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 $$ = more musicality?
if not , what is the formula for musicality?
fire away guys!
vintage_dog wrote:which is more important to you? accuracy/neutrality or musicality? of course, most folks would probably say both! but, what are you willing to compromise for the other?
so, what exactly is musicality? when is a system musical? on a scale of 1 to 10, where is your system?
more $$ = more musicality?
if not , what is the formula for musicality?
fire away guys!
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
I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland.
Woody Allen, US movie actor, comedian, & director
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”.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests