Musicality - what it means to you...

Solidstate (amps, preamps), Tweaks, Cables, New gear, etc...

Moderators: Hyperion, KD

Postby rascal101 » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:38 pm

There are so many different types of music for every taste and what really matters is what the artist or group wants to convey. Musicality should bypass the set-up because good music is still good music no matter what set-up it is. There should be no coloration or addition. Bad music should be heard for what it is. The set-up should not add to the input as it would be altering the truth. Music for what the signal source says not what I think or believe should be.
rascal101
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 5:05 pm

Postby tony » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:05 am

when i hear a system playing and my foot starts to tap, or when i feel my body shiver, then i know i am hearing something very musical.
User avatar
tony
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Pasig City....

Postby John Martin » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:08 am

For me, musicality is the smooth flow of notes from one to the other. I do not agree that you need to invest in very expensive gear to get a musical system. Its the matching that counts.
User avatar
John Martin
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:29 pm

Postby aquaduck » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:50 pm

Musicality is the state of listening to one's system that is coloured or finetuned to one's ear while playing an obviously fake simulation of a live,real and actual recording. It's
also the turning off the critical ability to hear sound characteristics of one's rig and opening one's heart to the emotion and magic of music.
Nung araw nanuod ka ng "STAR WARS", bilib na bilib ka sa mga lumilipad na "X-wing",
enjoy na enjoy ka kahit na obviously eh panay special effect kasi sinubukan mo yun
OB1 kenobi Mind Trick sa sarili mo na for 2 hours paniniwalaan ko yun movie na tutuo.
Meron mga kill-joy diyan sasabihin , naku pinagluluko niyo nlang sarili niyo eh panay fake yan
,di tutuo and he end up going home unhappy.
Ganun din sa pag appreciate ng music sa set-up natin, alam natin na walang banda sa harap
natin at iba ang tunog sa tutoo , sa piano pa lang huli na yan, a real piano vibrates and resonates. Hi-fi is designed not to do that. You'll hear remark, wow parang nasa harap mo si
Frank Sinatra and Female Singer B, (nun nirecord yun "duets" the singer's aren't even on the same continent. ) Obviously every set-up has coloration , every speakers have audible colouration. Iba -iba rin ang tunog ng mga amp., cd-payer, cartridges...
.The tubes are the fixed-type of colouration in hi-end system. meron nagsasabi malumanay ito, yun iba ito mataba ang tunog.
Recordings from the 50's
are remastered to sound good from the perspective of the mixer. Pinaganda niya ang tunog.
Ang sinasabi ko lang every system has audible colouration suited or finetuned to our listening preferences and therefore are innacurate. Achieving realism is a myth in audio, it doesn't exist. What exist is our willingness to enjoy music and remove our state of disbelief for a moment and the realization that no perfect audio set-up exist. Musicality---is when to Say "enough", let go and listen easy by opening your heart to the music.
User avatar
aquaduck
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:19 pm
Location: Makati, Philippines

Postby ichabod » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:17 pm

When what you hear pulls your heartstrings! That's music, the real one or the one that is simulated (as closely) to sound real!

"There is no musical experience without ecstasy" according to Glenn Gould, pianist. Anyone who doesn't get this from his audio system as well is out of touch with reality!
ichabod
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 9:09 am

Postby SoLiDtUbEs » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:14 pm

What happens when you listen to a good country song backwards? You get your job and wife back! Ask Kenny Rogers.

Now that's musicality to me in realtime :lol:
Actually it really only means something which is associated with the reproduction and appreciation of pleasant sounding music. At least that's what my oxford says hehe.
User avatar
SoLiDtUbEs
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Planet Audio

Re: Musicality - what it means to you...

Postby tony » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:49 pm

vintage_dog wrote:which is more important to you? accuracy/neutrality or musicality? of course, most folks would probably say both! but, what are you willing to compromise for the other?

so, what exactly is musicality? when is a system musical? on a scale of 1 to 10, where is your system?

more $$ = more musicality?

if not , what is the formula for musicality?

fire away guys!


pag tumayo balahibo ko sa braso sa narinig ko, pag napa tap ang paa ko sa sahig, or napaindak ako sa beat, then that is musicality to me... :D
User avatar
tony
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Pasig City....

Postby TheAnalogSource » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:17 pm

sir... add ko lang un napapalunok ka ng laway... :oops:
User avatar
TheAnalogSource
Where beautiful music begins
 
Posts: 7465
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:10 am
Location: THE ANALOG SOURCE

Postby quezon hill » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:18 pm

I can not endure a bright sounding system even for 20 min. but can listen for hours to a little laid back system. Musicality for me is when you enjoy the music with the right system.
quezon hill
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:02 am
Location: Baguio City

Postby kingkydoo » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:54 pm

As long as it makes me have goosebumps all over, musicality or accuracy doesn't matter to me. :D
kingkydoo
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:49 am

Postby drawde » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:24 pm

Accuracy and Musicality—the last word
 
by: Roy Harris (Audiophilia)


The two frequently-used criteria for assessing sound quality of stereo systems are accuracy of reproduction and accuracy of timbre, i.e., musicality. Musicality often implies subtractive coloration, while accuracy or neutrality implies fidelity to the source. For ease of communication, I will use the terms “accuracy” and “musicality”, when indicating accuracy of reproduction and accuracy of timbre, respectively.


Accuracy denotes reproduction of a recording without any errors, i.e., input=output. Musicality is an adjective meaning pertaining to music. The attributes of music include pitch, timbre and harmonics. A stereo system is musical when its output is timbrally correct. Thus, musicality does not always mean euphonic coloration, as many believe.


There are two salient differences between accurate and musical stereo systems. The reference for accuracy is the recording, while the reference for musicality is the performance itself. After a so-called accurate stereo system has been configured, its components do not vary with the sound of recordings. A so-called musical stereo system may alter the sound of a component(s) to offset errors in timbre introduced by recordings. A recording is an inexact representation of instrumental timbre. Some recordings are less inaccurate than others. Stereo systems are also imperfect. They are inaccurate in their rendering of the sound of instruments. Some stereo systems are more inaccurate signal transmitters than others and some stereo systems are more timbrally inaccurate than others.


Selecting recordings which vary in sound quality is the best way to expose sonic signatures and reveal differences in performance between stereo systems. Judging the merits of stereo systems is problematical. The reference is not available. It is not possible to know what a recording sounds like and there is usually no opportunity to be present at a recording session. Further, the methodology for calculating inaccuracy scores does not exist. The variables to measure, measurement techniques and a computation algorithm, equation, or formula, have never been specified. Thus, it is impossible to obtain a valid index or quantification score of the inaccuracy of stereo systems.


It is possible to observe resolution. Although it may serve as a proxy for accuracy of reproduction, it is not the same. The most resolving stereo system may err in other ways and be concurrently inaccurate and resolving of information. The explanation is based upon simple logic. If a stereo system is accurate (A) then it is highly resolving (R), is not equivalent to: If R then A

Stereo systems are usually evaluated subjectively, based upon inductive reasoning. The term “accurate” is often applied to stereo systems having high levels of resolution and levels of coloration which are minimal, barely audible or inaudible. An appropriate term for such a designation should be virtually accurate, as coloration exists, even if not noticeable. When assessing timbral accuracy, the output of a stereo system is usually not compared to a live performance. Instead, the output is compared to a recollection of the sound of instruments. Listeners who have attended many live concerts in a variety of settings have stored in memory an impression of the sound of instruments. The actual sound of an instrument depends upon the room acoustics and a listener’s seating position. It is likely that the sound of an instrument one would hear at a recording venue will differ from perceptions and memories of sounds that were observed at venues other than where the recording occurred.


The term “musical” might be applied to stereo systems whose presentation of timbre coincides closely with one’s stored memory of instrumental timbre. The variation in recording quality of CDs and LPs makes such a task more difficult. A stereo system without a variable component, such as an equalizer or vacuum tube, would often not sound “musical”. It is expected that a hobbyist desiring to configure a musical system would deliberately try to compensate for variations in recording quality by incorporating a device or component which could alter the sound of a stereo system. Without such a component, the term musical would be highly source dependent. In some cases, the best effort to compensate for recording quality is insufficient to overcome severe distortions of instrumental timbre. That is, for certain sources, no stereo system would be considered musical. A stereo system considered virtually accurate would not compensate for recording quality. The purpose of a virtually accurate system is to facilitate variations in recording quality. It is obvious, therefore, that a so-called musical system is designed to minimize the differences in the sound quality of sources, to reduce timbral inaccuracy, whereas a so-called virtually accurate stereo system is designed to maximize differences in the recording quality of sources. Note, if one goes too far in either direction, it is possible that the stereo system will become more inaccurate, producing a level of coloration which is audible. With respect to virtually accurate systems, a stereo system which (over)emphasizes differences in recording quality may be described as sounding “analytical”. In the case of musical systems, the analogous result may be described as overly euphonic.


Those who adhere to the premise that the purpose of a stereo system is accuracy of signal transmission may assert that a stereo system can be faithful to a source and yet sound “musical”, if a recording preserves the integrity of instrumental timbre. Indeed, the differences between so-called virtually accurate and virtually musical depend upon the sound quality of recordings. Careful selection of sources may render the task of distinguishing one type from another difficult to almost impossible. If a small sample of the very best recordings is used to evaluate stereo systems, the distinction between virtually accurate and virtually musical may be academic.Thus, it is possible that stereo systems may be considered virtually accurate and virtually musical, for a given set of sources.

Further Thoughts

The universe of stereo systems, includes those designated virtually accurate (VA), virtually musical (VM), and neither virtually accurate nor virtually musical. When considering VA and VM stereo systems, are these designations reliable? The criterion for classifying a stereo system VA is minimal or inaudible coloration. This judgment is threshold based.. The level of coloration associated with membership into this group cannot be measured, is not known and will vary from listener to listener. The acuity of perception will affect the rate of error accompanying this process.


A listener evaluating a stereo system more than once should be consistent in his/her judgment. The difference between noticing or failing to notice a sonic signature may rest upon barely perceptible differences. Hence, it is possible that on a given occasion, coloration is noticed, while at another listening session it is not observed. When a stereo system is evaluated by several listeners, the judgments should be the same. In my opinion, given the independent variables of perception and sources, there will be disagreement among listeners, and a listener’s pattern of judgments, based upon potential reevaluations of a stereo system over time will also be inconsistent.


The criterion for classifying a stereo system as VM is more nebulous than that used to determine VA. Let’s see why.


In this instance, the VM criterion is satisfied when a listener believes a stereo system sounds minimally inaccurate with respect to timbre. The basis for perceiving inaccuracy is exposure to live music and the memory of such experiences. The threshold of inaccuracy which determines membership into this group cannot be measured and is not known. A comparison between memory and what is heard from a pair of speakers is a more difficult task and more likely to yield errors than noting the absence of coloration. Individuals are likely to differ with respect to concepts of timbre, perception and inaccuracy thresholds. In addition, a listener may not be consistent in his/her judgments over time, due to instability of memory and variations in aural acuity. Clearly, this is another example of an unreliable judgment.


Now, consider this: Do all VA stereo systems sound the same? Do all VM stereo systems sound the same? If all VA stereo systems sound the same and/or if all VM stereo systems sound the same, there is no problem. However, if differences between VA and/or VM stereo systems are detected, there exists a contradiction. I will bet that experienced listeners can hear differences between two stereo systems which are VA or VM, if the appropriate sources are provided.

In view of the many issues and questions associated with the application of the criteria for virtual accuracy and virtual musicality, it is best not to use these adjectives to describe the sound of stereo systems. It is suggested that facts are offered in lieu of adjectives to describe the sound of a stereo system. For example, the statement:


“The sound was balanced in frequency response, with all musical detail presented”, is preferable to:


“The stereo system was virtually accurate”.
drawde
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:31 pm

Re: Musicality - what it means to you...

