproduces the music.

I also was wondering if in your opinion there was a trade off other than LF bandwidth when using high efficiency horn speakers? (I was thinking of some of the newer Klipsch monitors that MD carries.) Would there be a reason NOT to use this speaker with a moderately powered amp? Such as a tube amp doing 50 wpc in triode mode?

My speakers are 98dB which is at the low end of 'high efficiency' and they do not lack any resolution WRT any speaker I know of. So other than size, no, there's no tradeoff, rather lower efficiency speakers are the ones with tradeoffs, since they typically have problems with thermal compression if you try to push them to higher volumes.

To answer your question on that other thread,  if you have a 4 Watt SET, your speakers should be about 105-107dB in most rooms. That will allow you to not run the amp higher than about 50% of full power and often a lot less. But a lot depends on the room- if you have a smaller room you might get by just fine with speakers that are in the mid 90s.

The timbre has to be authentic and therefore pleasing. When just last night my new tonearm auditioned my system became much more musical. I don't care to use any other adjectives. Stayed up way to late.

@asvjerry  , cueing up would be impossible!  I can only imagine how many LPs and cartridges would get destroyed!   Good thing I never made it back to vinyl after the digital revolution ended.  I can see issues with that as well . . . I think if the meter would audibly identify when it was set to DC mA and would also audibly identify what it was reading that I could set the bias on both sides by feel-a-vision,  but it would be frustrating doing the trial and error thing to find CDs in what is a large collection and stumbling around back there I'd probably be knocking the monitors off of their stands and putting a CD in the player might turn into damage to both the CD AND the player . . . anyway, enjoy the new vinyl and you take care as well.

@atmasphere , in light of the SET & metal discussion that was going on, this is an interesting thread:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/young-audiophile-metal-head-looking-to-level-up-speaker-choice#2643720

I also was wondering if in your opinion there was a trade off other than LF bandwidth when using high efficiency horn speakers? (I was thinking of some of the newer Klipsch monitors that MD carries.) Would there be a reason NOT to use this speaker with a moderately powered amp? Such as a tube amp doing 50 wpc in triode mode?

@immatthewj ....*Whew*G*  'On the other note' ultimately is a preferable condition...;)  And cueing up would be...problematic...at best.

A ss amp person myself, I can appreciate good luck when rolling the tubes and hoping for luck to strike.  Since I read about that activity around here a lot....us ss types do some 'chip swaps' with sound cards and the like, so there is a variant of sorts.

Toured the pressing shop at Citizens' today...and actually bought an LP; 

The Pentangles' "Basket of ight"....guess I'll have to dust off the TT....

Anyhow....Y'all take care out there... 👍, J

As i see it now after my experiments and this correspond to what you said when you said that you want to see the musicians more than hear them,

iis now so well reproduced and translated by your system/room that now you "SEE" the instruments and musicians...

Actually, @mahgister , what I meant was that back in the days I was attending venues with live music, I was going out more because I wanted to see the band/performer perform than I was to hear them perform. It was always, "Hey, let’s go out this weekend and see so & so at such and such a club." I don’t go out to see/hear live music now-a-days, and when I go back to my little room and start flipping switches and selecting discs to listen to, it is all about what I hear, and what I hear does produce some visualizations, but to enhance the visuals I turn off the lights and take my glasses off and close my eyes. (I am actually at the point where closing one eye would work, but the eye that is gone is the only one I can squint without squinting the other at the same time, so therefore I close them both.)

@atmasphere

’Real music’ in that it sounds as real as the recording allows. So that might mean it sounds like you’re in a live amphitheater or it might sound like the musicians are in your room.

okay, I understand what you are saying; however I personally think I might describe that as accuracy more than musical. Not to protract this any further, but I am good with Webster’s definition (paraphrasing) of musical having to do with being pleasing and harmonious, and back in the ’70s and ’80s when the live venues we were going to were mostly coliseums or amphitheaters I really don’t remember the SQ being very good at all. I think it was all about the shared emotional group experience of SEEING a band we really thought was great enhanced by whatever misbehavior was going on at the same time.

Therefore, going back to Webster’s definition, for the live performance of (for example) Sammy Hagar opening for Boston at The CheckerDome in St. Louis (which was the very first concert I ever attended) to be musical, it would have to have been from the sound board perspective, not from the perspective of being in the audience.

Anyway, you also provided a definition of "more musical" as sounding like "real music" [Quotation marks are mine]. By "real music", do you mean as it sounds in the audience of a large colliseum or at the mixing board? Or do you mean as it sounds to the audience in an unamplified venue? Or do you mean the way it sounds in the studio when it is being recorded?

'Real music' in that it sounds as real as the recording allows. So that might mean it sounds like you're in a live amphitheater or it might sound like the musicians are in your room.

What if someone’s ear does not care about the kind of distortion @atmasphere identifies with musicality?

They literally would not be from this planet! IOW there are no such people. That is because all people use the same hearing perceptual rules.

. . . and apparently by some SET standards, 14 or 15 wpc is a lot, as I keep reading about some of Dennis Had’s new stuff making less than 5 wpc? I DEFINITELY don’t think that would satisfy the average metal head.

classical is not my thing; but if it was and I wanted to hear The William Tell Overture (I hope I got that right) at what was a satisfying level, I wouldn't be looking at low powered SET stuff.  And I wouldn't be looking at the low powered SET stuff if I was into death metal either.  And most of the posts from the metal guys that do post here, seem like they are into the big SS stuff.  I am not saying that I don't think tubes can do metal, but I am saying that I don't think 15 wpc or less is going to do what the average metal guy wats it to do.

SETs are best used with high efficiency speakers- often over 100dB. A 5 Watt SET might be used with a speaker that is 103 or 105 dB. That is why a 15 Watt amp might seem like a lot. If not used with such speakers you would be correct; but such a person would likely find the amp unsatisfying with any genre because there wouldn't be enough power.

IOW you are talking about an equipment mismatch.

@asvjerry , I will admit that

There is at least one I can think of specifically who describes a great room and speakers that cost more than my entire system front to back.

was poorly constructed and could have easily been construed to mean other than what I intended it to mean. Someone could have read that and thought that I was saying that the individual’s speakers plus room cost more than my entire system. After seeing the pictures of his room, he may well have more into that than for what I could list this crappy little aluminum can on a slab that I call home.

What I should have typed was: "I can think of one individual who has a great room, and his speakers alone cost more than my entire system; I am aware that there are many others on this site who are also in that league but he is the only one who I can think of specifically at the moment."

And when I also typed that I would be better off not hearing the sound that he gets to hear, I was serious. And I told him as much. I’ve been rolling some tubes in my preamp and I recently found a combination that is just absolutely thrilling me. (I came by a pair of ’52 Sylvania "Bad Boys" 6SN7s and they are in for the balanced inputs in front of four JJs that I recently used to replace the EHs with. I do not know if the JJs are just starting to come alive at 50 hours, or it is all about those Sylvanias, but there is source material that is affecting me like it has not affected me in the past. I finished off my session last night by listening to two songs: Brandy Carlyle singing The Story and Eliza Gilkyson singing Borderline and I was moved nearly to tears.) However, my point is that: if I was to hear a pair of 30k speakers driven by the stuff he has in front of them in a GREAT room . . . I doubt that I could appreciate what I presently now perceive as a musical system.

On another note: although I was serious about my reaction to the last two songs I listened to last night, I was being totally tongue and cheek about gouging out my right eye. When/if the retina comes off of the back of that one I will then cross that bridge. A lot of things will definitely change in my life when/if that occurs, but a talking multimeter would mitigate some of the changes. But it still might not be enough for me to continue in this hobby.

@immatthewj ...in my college years, I knew Rebecca who was blind since birth. Although braille was her second language, not all books make it to being published in that fashion: college textbooks in particular at the time, and likely even now.

She was lucky to be chosen to receive a device that she could pass what we’d call now a ’lipstick’ camera, that was connected to a device that would ’translate’ the print into ’bumps’, much like braille’s raised patterns but a ’reconstruction’ of the copy....

She grew quickly into using it. *S* Wasn’t much good at pictures or diagrams at the time....but it was some 50 years ago.

Maybe not a VU meter, but a linear version of an LED display?

And, I'd bet, one that 'talks' may not be as inconceivable as thought..... ;) 

Worth the question if you follow through on that comment...

@immatthewj... *G*  Well, I took it to encompass 'systems', but I stand corrected.

And, no problem with that...  I'm personally happy with what I've amassed; not one to haunt the shows, I'll flip through the pages, and drill the sites to note the pulse of SOTA and the Sorta-SOTA..... ;)

In another forum, a gent comments on his 8K$ DAC; understanding that verbiage only hints at the IRL experience (and that of most, if not all) items of audiophilia of that nature and $ v. performance/experience, I'm actually disposed to pass on the exposure....wonderful as it may be.

In a similar vein, I can appreciate Ferraris', Lambos', and others; I'm a Lotus fan, but would still have to auction off too many body parts to join in....and the fact that anyone would want any part of my now aging frame ought to have a 'neck-up' exam prior to any deal.  Too much 'mileage', too much 'obscure fun'....

Too long of story, long enough in edit, I amuse myself enough with what and how I listen and my DIY pursuits. *S*  And all can enjoy theirs...

Todays' distraction @ noon EST:

...new copy of Basket of Light > The Pentangle *yay*

but in all good recordings you keep the eyes open , not close, because you are irresistibly convinced that you are there in the church where the organ played or you are persuaded that the organ is there in your room and your room begun to be a church...

I actually find that I enjoy my system more in the dark and with my eyes closed.  Fortunately for me, I have lost one retina and the remaining one is not all that good and my world is getting darker every day.  I am weighing the pros and cons of gouging my remaining eye out, as I am sure that would enhance my ability to hear and perceive "more musical," but I do have to take into consideration that I will not be able to adjust the biases on my amp unless I can get a meter that can talk to me.  I am not sure if they make such a meter, but in this day and age one would think that they might.

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

As i see it now after my experiments and this correspond to what you said when you said that you want to see the musicians more than hear them, is the fact that in an optimized acoustically controlled room with a minimally good system for sure and synergetical , the initial recording process of the performance, which recording implicate a trade-off set of choices by the recording engineer( location and type of the mics etc ) is now so well reproduced and translated by your system/room that now you "SEE" the instruments and musicians...

The way it was recorded make it possible and each albums is way different , but in all good recordings you keep the eyes open , not close, because you are irresistibly convinced that you are there in the church where the organ played or you are persuaded that the organ is there in your room and your room begun to be a church... That was my stunning impression and thats why for me acoustic is not the cherry on the system cake but more part of  the cake itself provide for sure the system is synergetical and as high quality enough ...

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

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

Most people dont enjoy this minimal level ...

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

.

"....at least one...." I can think of many....and the last sentence is likely shared by more than one that may consider that comment....

Well, yeah, @asvjerry , but what I actually typed at the time was:

There is at least one I can think of specifically who describes a great room and speakers that cost more than my entire system front to back.

and that is because although I know there are way more than one, I can only recall one who specifically spelled out the price of his speakers for me, and as I remember it was 30k+ and I said I can think of "at least one" (SPECIFICALLY) because his speakers were what I was thinking of at the time I was typing that, and when he originally told me that, I thought, "Whoooaaa!!! That’s like 10k and change more than my entire system lists for! I’d like to hear that!" And then I got to thinking, I’d really rather not hear that.

Anyway, sorry for the word choice, but as I was typing it, his was the set of speakers I was SPECIFICALLY thinking of (and in truth, the only set of speakers I can SPECIFICALLY think of that someone told me about costing more than my entire system) so it was technically accurate, and you did quote it somewhat out of context.

But if you wish to tell me how much your speakers cost, although I know there are many more, I will then SPECIFICALLY know of two.

"....at least one...."   I can think of many....and the last sentence is likely shared by more than one that may consider that comment....

We all strive to have the best we can manage...given our circumstances.

I wish all of us a good year, and better than that if at all possible.

Peace, out...

That’s cool. And somewhere near the end of all this you did offer up "improved transients and imaging and timbre" (which I assumed referred to a more accurate reproduction of timbre) and I said that this was concrete and that I could go along with all of that as making for a more pleasing and harmonious effect which would actually coincide with what Mirriam Webster’s definition was. And you may have missed it, but I did give you credit for that one.

@atmasphere , sorry that as fast as this was going I missed your post about your buddy who passed away. That was an interesting post. I guess I must have known the wrong crowd, because they would more likely have been listening to thrash-metal when they were brewing up some methamphetamine. Not that I ever personally knew anyone who ever did that, but if a lot of those guys would have had the know-how, I could have definitely seen them doing that.

Anyway, you also provided a definition of "more musical" as sounding like "real music" [Quotation marks are mine]. By "real music", do you mean as it sounds in the audience of a large colliseum or at the mixing board? Or do you mean as it sounds to the audience in an unamplified venue? Or do you mean the way it sounds in the studio when it is being recorded? I ask because I don’t know if I have ever been to an unamplified performance, and I’d go so far as to say that I actually prefer tehe SQ of my own system to the amplified performances I attended in large venues . . . that may be partially because I was in a pretty bad condition at a few of them, but I don’t think that it was the SQ we were going for. Even much later in life when I started going to what I consider more intimate venues (500 seats GA) the small bands and performers were amplified and it still was not the SQ I was going for . . . I wanted to see my favorite performers and/or groups perform more than I wanted to hear them perform. . . .

Thanks for your reply...

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

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

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

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

Then i apologize for my obsessive clarifications ...

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

I wish you the best ...

I don’t wish you any ill will or bad luck and I honestly would rather that you had a good year than a bad year. I think that if you are happy with the sonic results you have acheived, that is a good thing. I can be happy with mine; I also understand that there is a lot more out there. There is at least one I can think of specifically who describes a great room and speakers that cost more than my entire system front to back. I cannot have that and I am better off not hearing it, as it just might ruin (for me) what I do have.

You explicitly said that i babble and that i am a quack...

There is not much difference.. I forgot mindless paranoiac... Insults are insults nevermind the word choice..

Once again I will not accuse you lying (as you did to me) but I never referred to you , personally, as a quack--only all those doctors you kept referring to. You mentioned reading a lot of books, and that’s good, but after I was laid off in ’05 I made one of my bad life choices and retrained for a new career in health care; for that I took a couple of semesters of anatomy and physiology and a semester of micro and a lot more and I read a lot of books--but that never made me a brain surgeon. Babble? Maybe that is subject to the ears and eyes of the listener/reader. The way you were responding to certain posts I made that were not about you or directed at anyone, least of all you, was coming off as paranoid. And there is a difference: once upon a time, the term "idiot" was a clinical term that was used to describe a particular IQ. I do not recall referring to your IQ. Although I never said as much, I am assuming that you are not typing in your first language, and that, alone, is an acheivement beyond me.

When i spoke about immersiveness for example you call that babbling words even if you had no idea what is "immersiveness" experience in acoustic and how to perceive and control it ...

Isn’t "immersiveness" a synonym for something? But okay, I could have asked you to expound upon that. That doesn’t seem to be a bad term to describe how a system that is doing the right thing on a given night will bring the listener a pleasing and harmonious experience. But it too just might mean different things to different people; I am not sure . . . depending upon the context, without giving it undue thought, the word "immerse" does almost sound like an objective and active verb. So I’ll give you that one.

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

Again, I don’t believe that I referred to you, personally, as a quack. If you can find the post that I did, I will stand corrected, because I guess it is possible, but I don’t think so, and I am not going to go back and do the reading. "Pathetic" is a modifier I do not use all that often . . . I think there is an argument that it has different meanings in different context . . . I am relatively certain that I did not use it in this "discussion."

I am too serious... I should never had bother myself and others to answer to your tail race about "taste" but i am not perfect either ... 😊

I know for a fact that I have NEVER claimed to be perfect. I know that I am opening the door for push-back on this, but I believe that different gear appeals to different tastes, as does the sound of different musical instruments. Therefore, I still maintain that "more musical" may have different meanings to different listeners

.

I wish you really a good year...

With all there is in the world my passion for audio and acoustic is nothing very important save for me...😊

I don’t wish you any ill will or bad luck and I honestly would rather that you had a good year than a bad year. I think that if you are happy with the sonic results you have acheived, that is a good thing. I can be happy with mine; I also understand that there is a lot more out there. There is at least one I can think of specifically who describes a great room and speakers that cost more than my entire system front to back. I cannot have that and I am better off not hearing it, as it just might ruin (for me) what I do have.

You explicitly said that i babble and that i am a quack...

There is not much difference.. I forgot mindless paranoiac... Insults are insults nevermind the word choice..

Etc

Oh, and I am not going to accuse you of lying, but I never referred to you in this thread as an "idiot." The term "idiot" has not been used as a clinical description of the intellectually disabled/delayed for quite a while. The last I knew, MR was being broken down to mild, moderate, severe, and profound.

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

When i spoke about immersiveness for example you call that babbling words even if you had no idea what is "immersiveness" experience in acoustic and how to perceive and control it ...

And so on and so on ...

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

I am too serious... I should  never had bother myself and others  to answer to your tail race about "taste" but i am not perfect either ... 😊

Now i will stop...

I wish you really a good year...

With all there is in the world my passion for audio and acoustic is nothing very important save for me...😊

A said famously Anatole France , "Being called an idiot by an imbecile is a pleasure"...

Oh, and I am not going to accuse you of lying, but I never referred to you in this thread as an "idiot."  The term "idiot" has not been used as a clinical description of the intellectually disabled/delayed for quite a while.  The last I knew, MR was being broken down to mild, moderate, severe, and profound. 

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

😊

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as lying, you have attributed statements (about you) to me that I did not make about you.  I never considered that lying, just mindless paranoia.  I wasn't intentionally telling a lie; it was that I never did go through the entire thread to read all of your convoluted posts.  At the point at which I picked up on this thread you were telling someone that they were wrong about "more musical" meaning different things to different folks and that you were right.and that (and I am going to have to paraphrase, so if I am a tad off it is not an intentional lie) there was one concrete and objective answer to OP's question.  At that point I asked you for that objective concrete definition and for close to 24 hours of repeating this this cycle ("what is the definition of more musical?"  "Blah blah blah blah. . . .") over and over again, you finally came up with a tangible definition.  However, as I said a while back ago I am good with "pertaining to music" and "harmonious and enjoyable."

But no, I am not going to apologize to you--you have been insulting me for almost the past 24 hours and attributing statements to me that I never made and I honestly do not give a $h!t.  So now you want to throw a hissy fit about this?  Fine.  Go ahead.  I don't really give a $h!t about that either. 

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

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

You told everyone else that their perception/impression/definition of "more musical" was wrong and that you had the only concrete objective answer. But up until a few hours ago you would not produce that answer. I never said I was the only one who knows the answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you get it ?

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously? All you have done is to repeat yourself.

Your post dont need really an answer because it is mainly many insults for me no more mere misrereading , now that you recognize FINALLY without even saying it explicitly, that atmasphere argument about psychoacoustics use of second order harmonic distortion is useful, and that psychoacoustics define "musical" not taste

Oh my, but you are sensitive. Glass houses and pots who call kettles black. And what I said about Atmasphere’s answer was that at lleast it actually was an answer. I am good with "pertaining to music" what Mirriam Webster says about pleasing and harmonious and enjoyable.

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

But I read your stuff and it is funny! I cannot help myself!

Enjoy your "musical" system because it seens only you know what is "musical" ,

That’s not true. You told everyone else that their perception/impression/definition of "more musical" was wrong and that you had the only concrete objective answer. But up until a few hours ago you would not produce that answer. I never said I was the only one who knows the answer. I said that I think the answer is subjective and the term means different things to different people. I derive pleasure and enjoyment from what my system does, and that is all I, personally, need. I only wanted to know, since you said that everyone else was wrong, what your definition of right was. It was like pulling teeth.

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

Glass houses and pots talking to kettles again. You should laugh . . . it’s good for you.

So I am a troll because I asked you for your definition of "more musical" and until very recently you couldn’t do anything but concoct meaningless word-jumbo?

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

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

I believe that one’s choice of speakers and that the amp in front of those speakers will have an effect on how well it reproduces a certain genre of music

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

Put speakers and a good amp thats all ..

Are you serious?

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

Your post dont need really an answer because it is mainly many insults for me no more mere misrereading , now that you recognize FINALLY without even saying it explicitly, that atmasphere argument about psychoacoustics use of second order harmonic distortion is useful, and that psychoacoustics define "musical" not taste as said atmasphere in the beginning any other psychoacoustics facts by Dr, Choeuri about crosstalk in stereo system or anything about immersiveness by dr. Hans Gierlich is only babble talk for you ...

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

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

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

No worries!

In the end it's all about enjoying the hobby and the music itself. We all will have different ways to get that.

Cheers,

Greg

I have two tube amps, a Reisong A10 SET that puts out 6 watts a side and a Muzishare X7 push/pull which does 35 or 45 a side depending on the mode. Both will play to uncomfortable levels with efficient speakers if desired. What is an average metal head anyway? I don’t think one exists! :) All I know is I like it loud when the party is going but otherwise I sit and enjoy my music at reasonable levels.

Sorry about the average metal head comment.  I was going by the guys I hung with back in my head banging days and the metal guys who post here.  Not that there are many of them, but the posts that I have read from the ones that do do not seem to be interested in tubes.  As I remember, they were all talking about lots of SS stuff.  I prefer the sound of tubes my self, and I am currently listening to a Cary with a six EL34s per side.  It is switchable between 50 wpc of push-pull triode and 100 wpc of ultralinear.  I almost cannot remember the last time I had it in ultralinear, but my tastes have changed a lot since then.  It is not the only tube amp I have ever owned, and I am not sure it is the best sounding (but it's at least close) as prior to it I had a pair of ARC VTM120s that were serious rockers or could whisper sweet and quiet.  But their reliability (or lack thereof)  was a factor, and I used to cross my fingers and grit my teeth when I flipped the switches and I kept a soldering iron close by.  I still have my very first tube amp, a sweet little Cary SLA 70.  It was sweet but the sound was not as "big" and it was not as dynamic.  However, coupled with the right preamp, I would have described it as "musical."  "Harmonious and enjoyable to listen to." 

With all that last typed, and back to your SET, from all that I have read up until today low wpc SET would not be my choice if I liked meal and I liked it loud.  I am not saying that I do not believe you or Atmasphere, but I guess before I was convinced, I'd have to hear it for myself.  Which is one of those many things that probably will not happen in this life time.

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

Speaking of senile, I guess you forgot your own post.

"More musical" means an upgrade of gear or /and upgrade of room acoustics...

If you own atmasphere top amplifier for example which is designed in account of some psychoacoustics facts, then you may try to upgrade instead of his already TOP amplifier a low cost speakers to a better one ,

You acted as a troll in this thread willing to be one or not... And you put nowhere a single argument against atmasphere claim or against mine......

So I am a troll because I asked you for your definition of "more musical" and until very recently you couldn't do anything but concoct meaningless word-jumbo?  I asked Atmasphere what his definition of "more musical" was and he actually provided one without quoting a ton of meaningless bullsh!t.  I have no argument with that, except that I believe that one's choice of speakers and that the amp in front of those speakers will have an effect on how well it reproduces a certain genre of music.

I said multiple times that "musical" refer not to words as when you try to use the Webster Merriam dictionary to contradict me

In truth, contradicting you is way easier than going to Mirriam Webster.

You are not ashame to appear "empty" as a senile patient repeating "what means more musical" without end and repeating that we do not say nothing even when i refer to many acoustics concepts and many possible experiments.... At the end of this discussion as the troll you are you spew the truth : you dont mind and you dont care , your system room is musical for you thats enough...

I remember quite a while ago, someone compared you and your rants to a character in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest."  At the time, that was another post that made me laugh and I gave the poster of that one a "+100" and as I recall, you reacted badly to that as well.  Seriously though, what you have in common with an institutionalized mental patient is that you exist in a world of your own making that is contradicted by reality.  I was not the OP who asked the question: "what is meant by more musical" and until quite recently you couldn't even come close to providing an answer.  I had to continually tell you that your answers were nonsensical and to try again.  Hopefully the exercise was therapeutic for you.  It was a waste of my time because I am already happy with the musicality of my system.  I can sit back and enjoy what it reproduces.

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

Are you familiar with that old saying about those who live in glass houses?  Or the put calling the kettle black?

Do you get it ?

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

Hey, I appreciate!  Reading your stuff can be extremely entertaining.  You have made me laugh more than once today!  Keep up the good work!

@immatthewj

I have two tube amps, a Reisong A10 SET that puts out 6 watts a side and a Muzishare X7 push/pull which does 35 or 45 a side depending on the mode. Both will play to uncomfortable levels with efficient speakers if desired. What is an average metal head anyway? I don’t think one exists! :) All I know is I like it loud when the party is going but otherwise I sit and enjoy my music at reasonable levels.

I should also add that I have other higher powered SS amps also (Naim and Carver) but prefer the tube set up for metal and everything else for that matter.  

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

"Musical" in acoustics is not defined by deaf 50 years old rockers who dream to put walls of Jericho fall down again ...And doing this will put atmasphere tube amplifiers in the trash bin and will bought 5,000 watts amplifier to do so BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR TASTE ...

I assume you are referring to me?

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

By the way i never said that atmasphere amplifier are the only good design on the market... This is your usual misreading of my post...

What you said was, to paraphrase, that the definition of "more musical" was to upgrade gear or room acoustics, and if you had an Atmasphere amp, there is no need to upgrade that any further. If you want to dispute that, I can go back to that post that I am pretty sure I have in quotes (so you will be unable to delete it) and show it to you.

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

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

You get it ?

I get that until just within the last half dozen posts you could not provide any definition of "more musical" except for a bunch of mumbo-jumbo you seemed to concoct at will.

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

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

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

Psychoacoustics rule audio gear not the reverse...

Psychobabble rules the greater percentage of your posts.

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

buy a book ...

I have no need. I didn’t ask the question and I find the sound of my gear with good source material to be pleasing and harmonious.

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

you dont need to understand... Your crocodile taste is enough it seems ...other people are only "quack" who spew "babbles" .. You acted as a troll in this thread willing to be one or not... And you put nowhere a single argument against atmasphere claim or against mine......

You are not ashame to appear "empty" as a senile patient repeating "what means more musical" without end and repeating that we do not say nothing even when i refer to many acoustics concepts and many possible experiments.... At the end of this discussion as the troll you are you spew the truth : you dont mind and you dont care , your system room is musical for you thats enough...

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

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

Do you get it ?

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

@immatthewj that would only be because they didn't have the right (more efficient) speakers to go with it. So that would also mean that someone into classical wouldn't be satisfied either unless they got more efficient speakers as well.

@atmasphere  , although I have tried, classical is not my thing; but if it was and I wanted to hear The William Tell Overture (I hope I got that right) at what was a satisfying level, I wouldn't be looking at low powered SET stuff.  And I wouldn't be looking at the low powered SET stuff if I was into death metal either.  And most of the posts from the metal guys that do post here, seem like they are into the big SS stuff.  I am not saying that I don't think tubes can do metal, but I am saying that I don't think 15 wpc or less is going to do what the average metal guy wats it to do.

@atmasphere and @newfzx7

. . . and apparently by some SET standards, 14 or 15 wpc is a lot, as I keep reading about some of Dennis Had’s new stuff making less than 5 wpc? I DEFINITELY don’t think that would satisfy the average metal head.

@immatthewj that would only be because they didn't have the right (more efficient) speakers to go with it. So that would also mean that someone into classical wouldn't be satisfied either unless they got more efficient speakers as well.

Metal heads appreciate good sound like everyone else.

@atmasphere  , I am not saying that you did not have this experience; what I am saying is that 14 or 15 wpc of SET would not have done it for the metal heads I used to know.

@newfzx7 +1

When Rocky Mountain AudioFest was running I was regularly visited by a group of local metal heads at that show. I would play something for them and  they usually had some LP for me to hear as well. 

There was a reviewer who was also into metal who would also play faves of his in our room. Metal heads appreciate good sound like everyone else.

 Oops, I think that you may be the one that's wrong! I'm sitting here listening to Sacrifice (thrash from 1987) on tubes and high efficiency speakers, lol. Sounds glorious!

@newfzx7  , I did stipulate that this is what "I think", meaning that I could be wrong.  Are you using a SET amp and how many wpc does it put out and how loud do you do your thrash at?  The SET folks I have talked to (except for the ones with higher powered SET gear, such as the Cary 805s or 211s) tell me that they didn't go the route that they went because they wanted to reproduce loud music.

immatthewj said

 "@atmasphere , so you are saying that the thrash-metal guys would dig 14 wpc of SET with some high efficiency speakers? I think you are wrong. That crowd wants to rattle windows, shake the walls and piss off the neighbors. And that is how they define "more musical""

 Oops, I think that you may be the one that's wrong! I'm sitting here listening to Sacrifice (thrash from 1987) on tubes and high efficiency speakers, lol. Sounds glorious!

I think most metal heads appreciate great sounding gear, a lot metal does have more nuances that non metal fans realize.

"Musical" in acoustics is not defined by deaf 50 years old rockers who dream to put walls of Jericho fall down again ...And doing this will put atmasphere tube amplifiers in the trash bin and will bought 5,000 watts amplifier to do so BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR TASTE ...

I assume you are referring to me? I wish I could be fifty years old again. I am not deaf, but over the years I have suffered some hearing loss. I used to make a pretty good living working on jet engines while they were running and shooting rivets, and in retrospect, I should have worn better hearing protection. However, I can still hear when my gear is "getting ir right" or when there is a problem, or I wouldn’t go back there and listen to it for hours. Which I would be better served if I was doing now, instead of responding to mindless posts. As far as whether what the thrash-guys want to do with their systems is "more musical", you can argue whether that is musical with them--not me. I do not find that genre to meet the definition of "musical" that I am using.

By the way i never said that atmasphere amplifier are the only good design on the market... This is your usual misreading of my post...

What you said was, to paraphrase, that the definition of "more musical" was to upgrade gear or room acoustics, and if you had an Atmasphere amp, there is no need to upgrade that any further. If you want to dispute that, I can go back to that post that I am pretty sure I have in quotes (so you will be unable to delete it) and show it to you.

You get it ?

I get that until just within the last half dozen posts you could not provide any definition of "more musical" except for a bunch of mumbo-jumbo you seemed to concoct at will.

Psychoacoustics rule audio gear not the reverse...

Psychobabble rules the greater percentage of your posts.

buy a book ...

I have no need. I didn’t ask the question and I find the sound of my gear with good source material to be pleasing and harmonious.

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

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

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

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

@immatthewj What you think and the reality of metal dudes are two different things or maybe many different things. My best friend for years (Earl Root, RIP) pretty well founded the metal scene here in the Twin Cities so I’ve been to a lot of metal shows of all sorts.

An SET with high efficiency speakers would probably be quite pleasing to them if there were subs as well (most high efficiency speakers trade off efficiency for LF bandwidth unless the bass horn is very very large; most people don’t have room for that) because such can play quite loud. They aren’t interested in pissing off the neighbors because Bad Things happen; that’s different from someone being simply inconsiderate.

Earl owned our amps and preamp with Snell B loudspeakers right to his death.

Most of the people I’ve met in metal bands (a few of which I’ve opened for) were really nice. If you didn’t see their stage get up, you’d never know they played in a metal band. Earl told me that for the most part all metal is theater, so if you’re not laughing a lot and having a good time you probably don’t get it.

Earl also told me (he ran a record store; that is how I first met him) that the metal guys preferred vinyl because it could get the cymbals right. So he was careful to pick up the LP releases for his store whenever possible.

So what you’re saying doesn’t jive with how they define ’more musical’ IME...