Postby JAA » Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:09 am

vintage_dog wrote:which is more important to you? accuracy/neutrality or musicality? of course, most folks would probably say both! but, what are you willing to compromise for the other?

so, what exactly is musicality? when is a system musical? on a scale of 1 to 10, where is your system?

more $$ = more musicality?

if not , what is the formula for musicality?

fire away guys!


Not all audio experts agree with the overly exploited term MUSICAL in describing an audio system.

We all have different perception in listening. Only an appropriate measuring equipment can quantify the target output parameter of component.

If a group of audiophiles visit an audiologist and have their ears checked with an audiometer, I'll bet they'll all have diffferent response curve!

From my modestly acquired knowledge, a better system must be able to:

1.) Reproduce low level information faithfully (echo, distant backround
instruments, breathings, etc.).

2.) Immediacy! (speed)

These would bring presence and livelyness as in you are in there perception. :)

Ref: Arthur Salvatore (http://www.high-endaudio.com). This is my
e-audio bible. :)
User avatar
JAA
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: BIGLANG LIKOt ang pag-iisip

Postby JackD201 » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:24 pm

I've been giving this topic some thought recently. Maybe some of it philosophical but still congruent with my earlier posts in this same thread. Over the years Keith and I have become known by some as envelope pushers, or "futurists" and to some unabashedly unaffected by "audiophile" conventions when it comes to system building.

Tubes, Analog Solid State, Digital Solid State, Hybrid we've pretty much done them all. Planars, Dynamics, what have you. Some have even said upon hearing these systems "daya" daw because there is an extra tweeter out back or it has good bass because it has solid state sections, or "daya" because some of our models of speakers have attenuator knobs. Needless to say if I found an EQ that didn't introduce too much phase shift, I would have no qualms whatsoever in employing one if it would make the system sound better. I've sat on the floor because the pair of speakers in that particular room sounded better from that position. Daya? I don't think so. It is either good sounding to the listener or not. It is either musically communicative or not. If the answer is YES to both then I couldn't really care one way or the other whether the music was being played from a cow with its tail plugged into a socket. That socket doesn't even have to be a dedicated line :lol:

So why the bold on the word sound? Aaah I think I'm getting close to the point I want to make. Again, this statement may be construed as sacrilege towards the audiophile tradition. But before the ultra traditionalists stone me, I beg hear my arguments out.

To my mind, No piece of audio equipment or any part of it is musical in and of itself. Not a favorite tube, cap, tranny, silver wire, copper wire, under wire bra, tube trap, tweeter, woofer or anything else is "musical". You know what? Not even musical instruments are inherently musical. Music is a product of an individual whether purely personal or meant to be shared. Musicality is the product of people and their effect on other people, not the medium in which it is passed on.

What I'm saying is people make music and it is only musical to the other guy if the other guy who hears it likes it or recognizes it as music whether he likes it or not :lol:. Otherwise, to that person it is noise.

What musical instruments and audio equipment make is not music. It is sound. Whatever your slant might be, be you vintage or space age, vinyl or digital, tube or solid state, no matter if you are satisfied or dissatisfied with what you've got, when you play a burn in disc, frequency sweeps, pink or white noise. That system is not being "musical". It is however making sound.

So while for example I prefer original WE300Bs to Reissued WE300Bs, V-caps over AN Silvers, Single Ended Zero Feedback topologies over Push-Pull in general, it isn't because I think they are more musical. It is just because I think the sound they put out is better overall. These things on the list have helped me connect with the music making the reproduced sound sound musical to me but they may not make the music musical to somebody else. There's that subjective thing again :lol:

So to answer the question again a couple of years later and hopefully a bit richer in experience, musicality is THE most important part when building a system. However it is because musicality is the GOAL to begin with. Choosing equipment to achieve that goal is not done on the basis of an inherently "musical" nature of any component but rather on specific sonic target attributes.

So what "sound" do I push for with regards to serious "listening time"? The performance and the recording thereof and the playback medium has to have the following:

1. Tonal Accuracy
2. Dynamic Range
3. Wide Dispersion with linear off axis response
4. Harmonics as complete as possible regardless of relative SPL
5. Transient speed
6. Controlled Sustains
7. Untruncated decays

and lastly and depending on how you look at it perhaps the most ironic

8. Silence - because there is nothing that can make my hair stand better than the inflections and nuances in abundance in a room and system with a very low noise floor.

I feel all these sonic attributes must be present to some substantial degree to pass on the performance to me. Why? Because if one of them were sorely compromised I'd probably be distracted into listening to the sound and not to the music playing. If I got caught up in the warmth or the pace or the clarity or the soundstage that means I am not caught up in the music no matter how much I may try to pat myself on the back.

To others musicality means lush or colored. I say it is a term abused by the audiophile press and is dangerous because it has limited "musical" equipment into a category that downplays attributes like PRAT and detail that are as important to the achievement of musicality, as I understand it and I hope as more people do/will understand it as well.

But hey, that's just me.
User avatar
JackD201
Immortal
 
Posts: 10024
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:10 am
Location: Bozania

Postby accastil » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:58 pm

sabi nga ng tatay ko...."if its not harmonious, its noise, not music"

the timing, intensity, repetition of many different kind of sounds coming from many different kind of instruments could sound either pleasing or irritating to a listener. whether it is accurately reproduced or intentionaly "colored", the "musicality" belies on how the listener's brain is interpreting the overall harmony of all these sounds put together.

....i remember those times when i used to "headbang" along with Slayer, Anthrax, and Megadeth music as my lola would shout at me looking as if im losing my mind listening to such noise ...things have changed.
accastil
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:47 pm
Location: cabuyao laguna

Postby godspell » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:11 pm

Musicality or the quality of being musical depends on each individual. In my own perspective, musicality is when the system plays natural. I mean, when you listen to the system and close your eyes, you can visualize the vocalist, and musicians on their respective places and hears the details of what they are doing on the time of recording (i.e hearing their breathing, the opening of the singer's lips etc.). The system must produce a natural and warm sounding. Thus, the system should not produce smooth sounding, if the music is rough sounding or vice versa.

My system on the other hand, is only 7.5 (if 10 is the highest). :)
User avatar
godspell
Citizen
Citizen
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:17 am
Location: Pilipinas

Postby dimfer » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:16 pm

So what "sound" do I push for with regards to serious "listening time"? The performance and the recording thereof and the playback medium has to have the following:

1. Tonal Accuracy
2. Dynamic Range
3. Wide Dispersion with linear off axis response
4. Harmonics as complete as possible regardless of relative SPL
5. Transient speed
6. Controlled Sustains
7. Untruncated decays
8. Silence - because there is nothing that can make my hair stand better than the inflections and nuances in abundance in a room and system with a very low noise floor


Jack, only one thing came to my mind while reading this post - I think you like the ML3 :twisted:
Last edited by dimfer on Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
dimfer
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 2428
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:33 pm
Location: Bozania

Postby JackD201 » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:09 am

Unfortunately "Like" and "Afford" are very different things Pare! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
JackD201
Immortal
 
Posts: 10024
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:10 am
Location: Bozania

Re: Musicality - what it means to you...

Postby egay » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:35 pm

Musicality
I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland.
Woody Allen, US movie actor, comedian, & director


musicality is when one does not mind the equipment or the settings.
it is when one's senses are engaged and makes him/her do "something" - go to war, make peace, make love, relax, move about at a certain pace, stop thinking, smile, cry - just be "in the music"...

it is when i'd sing with the singer, not like the karaoke singing, but "try to feel" what the singer feels.
it is when i'd feel well or right, just like when King Saul was sick and made well when David played music.

it does not matter where i am listening - all i "mind" is the music, and i am lost for a while.

i think audiophiles should be music-lovers first to judge and enjoy the musicality of their system.

my thoughts.
.e.

Oopps: only well thought-out systems and fine materials can convey "musicality" - AND THEN one does not "think" about them anymore, just the music :!:
User avatar
egay
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Quezon City

Re: Musicality - what it means to you...

Postby lec agner » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:29 pm

greetings,

for me musicallity means " SMART "

S- simplicity
M- manegable
A- artistic
R- relaxed
T - time bound

it depends who"s listening...........just like making a computation/ leveling the signal-to-noise ratio
User avatar
lec agner
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:22 am
Location: Quezon City

Re:

Postby egay » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:57 am

drawde wrote:Accuracy and Musicality—the last word
 
by: Roy Harris (Audiophilia)


The two frequently-used criteria for assessing sound quality of stereo systems are accuracy of reproduction and accuracy of timbre, i.e., musicality. Musicality often implies subtractive coloration, while accuracy or neutrality implies fidelity to the source. For ease of communication, I will use the terms “accuracy” and “musicality”, when indicating accuracy of reproduction and accuracy of timbre, respectively.


Accuracy denotes reproduction of a recording without any errors, i.e., input=output. Musicality is an adjective meaning pertaining to music. The attributes of music include pitch, timbre and harmonics. A stereo system is musical when its output is timbrally correct. Thus, musicality does not always mean euphonic coloration, as many believe.


There are two salient differences between accurate and musical stereo systems. The reference for accuracy is the recording, while the reference for musicality is the performance itself. After a so-called accurate stereo system has been configured, its components do not vary with the sound of recordings. A so-called musical stereo system may alter the sound of a component(s) to offset errors in timbre introduced by recordings. A recording is an inexact representation of instrumental timbre. Some recordings are less inaccurate than others. Stereo systems are also imperfect. They are inaccurate in their rendering of the sound of instruments. Some stereo systems are more inaccurate signal transmitters than others and some stereo systems are more timbrally inaccurate than others.


Selecting recordings which vary in sound quality is the best way to expose sonic signatures and reveal differences in performance between stereo systems. Judging the merits of stereo systems is problematical. The reference is not available. It is not possible to know what a recording sounds like and there is usually no opportunity to be present at a recording session. Further, the methodology for calculating inaccuracy scores does not exist. The variables to measure, measurement techniques and a computation algorithm, equation, or formula, have never been specified. Thus, it is impossible to obtain a valid index or quantification score of the inaccuracy of stereo systems.


It is possible to observe resolution. Although it may serve as a proxy for accuracy of reproduction, it is not the same. The most resolving stereo system may err in other ways and be concurrently inaccurate and resolving of information. The explanation is based upon simple logic. If a stereo system is accurate (A) then it is highly resolving (R), is not equivalent to: If R then A

Stereo systems are usually evaluated subjectively, based upon inductive reasoning. The term “accurate” is often applied to stereo systems having high levels of resolution and levels of coloration which are minimal, barely audible or inaudible. An appropriate term for such a designation should be virtually accurate, as coloration exists, even if not noticeable. When assessing timbral accuracy, the output of a stereo system is usually not compared to a live performance. Instead, the output is compared to a recollection of the sound of instruments. Listeners who have attended many live concerts in a variety of settings have stored in memory an impression of the sound of instruments. The actual sound of an instrument depends upon the room acoustics and a listener’s seating position. It is likely that the sound of an instrument one would hear at a recording venue will differ from perceptions and memories of sounds that were observed at venues other than where the recording occurred.


The term “musical” might be applied to stereo systems whose presentation of timbre coincides closely with one’s stored memory of instrumental timbre. The variation in recording quality of CDs and LPs makes such a task more difficult. A stereo system without a variable component, such as an equalizer or vacuum tube, would often not sound “musical”. It is expected that a hobbyist desiring to configure a musical system would deliberately try to compensate for variations in recording quality by incorporating a device or component which could alter the sound of a stereo system. Without such a component, the term musical would be highly source dependent. In some cases, the best effort to compensate for recording quality is insufficient to overcome severe distortions of instrumental timbre. That is, for certain sources, no stereo system would be considered musical. A stereo system considered virtually accurate would not compensate for recording quality. The purpose of a virtually accurate system is to facilitate variations in recording quality. It is obvious, therefore, that a so-called musical system is designed to minimize the differences in the sound quality of sources, to reduce timbral inaccuracy, whereas a so-called virtually accurate stereo system is designed to maximize differences in the recording quality of sources. Note, if one goes too far in either direction, it is possible that the stereo system will become more inaccurate, producing a level of coloration which is audible. With respect to virtually accurate systems, a stereo system which (over)emphasizes differences in recording quality may be described as sounding “analytical”. In the case of musical systems, the analogous result may be described as overly euphonic.


Those who adhere to the premise that the purpose of a stereo system is accuracy of signal transmission may assert that a stereo system can be faithful to a source and yet sound “musical”, if a recording preserves the integrity of instrumental timbre. Indeed, the differences between so-called virtually accurate and virtually musical depend upon the sound quality of recordings. Careful selection of sources may render the task of distinguishing one type from another difficult to almost impossible. If a small sample of the very best recordings is used to evaluate stereo systems, the distinction between virtually accurate and virtually musical may be academic.Thus, it is possible that stereo systems may be considered virtually accurate and virtually musical, for a given set of sources.

Further Thoughts

The universe of stereo systems, includes those designated virtually accurate (VA), virtually musical (VM), and neither virtually accurate nor virtually musical. When considering VA and VM stereo systems, are these designations reliable? The criterion for classifying a stereo system VA is minimal or inaudible coloration. This judgment is threshold based.. The level of coloration associated with membership into this group cannot be measured, is not known and will vary from listener to listener. The acuity of perception will affect the rate of error accompanying this process.


A listener evaluating a stereo system more than once should be consistent in his/her judgment. The difference between noticing or failing to notice a sonic signature may rest upon barely perceptible differences. Hence, it is possible that on a given occasion, coloration is noticed, while at another listening session it is not observed. When a stereo system is evaluated by several listeners, the judgments should be the same. In my opinion, given the independent variables of perception and sources, there will be disagreement among listeners, and a listener’s pattern of judgments, based upon potential reevaluations of a stereo system over time will also be inconsistent.


The criterion for classifying a stereo system as VM is more nebulous than that used to determine VA. Let’s see why.


In this instance, the VM criterion is satisfied when a listener believes a stereo system sounds minimally inaccurate with respect to timbre. The basis for perceiving inaccuracy is exposure to live music and the memory of such experiences. The threshold of inaccuracy which determines membership into this group cannot be measured and is not known. A comparison between memory and what is heard from a pair of speakers is a more difficult task and more likely to yield errors than noting the absence of coloration. Individuals are likely to differ with respect to concepts of timbre, perception and inaccuracy thresholds. In addition, a listener may not be consistent in his/her judgments over time, due to instability of memory and variations in aural acuity. Clearly, this is another example of an unreliable judgment.


Now, consider this: Do all VA stereo systems sound the same? Do all VM stereo systems sound the same? If all VA stereo systems sound the same and/or if all VM stereo systems sound the same, there is no problem. However, if differences between VA and/or VM stereo systems are detected, there exists a contradiction. I will bet that experienced listeners can hear differences between two stereo systems which are VA or VM, if the appropriate sources are provided.

In view of the many issues and questions associated with the application of the criteria for virtual accuracy and virtual musicality, it is best not to use these adjectives to describe the sound of stereo systems. It is suggested that facts are offered in lieu of adjectives to describe the sound of a stereo system. For example, the statement:


“The sound was balanced in frequency response, with all musical detail presented”, is preferable to:


“The stereo system was virtually accurate”.


that's what he thought and said... so what's yours? :?:

do we assume then that you share his thoughts?

i'm afraid this is simply so many words but virtually saying "there's no such thing".

:drunk:
User avatar
egay
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Quezon City

PreviousNext

Return to General Audio

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron