Accuracy versus Musicality

[Ajani]

A recent post about the Sony PS1 and its review in Stereophile got me thinking about Musicality and Accuracy. To sum up the Stereophile review: The PS1 sounded very smooth and sounded shockingly good given both its price and its miserable measured performance. So essentially, the PS1 sounds good but is not even remotely accurate.

So which is more important to you, Accuracy or Musicality? Let me start by defining both:

Accuracy: The system replays the music as true to the recording as possible, resulting in maximum detail retrieval. Your well recorded albums will sound good and your not so well recorded ones will sound awful.

Musicality: The system does not paint the most accurate picture, as it tends to gloss over imperfections... hence everything sounds good and butter smooth... but you know that the system is not being faithful to the recording...

So would you:

A) Buy a system that rendered most of your poorly recorded albums unlistenable and choose to upgrade your album collection/musical tastes to audiophile quality recordings only.

OR

B) Buy a system that makes all your music sound good, because you have no intention of changing your musical tastes/albums to fit the system.

Feel free to add an option C or D (if you must)...

[Feanor]

...

So would you:

A) Buy a system that rendered most of your poorly recorded albums unlistenable and choose to upgrade your album collection/musical tastes to audiophile quality recordings only.

OR

B) Buy a system that makes all your music sound good, because you have no intention of changing your musical tastes/albums to fit the system.

...

I go 'B' because it would be both difficult and expensive to replace all my recordings with only best sounding ones.

However I do believe that the very best recordings don't need any help from euphonic but less that completely accurate equipment or medium. I strongly suspect that tubes and vinyl are things add euphonia but substract accuracy -- of course plenty of peoples will disagree.

My current tube preamp + tubey-sounding s/s amp are better with 80% of recordings but they are the lessor quality recordings.

[musicoverall]

...an accurate system would always be musical and vice versa. Obviously, different recording techniques help keep the world an imperfect place.

As I am one who believes that measurements do not tell the whole story of why a component sounds as it does, I do not trust the measurements we do know to explain "accuracy". Indeed, I can't say that a system is reproducing a recording accurately unless I compare it to the master tape. Since I don't have access to those tapes, I don't worry much about accuracy.

As an aside, the reproduction is about (or should be about) the music. If a system serves the recording but not the music, it is probably not giving the listener what he wants. The music is for my personal enjoyment and consequently, I want my system to do the best job it can of giving me goose bumps.

That said, it should be noted that people have been reduced to tears by recorded music for nearly a century, and much of it was far from accurate reproduction. Whether the systems of the day were doing an accurate job of reproducing what was on the 78 RPM record, I can't say. Nor do I care.

[musicoverall]

A recent post about the Sony PS1 and its review in Stereophile got me thinking about Musicality and Accuracy. To sum up the Stereophile review: The PS1 sounded very smooth and sounded shockingly good given both its price and its miserable measured performance. So essentially, the PS1 sounds good but is not even remotely accurate.


Do you see why I'm not overly trusting of measurements? :)

[Ajani]

Do you see why I'm not overly trusting of measurements? :)

:) I find measurements interesting (much like reviews)... but I don't place much wieght on them...

I totally forgot to give my opinion on Accuracy versus Muscality, so here goes:

Musicality all the way!!! My primary love is music... equipment is secondary and is really there to make my music more enjoyable... Whether I am hearing the most accurate reproduction of the original recording is not a big deal to me... Since, even if I was hearing a 100% reproduction, I'd never know anyway since I don't work in a recording studio.

[Ajani]

I strongly suspect that tubes and vinyl are things add euphonia but substract accuracy -- of course plenty of peoples will disagree.

Despite my limited experience with tubes and vinyl, I suspect the same thing... the best setup I've heard used a hybrid integrated amp (Tubes in the preamp section)... The setup made every track I played sound sweet, regardless of the fact that many of the tracks were not high quality recordings...

[Asterix77]

I defenitely choose musicality. To me it's all about the music and though well recorded music improves the pleasure of listening I rather choose great music over a great recording. (both is best of course)

[Brett A]

I like detailed musicality.

Musicality is paramount and detail resolution is one of my favorite system attributes.

.

[GMichael]

After reading through this thread I'm surprised that we don't all own Bose systems.

[Groundbeef]

After reading through this thread I'm surprised that we don't all own Bose systems.

Most of us don't. But how do you like yours?

[Asterix77]

After reading through this thread I'm surprised that we don't all own Bose systems.

Maybe we all do....we just don't dare to admit it :ciappa:

[Ajani]

After reading through this thread I'm surprised that we don't all own Bose systems.

Ummm... which one is Bose??? Musicality or Accuracy??? :ciappa:

[GMichael]

Ummm... which one is Bose??? Musicality or Accuracy??? :ciappa:

Neither?

[Auricauricle]

I have always been in favor of musicality, but to have the leisure of producing such "euphonious" tones (excuse me Feanor), the recording must be of a pleasing quality and the instrument must be capable of reading the information and reproducing it. This opens up a whole can of worms because recordings are either recorded poorly or the engineer in the control booth experienced the sound quite differently than many consumers who will buy the product.

In the eighties, when the CD was let loose (beast!), there was a plethora of very eagerly awaited for, yet shabby recordings. Who remembers the first release of "Aqualung"? Other manufacturers were more canny, and exploited the medium quite bombastically. Can anyone recall Telarc's "Star Tracks"? Thankfully, there were those canny enough to know the potential of the medium and produced very good recordings quite early. Philips was one such example.

On the other pole of the equation, the equipment manufacturers were aware of the CD, but unless you were willing to spend a few bucks extra, you usually wound up succumbing to the Circuit City Syndrome: acquiring something very loud, but not really that wonderful when really tested. Higher end equipment was up to the task, but it wasn't until things had settled down for awhile, that subtlety crept back in and was marketed with much gusto.

You will note that in my profile, there are quite a number of pieces of gear. I bought many of these out of love for the product (the Beocord, e.g.), but there are a number of processors that may appear worrisome at best. In fact, I anticipate quite a lot of hue and cry about this occurence, but I contend that while manufacturers do their best to produce some equipment that should stand alone, there will always be inherent quirks and shortcomings that will never allow any manufacturer to produce the "perfect" component.

The argument that more equipment increases the odds of introducing increasing distortion to the signal path is a valid one and should be addressed at this point. While this caveat has some merit, it is also true that if the interfering equipment is of sufficient quality and if that equipment is used judiciously, the resulting Noise" should be kept to a minimum and produce a sound that is pleasing to the ear.

I know this after much experience in buying and listening to equipment. As an example, I went through about 3 or 4 equalizers made by ADC and BSR until I settled on a dbx
10/20. One may consider the dbx an extravagance, but the ADC's and BSR's were "too noisy"; the dbx was drop-a-needle-on-the-floor-and-hear-it quiet. I listen to music seriously, maybe too seriously, and am very quick to find something electronic, process-oriented, or performance oriented that is displeasing, and so far, I have managed to acquire the goods that will help me achieve my ultimate goals: euphonic rapture....

AND WORLD DOMINATION!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

[Auricauricle]

After reading through this thread I'm surprised that we don't all own Bose systems.
Play nice, GM.....It's not the size of the speakers, ya know...:rolleyes:

[bobsticks]

My room is not an anechoic chamber so it's a moot point...or maybe a mute point.

I spend alot of dosh on music so I'd like to listen to it. All of it.

[emaidel]

I think one of the best examples of how accuracy took precedence over musicality was the manner in which Consumer Reports customarily tested loudspeakers. Not surprisingly, AR speakers (back in the 60's through the 80's) took top place in the rankings. While the AR-3, or the 2ax are "legends" from their time, almost no one in the business could stand them due to their decidedly "lackluster" character. They tested well, but didn't sound, well, musical.

In the early 80's, I was working for ESS and Consumer Reports, in a test of "expensive" loudspeakers, rated the ESS AMT-1b second in its listings (a Marantz Imperial something or other took first spot). While we took advantage of the fact the 1b was rated so highly by Consumer Reports, most of us in the sales department of ESS at the time owned speakers other than ESS speakers, myself included. I could have had a pair of 1b's for nothing, but I didn't take them because I preferred the very same pair of Dahlquist DQ-10's that I'm using to this very day. According to Consumer Reports, the ESS-1b was a more "accurate" loudspeaker than the DQ-10, which fared rather poorlly in their ratings.

Therefore, as accuracy was CU's primary interest, the 1b was a better speaker than the DQ-10. So, was it? Certainly not to my ears, or to many other audio enthusiasts. So much for accuracy...

[emesbee]

Well, in the end its all about the music for me, so it has to be musicality. No matter how esoteric the equipment, in the end its purpose is to reproduce music to a standard that is pleasing to my ears.

[Auricauricle]

...Therefore, as accuracy was CU's primary interest, the 1b was a better speaker than the DQ-10. So, was it? Certainly not to my ears, or to many other audio enthusiasts. So much for accuracy...

Again, I think accuracy is important, but there has to be a compromise between the two, call it "accusicality" if you like, so that while the resolution of material is gained, the beauty of the production is revealed. Unfortunately, as pointed out by the "Aqualung" example, if the source is compromised, an accurate output source will reveal everything: warts, pimples and boils....This is where processing comes in: to refine those "beauty marks" and produce something that's more pleasing. Some recordings are simply horrid, nevertheless, and one has to simply be happy with what one has or the whole lot has to be re-recorded or the master's has to be redone. This, I hear, is what Guthrie did when the SACD release of PF's Dark Side of the Moon came out. As masterful a job Alan Parson's did, there were limitations inherent with the extant technology and personal hearing preferences that constrained AP to produce only what he was capable of and what pleased him. Guthrie knew that that things could be improved and that he had his own preferences--and probably a lot of feedback from fans that indicated what they would have liked to accentuate and deemphasize--and came out with the disc accordingly.

Unfortunately or fortunately this whole issue addresses what this whole enterprise, Audiophilia, is all about. After everything is on the table one realizes it's all about diminishing returns and asymptotic curves...

BTW: You're a neighbor: I grew up in the big city of Newberry....

PS: You may know a cousin of mine, what with your experience and location: Marshall Chapman.

PPS: As long as you're electronically inclined (you are?): I have a dbx DNR that starts clicking off after it gets warmed up. After a while, when the pots that adjust expansion and transitional levels are turned up a few notches, the gain must be such that the unit is overwhelmed and it clicks off and has to be reset by turning it off and back on and the pots have to be cranked down to nearly inaudible levels. Do you know if you, or anyone in the surrounding area can open the unit and see if there's a sensitive resistor or some diode that's wimping out? Locally, the electronic shops either shy away from the task or are so embedded in the digital domain that they haven't a clue.

Thanks in advance...

[Auricauricle]

...I spend alot of dosh on music so I'd like to listen to it. All of it.

You can spend as much or as little as you like...."It's only Rock and Roll to Me" (apologies to Billy).

Sounds like your infested, Good Buddy....

[E-Stat]

So which is more important to you, Accuracy or Musicality?
Your definition notwithstanding, which accuracy? Speakers, sources, and amplifiers all exhibit some performance trade offs which affect different aspects of *accuracy*. Is an amplifier that measures flat in a lab, but is unable to accurately impart the harmonic envelope of an instrument more accurate? Or is it the other way around? A speaker that is dead neutral tonally, but unable to deliver a convincing sound stage? Or the other way around?

I think the gray somewhere-in-the-middle answer depends upon one's priorities and musical preferences.

rw

[bubslewis]

I listen to all my CD music, with the "direct" button pushed in on my receiver. I also have a "direct" button on my CD player.which is also pushed in. So I'm essentially bypassing any sound processing from either the CD player or the receiver. This would suggest that I want to hear a CD as close as I can get it to how it was originally recorded. I guess this would throw me into the accuracy camp more that the musicality side.

The unfortunate side effect is that I'll end up with 3 piles of CD's. Pile #1 contains what I perceive as superiorly recorded music. Pile # 2 contains what I perceive as average recorded music, and pile # 3 contains what I perceive as poorly recorded.

The downside is that I don't listen to the poorly recorded stuff much at all on my primary system, even if I like the music alot. I'll partially offset this by playing the poorly recorded stuff in the car,or on my secondary systems in the garage and out on the pool patio where accuracy is less important. Not a perfect compromise, but I really enjoy well recorded stuff, especially on Maggies and , conversely, I hate to listen to poor recordings, which the Maggies will readily reveal.

[emaidel]

[QUOTE=Auricauricle]

BTW: You're a neighbor: I grew up in the big city of Newberry....

I only moved here last July. I'm originally a New Yorker who lived in Colorado for 14 years before moving south.

PS: You may know a cousin of mine, what with your experience and location: Marshall Chapman.

Sorry, can't say that I do.

PPS: As long as you're electronically inclined (you are?): I have a dbx DNR that starts clicking off after it gets warmed up. After a while, when the pots that adjust expansion and transitional levels are turned up a few notches, the gain must be such that the unit is overwhelmed and it clicks off and has to be reset by turning it off and back on and the pots have to be cranked down to nearly inaudible levels. Do you know if you, or anyone in the surrounding area can open the unit and see if there's a sensitive resistor or some diode that's wimping out? Locally, the electronic shops either shy away from the task or are so embedded in the digital domain that they haven't a clue.

Almost all of the dbx processing equipment I once used eventually malfunctioned in some way or another. Sorry to say, but you're pretty much on your own, which doesn't offer you much hope. You might try the current dbx company (I don't know who owns them these days) and see if they can help.

QUOTE]

[bobsticks]

Your definition notwithstanding, which accuracy? Speakers, sources, and amplifiers all exhibit some performance trade offs which affect different aspects of *accuracy*. Is an amplifier that measures flat in a lab, but is unable to accurately impart the harmonic envelope of an instrument more accurate? Or is it the other way around? A speaker that is dead neutral tonally, but unable to deliver a convincing sound stage? Or the other way around?

I think the gray somewhere-in-the-middle answer depends upon one's priorities and musical preferences.

rw

Absolutely, and as usual E asks the questions that leads to the real meat and potatoes of the issue...who's accuracy? Are we talking about the most accurate rendition of what the artists had in their minds? Tough to be sure especially when factoring in the traditional insanity of many artistic types. Are we talking about accuracy in relation to what was going on in the studio? Clearly most modern music is sequenced and multi-tracked making this an irrelevent point and, if you want to get all technical 'bout it, you'd have to have an identical system with an exact reproduction of the room to hear what the artists and engineers were hearing during playback to make application of this theory feasible.

For me this is the grey area...kinda charcoal actually...so I usually look for a mood or intent that was to be conveyed. And, let's not forget technical limitations. As an example I'll give The Sisters of Mercy's Floodland epic. How an album with 48 tracks of the Austrian Boys Choir, the smash-and-grab pomposity of the Doktor Avalanche drum machine and Sid McGinnis' proto-Gilmour nod-to-punky-goth-etherealism guitars can sound both tinny and murky at the same time is beyond me but it does. Some of the greatest content in modern rock music marred...an album of grandiose proportion and technical fumblefingering, but those were the limitations of the day.

So, in order to conform with some "audiophile standard" decreed from on high by the lords of the clan of Frumpy-Old-Guy-Listening-To-Ava-Cassidy-and-Nina-Simone I only listen to this cd in the car because I feel bad and dirty and slightly decadent hitting the "All Channel Stereo" button. I'm in my thirties and I already smoke a pipe and wear a Rex Harrison hat everyday and not one thing written thus far in this paragraph is true. If I gotta tweak my processor I'm gonna do it 'cause that's life in the big city.

That album is but one example and all I mean to say is that, yes, we all would like to find the perfect balance between what we percieve to be "reality" and warm-fuzzy pleasantries but I stopped giving serious consideration to this kind of stuff a long time ago. I try to live life far simpler these days so if it's good, I just roll with it.


Tune in, turn on, and burn out....

[pixelthis]

After reading through this thread I'm surprised that we don't all own Bose systems.

Bose's little clock radio actually sounds quite good...for a clock radio.
CD players have perhaps teh most hype of any device, what a lot of high end owners dont tell you is that the difference between an expensive player and a cheap pos is slight, to say the least.
I have a 300 disc sony changer, and with casual listening the sound is quite good.
Not surprized about the PS1 , Sony does CD drives and codecs like no one else.
And as for accuracy vs "musicality" why musicality is key, its the soul, accuracy is the body.
The best player I have just about ever heard is the 175 buck yamaha changer.
I KNOW THIS IS SCACRALIGE, listening to music is supposed to be a painfull experience, getting up every so often to change a disc.
but I really enjoyed my Yamaha, wish I hadnt sold it.
OF COURSE FOR "COOL" FACTOR YOU CANT BEAT A HIGH END cd PLAYER,
even tho a cheap PC will stream files that sound as good if you do it right:1:

[Duds]

and how much is that little clock radio?


Bose's little clock radio actually sounds quite good...for a clock radio.
CD players have perhaps teh most hype of any device, what a lot of high end owners dont tell you is that the difference between an expensive player and a cheap pos is slight, to say the least.
I have a 300 disc sony changer, and with casual listening the sound is quite good.
Not surprized about the PS1 , Sony does CD drives and codecs like no one else.
And as for accuracy vs "musicality" why musicality is key, its the soul, accuracy is the body.
The best player I have just about ever heard is the 175 buck yamaha changer.
I KNOW THIS IS SCACRALIGE, listening to music is supposed to be a painfull experience, getting up every so often to change a disc.
but I really enjoyed my Yamaha, wish I hadnt sold it.
OF COURSE FOR "COOL" FACTOR YOU CANT BEAT A HIGH END cd PLAYER,
even tho a cheap PC will stream files that sound as good if you do it right:1:

[GMichael]

Play nice, GM.....It's not the size of the speakers, ya know...:rolleyes:

That's just something that people with tiny speakers say. The truth is, size does matter.:1:

[Auricauricle]

Well just be careful how you plug 'em in....

Ooh, boy: That wasn't necessary!

[kexodusc]

To me musicality is not and never has been a function of the gear. Where some people here "analytical", I hear lack of coloration. Musicality is in the source, the recording. Accuracy is the job of the equipment.
Our preferences dictate which compromises we'll make to achieve greater accuracy in certain areas. To describe gear as more "musical" sounding has always been foolish and condescending IMO.

[GMichael]

Well just be careful how you plug 'em in....

Ooh, boy: That wasn't necessary!

I'll be gentle. I promise.

[Auricauricle]

To me musicality is not and never has been a function of the gear. Where some people here "analytical", I hear lack of coloration. Musicality is in the source, the recording. Accuracy is the job of the equipment.
Our preferences dictate which compromises we'll make to achieve greater accuracy in certain areas. To describe gear as more "musical" sounding has always been foolish and condescending IMO.

I should clarify my position, then, for I don't think I was clear: Whether the souce material is truly musical will be a matter of interpretation for the equipment that will read it, interpret it and reproduce it. Limitations and percived insufficiencies inherent in the equipment or the recording can be corrected electronically.

When "musical" is used as a term to describe gear, I suppose this is a desription of manufacturers who use various methods to color the signal. Whether it is a higher quality cap that is used to accentuate certain frequencies or give certain sounds a particular timbre (I don't know; I am no electronics expert), or if the baseline settings of various parameters like bass and treble are different than other instruments, I cannot say.

Is accuracy, then, a truly subjective state, or is there a true point of reference?

Likewise, the term "accurate" can be used to describe various recordings. As we record different sources, how that recording is inputted in terms of level and coloration will affect the output, which will--God willing--reproduce the characteristics the engineer wanted to impart into the recording.

Accuracy and musicality are like yin and yang: They switch poles from time to time, but are distinctive from one another as well....

Of course, as a non-technician and a pure listener and gear-head, I could be full of baloney....

[Ajani]

To me musicality is not and never has been a function of the gear. Where some people here "analytical", I hear lack of coloration. Musicality is in the source, the recording. Accuracy is the job of the equipment.

True. What 'audiophiles' refer to as musicality really means colouration. It probably goes back to the time old debate about Solid State versus tube and digital versus analog with the former 2 generally being considered more accurate and the later 2 often considered more musical.

So instead of using musical, let's use the word coloured. So if you had the choice between a highly accurate system (that let you hear the recording exactly as it was done in the studio) and a coloured system (that glossed over all your albums making them sound better than they did in the studio), which would you choose?


Our preferences dictate which compromises we'll make to achieve greater accuracy in certain areas.

Agreed.


To describe gear as more "musical" sounding has always been foolish and condescending IMO.

I can understand why you think it' foolish (because it is silly, but then again so is the term 'passive preamp', but it tends to be used by audiophiles anyway)... but why do you find it condescending?

[Ajani]

and how much is that little clock radio?

If I remember correctly it's about $300... which is the real problem with it... It sounds very good for a clock radio... but who pays $300 for a clock radio???

[GMichael]

If I remember correctly it's about $300... which is the real problem with it... It sounds very good for a clock radio... but who pays $300 for a clock radio???

The same people who spend $500 on an iphone, but can't figure out how to use it.

[Ajani]

The same people who spend $500 on an iphone, but can't figure out how to use it.

LOL.... good point.... people often buy stuff just for the sake of showing off...

[kexodusc]

I should clarify my comments - I find "musical" as an adjective derogatory because I most commonly hear it used to comparatively demean another piece of gear. I.e, this amp is more musical than that one...

I can listen to a clock radio and hear music, know and recognize its music faster than the speed of light, and even appreciate the quality of the music. Does that make the alarm clock radio musical?

[pixelthis]

If I remember correctly it's about $300... which is the real problem with it... It sounds very good for a clock radio... but who pays $300 for a clock radio???

Actually, 349$, which is an actual price drop from 499, beleive it or not.
But its actually quite good sounding, I WOULD RATHER HAVE ONE
than a boombox or the like.
One thing, it does have quite a "large" soundstage, but of course is no competition
for a "real" setup.
But cost doesnt matter in a CD is what I AM SAYING, my SAMSUNG DVD
player has 192 khz dacs, SACD and DVDAUDIO, I am listening to Emily Remler
on it now AND THE SOUND IS QUITE GOOD.
It was 128 at closeout, and it never cost more than 200 bucks.
Why pay more if you dont have to to get good sound?
Besides, I have to save up for one of Rich's LED DLP tv sets:1:

[Auricauricle]

[QUOTE=kexodusc]I should clarify my comments - I find "musical" as an adjective derogatory because I most commonly hear it used to comparatively demean another piece of gear. I.e, this amp is more musical than that one...QUOTE]

I think we're in accord with this....Unfortunately, in my experience, "audiophiles" are notorious for p____g contests....

[GMichael]

I think we're in accord with this....Unfortunately, in my experience, "audiophiles" are notorious for p____g contests....

Never. You must be mistaken.:out:

[RGA]

Kex

Musicality VS Accuracy to me is correlational - the one that is more musical is the one that is more accurate. But since we can't know what is more accurate (the measurements do not have a direct correlation on this) then we're left in a subjective realm.

Take two otherwise equally measuring loudspeakers. Speaker A has a 3db rise over say 40hz - 700hz while speaker be has a flatter response over that range but a 2db rise from 1khz -3khz. Everthything else is equal. The more accurate speaker would be B because it strays from perfectly flat LESS than speaker A but it may very well be the case that speaker A makes music sound a lot better - thus it's more "musical" in the sense that you can listen to A without running from the room screaming that speaker B possesses.

Most systems/speakers that are brighter and contain hard audible breakup modes (metal tweeters) are usually deemed accurate because music is less enjoyed over long term thus the owner is happy because the speaker is revealing all of the supposed faults of the recording. Other tweeters go just as high with just as much power but do not irritate the hell out of you - these are all day listenable - thus musical.
'
This is my subjective view or criteria for the word "musical:"
1) All day listenable
2) Not bright etchy or hard
3) High resolution providing greater differences amongst recordings (not exagerating them)
4) musical instruments actually sound like musical instruments in space where the recording allows it - a lot more music does this than many systems reveal - including pop and rock)

I rarely use the word accuracy since without a 100% perfectly accurate reference point then you can;t ever know what the "truth" or most accurate is. However Analytical I think I get how that terms is used by most:

1) Impressive over short duration listening - impresses friends - lots of slam and treble power and air. Long sessions become fatiguing or irritating.
2) Treble is hard - etched and almost metallic sound.
3) Less resoloution - the best recordings can still sound good because they're well recorded and there is less anomolies to exagerate but the system will drive the owner's selection of music - which is less musical because you can't buy what you actually like - you end up only buying Reference Recording type labels because they're the only thing that is tolerable.
4) Musical instruments are not really heard because it is the system that is being listened to rather than the music. Check out the cymbal crash here - it's so powerful and zingy - cool isn't it? Relaxation is next to impossible - but they're often designed with home theater in mind and as such with movie soundtracks with a listener's lack of any references - canons, car explosions, alien crash landings, laser fights, exageration can be a true thrill ride.


This for me is a very general rule of thumb with some good crossover systems but in general that's how I would use the term musical versus analytical. If you like analytical I have systems that I prefer over others(PMC good example), (Paradigm, B&W, all Harman inspired designs, and most everything with a metal tweeter as speakers I deem analytical or not musical) - For musica Quad, Tannoy (prestige), Audio Note, Proac, Gershman Acoustics, Harbeth, Sonus Faber.

But i stress that I still may prefer an "analytical" speaker over one from the "musical" side because A top flight PMC over a given Musical speaker. The Quad has certain limitations that are severe while the PMC may have warts that are more liveable when you factor in the strengths offered up. Bass, volume levels, better treble than others in its class, etc.

[GMichael]

This link is aimed at speakers, but the same ideas apply to entire systems. I think this guy did a great job of mapping out the differences between accurate and musical. He uses words like precise, refined and emotional though.

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/sonicflares-sonic-circle.php

[Feanor]

RGA, you make many good points here and I'm in broad agreement


Kex

Musicality VS Accuracy to me is correlational - the one that is more musical is the one that is more accurate. But since we can't know what is more accurate (the measurements do not have a direct correlation on this) then we're left in a subjective realm.

But this isn't necessarily a point I completely agree with. My definition of accuracy would be that which sounds identical to what you heard sitting in the control room with the recording engineer listening to the production proof CD or LP. That sound, of course, we'll never hear. But to say what is most musical is most accurate, in itself, is pretty meaningles. As I said earlier in the thread, "musical" is purely subjective term, i.e. it really means "what I like".

But fortunately, you do continue ...


...

This is my subjective view or criteria for the word "musical:"
1) All day listenable
2) Not bright etchy or hard
3) High resolution providing greater differences amongst recordings (not exagerating them)
4) musical instruments actually sound like musical instruments in space where the recording allows it - a lot more music does this than many systems reveal - including pop and rock)

I rarely use the word accuracy since without a 100% perfectly accurate reference point then you can't ever know what the "truth" or most accurate is.

....
As for your last sentence above, yep, that's what I said earlier.

By the way, IMO, your desciption of "musical" in the last quote is a bang-on description of my Magneplanar speakers. Were it not for your obsession with "bass" and "loudness", you might even agree -- who knows? :arf:

[Ajani]

Kex

Musicality VS Accuracy to me is correlational - the one that is more musical is the one that is more accurate. But since we can't know what is more accurate (the measurements do not have a direct correlation on this) then we're left in a subjective realm.

Take two otherwise equally measuring loudspeakers. Speaker A has a 3db rise over say 40hz - 700hz while speaker be has a flatter response over that range but a 2db rise from 1khz -3khz. Everthything else is equal. The more accurate speaker would be B because it strays from perfectly flat LESS than speaker A but it may very well be the case that speaker A makes music sound a lot better - thus it's more "musical" in the sense that you can listen to A without running from the room screaming that speaker B possesses.

Most systems/speakers that are brighter and contain hard audible breakup modes (metal tweeters) are usually deemed accurate because music is less enjoyed over long term thus the owner is happy because the speaker is revealing all of the supposed faults of the recording. Other tweeters go just as high with just as much power but do not irritate the hell out of you - these are all day listenable - thus musical.
'
This is my subjective view or criteria for the word "musical:"
1) All day listenable
2) Not bright etchy or hard
3) High resolution providing greater differences amongst recordings (not exagerating them)
4) musical instruments actually sound like musical instruments in space where the recording allows it - a lot more music does this than many systems reveal - including pop and rock)

I rarely use the word accuracy since without a 100% perfectly accurate reference point then you can;t ever know what the "truth" or most accurate is. However Analytical I think I get how that terms is used by most:

1) Impressive over short duration listening - impresses friends - lots of slam and treble power and air. Long sessions become fatiguing or irritating.
2) Treble is hard - etched and almost metallic sound.
3) Less resoloution - the best recordings can still sound good because they're well recorded and there is less anomolies to exagerate but the system will drive the owner's selection of music - which is less musical because you can't buy what you actually like - you end up only buying Reference Recording type labels because they're the only thing that is tolerable.
4) Musical instruments are not really heard because it is the system that is being listened to rather than the music. Check out the cymbal crash here - it's so powerful and zingy - cool isn't it? Relaxation is next to impossible - but they're often designed with home theater in mind and as such with movie soundtracks with a listener's lack of any references - canons, car explosions, alien crash landings, laser fights, exageration can be a true thrill ride.


This for me is a very general rule of thumb with some good crossover systems but in general that's how I would use the term musical versus analytical. If you like analytical I have systems that I prefer over others(PMC good example), (Paradigm, B&W, all Harman inspired designs, and most everything with a metal tweeter as speakers I deem analytical or not musical) - For musica Quad, Tannoy (prestige), Audio Note, Proac, Gershman Acoustics, Harbeth, Sonus Faber.

But i stress that I still may prefer an "analytical" speaker over one from the "musical" side because A top flight PMC over a given Musical speaker. The Quad has certain limitations that are severe while the PMC may have warts that are more liveable when you factor in the strengths offered up. Bass, volume levels, better treble than others in its class, etc.

Though you make some interesting points, I find that you use 'musical' in the derogatory way that Kex seems to be referring to.... In other words: your definition of 'musical' is all the type of speakers that you like and you bless them with nothing but wonderful traits... while you use accurate to describe all the types of speakers you hate and you bash them...

Only the closing paragraph where you refer to possibly preferring an analytical speaker over a musical one, gives the impression that analytical speakers are good for something other than the trash heap....

[Ajani]

This link is aimed at speakers, but the same ideas apply to entire systems. I think this guy did a great job of mapping out the differences between accurate and musical. He uses words like precise, refined and emotional though.

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/sonicflares-sonic-circle.php

Excellent Article...

[RGA]

Ajani - if you note I changed the word accuracy to analytical - Audio Note is after accuracy but they are musical. There was an article written about their goal largely written by Classical musician and review Leonard Norwitz http://www.tsound.com/audio_hell.html


Feaner

My dealer carries the Magnepan 20.1, 3.6, 1.6, I prefer to have it all. Better midrange than any of those and far better bass treble openess speed transients and decay. I have not met a single person who has heard the 20.1 walkied down to the AN E/LX HE and said they liked the 20.1 in any way shape or form better, including anyone there who sells them. The Magnepans do number 1 on my list well, number 2 pretty well, number 3(but only really soundstage and imaging which they do quite well) and number 4 is where they get smoked IMO. The Quad 2905 is quite a lot better than the 20.1 but it's lack of volume ability is quite severe when you consider the $14k price point. It has to play at credible volumes and it really can't. Listening to Violin, Piano, Cello, Trumpet, Sax, Oboe to me it becomes very apparent very fast at what is sounding like the real thing and what sounds like a loudspeaker.

it's never about bass in itself it's about being able to reach the physicality of the lower registers of a piano and really make you feel that a piano is right there in the room. Maybe you should try it one day.

I think I've been down this road enough with you but there ARE good rock recordings out there and when a bass guitar and drum kick plays you need to feel that. If we go by the Leonard Norwitz/Peter Qvortrup view of accurate replay then the stereo should not care what music is being played - it should be able to pound midbass when midbass pounding is called for and it should excel in microdynamics allowing you to hear the subtleties of acoustic instruments. If it lacks at doing either one of the two then it very likley lacks at doing what it supposedly does well.

The article I posted discusses why accuracy is an impossible goal and brings up your point about the recording studio - but also notes that you have a problem because recordings are done on different speakers in different rooms - and in almost all cases none are recorded on speakers we own.

So with accuracy set aside in absolute terms then you shift to something like the Norwitz/Qvortup article but you're still into a subjective realm. And once there then it becomes "musicality" as the dominant perspective and that leads as you poiint out "if I like it it is musical" and if I don't like it then it's not musical (and sometimes rubbish).

I don't think this really gets us anywhere - people love rap music and hate chamber music - people like Ace Ventura more than Schindler's List, people like Magnepan and don't like anything with a box. In all those cases I am not going to try and convert them to a different view - it is what it is.

[Asterix77]

Interesting discussion this.
I have an xample I experienced myself.
I love classical music and I love Mozart's piano concerto no20.
I own a recording which I have ripped and listened to on my MP3 player.
BUT...as I've told in earlier posts I just got a decent set (at least to my standards)....and to be honest the Mozart recording sucks...
So I'm now in the position that I always loved a particular piece of music and all of a sudden due to my new set I do not like the recording...(music is still great though)
Is that improvement? I was perfectly happy before and now I'm not....

Of course I'm going to look for a better recording...but my point is...it's all about personal perception...

[Feanor]

... to Soundhounds if you want to prove Audio Note is better than Magneplanar. I have read the Norwitz article a good many times and though he make some valid observations in the end I come away unconvinced. In particular, I'm unconvinced by his arguments against accuracy -- unavoidably that is the underlying thrust of his comments. On the practical side I simply don't agree with his rejection of a reference set of records for evaluation.

Of course comparisons between the 20.1 and comparably price ANs is moot because I'll never own speakers in that price range or half it. I think the Maggies, including the 1.6 does all the "musical" things very well. For the umpteenth time, "pounding" is irrelevant to me given the music I listen to and at the volumes I listen.

And I'd guess there are 5-10X more Magneplanar owners out there that AN owners and I doubt that's entirely fortuitous.

I guess I'm a planar kind of guy. Not necessarily Magneplanar, though: I would like more opportunity to hear Apogees as one example, or Soundlabs as another.

[O'Shag]

Musicality VS Accuracy to me is correlational - the one that is more musical is the one that is more accurate.

Eee bah gum, the lads got it right! You know when its accurate/musical because you'll be drawn in to the experience whether you like it or not. If the performance is conveyed in a meaningful way, then thats accurate enough.

In the words of the very musical and highly accurate Daleks....Exterminate! Exterminate!

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think the best course for this thread to take would be where O'Shag is pointing it... a Dr. Who episode. :yesnod:

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=kexodusc]I should clarify my comments - I find "musical" as an adjective derogatory because I most commonly hear it used to comparatively demean another piece of gear. I.e, this amp is more musical than that one...QUOTE]

I think we're in accord with this....Unfortunately, in my experience, "audiophiles" are notorious for p____g contests....


Pig contests? What kind of "pig" contests?
:1:

[pixelthis]

This link is aimed at speakers, but the same ideas apply to entire systems. I think this guy did a great job of mapping out the differences between accurate and musical. He uses words like precise, refined and emotional though.

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/sonicflares-sonic-circle.php

Need any help with those let me know.
And I am "refined" because I LIKE b&w ?
I bought those because I thought they were precise
Now I am totally confused:1:

[basite]

If I remember correctly it's about $300... which is the real problem with it... It sounds very good for a clock radio... but who pays $300 for a clock radio???


that's nothing...

our Tivoli model 2 cost more I think...

seen Meridian's clock radio? well, that's something that costs too much :D

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[RGA]

... to Soundhounds if you want to prove Audio Note is better than Magneplanar. I have read the Norwitz article a good many times and though he make some valid observations in the end I come away unconvinced. In particular, I'm unconvinced by his arguments against accuracy -- unavoidably that is the underlying thrust of his comments. On the practical side I simply don't agree with his rejection of a reference set of records for evaluation.

Of course comparisons between the 20.1 and comparably price ANs is moot because I'll never own speakers in that price range or half it. I think the Maggies, including the 1.6 does all the "musical" things very well. For the umpteenth time, "pounding" is irrelevant to me given the music I listen to and at the volumes I listen.

And I'd guess there are 5-10X more Magneplanar owners out there that AN owners and I doubt that's entirely fortuitous.

I guess I'm a planar kind of guy. Not necessarily Magneplanar, though: I would like more opportunity to hear Apogees as one example, or Soundlabs as another.

I'm surprised since you made one of his arguments against accuracy. To be truly accurate to a recording with your system you would have to be at the recording. You would need to remember exactly how everything sounded you would have to buy all of the equipment recorded. So if CD A was recorded in Germany with speaker brand xyz on amp lmb then you would need both the amp and cd player (assuming of course that the CD or LP has perfect copying ability from what you heard (which it doesn't). And you need to listen to that CD on that system. But when you put in CD B recorded on AAA speakers and amp ZZZ then in yet another different room you would then need to have that room completely recreated. You have 100 cds you might need 100 different set-ups and 100 different rooms to be perfectly accurate and it still would not be do to the failing of the recording equipment.

Not using reference recordings makes sense on a number of fronts because we get tied to the way our current stereo (which we may like) goes about reproducing music. Maybe the piano is a little to the left and we like it like that but it may actually be dead center and that "may" be the more accurate loacation - but we're used to hearing it a certain way and any deviation means the "new" system must be wrong. In reality it was us that was wrong by having an expectation bias on what we're used to hearing. Certainly that may aid our preference but not for seeking accuracy.

There are probabably 100 times more Bose owners than Magenpan owners and 10000 times more Ford owners than Ferarri owners but that does not make the high sales units better. You have the misguided impression that the only reason to go with AN is because they "pound better" which is true but they're designed for classical music. Leonard Norwitz is a classical musician and reviews classical music - and he was AN's distributor years back. A lot of ex panel/planar guys out there made the shift. At the very least you know they won't sound like a typical box to get planar/panel guys off their panel/planars. Not all of course because panels have a signature that is unique to themselves. But if something comes along that can make acoustic instruments sound more realistic and also have the other added bonuses then some will make the upgrade.

IMO you have the best value for the dollar Magnepan speaker where price performance is tough to beat with the music that will be used on them.

[E-Stat]

To be truly accurate to a recording with your system you would have to be at the recording. You would need to remember exactly how everything sounded you would have to buy all of the equipment recorded.
I was with you up until your last qualification. I played a minor role in the Telarc recording of ASO's Firebird conducted by Robert Shaw and have a unique perspective. There was a decided difference between hearing the performance live from row F and hearing it later downstairs played back through the Soundstream recorder driving Threshold amps and ADS monitors. Mind you, both of those components were quite good (owned both at various times), but I find others do far better justice to the live event.

http://www.telarc.com/images/covers/0039.jpg


Not all of course because panels have a signature that is unique to themselves.
Indeed. Well positioned dipolar speakers (as in far away from corners and walls) deliver a more realistic presentation of the space experienced at live acoustic instrument concerts to these ears than do monopoles. Not to mention in my case the absolute coherency of using a full range virtually massless driver. Rock music, on the other hand, arguably needs the *slam* of monopole dynamic woofers as found in those *live* events.

rw

[RGA]

E-Stat

The Norwitz article is attacking accuracy from a differentiation perspective - the system that differentiates the most recordings the most is more accurate. My issue with the article (which I go by) is that it still won't get you to absolute accuracy - it stands to reason that if you have a 100 recordings and system A reveals quite a different perspective on all 100 of them while system B makes 30 sound more or less the same and another 30 and the remaining 40 into 3 general camps then it's of lesser resolution. The problem is that such a thing is still relatively subjective and incredibly time consuming.

Leonard made the case that you don't need the speakers in the recording session for comparison by contrast to work - but for absolute accuracy to the recording you would have to get that nutty. After all most all recordings were recorded on boxed dynamic loudspeakers and not a panel. But I like a lot of Panels over most boxed loudspeakers.

My view remains that a speaker needs to play ALL music equally well. If a bass guitar are drum kick calls for impact bass then a speaker MUST be able to do it. How can we be serious about a loudspeaker that can't muster what is called for on the source disc and which the amplifier is sending to the speaker only to have the speaker bottom out? If it can't produce that then how does it follow that it is going to produce the piano any better - which goes deeper and can fill a room. My argument is that the panel that can;t do the impact bass also isn't doing the acoustic instrument (that lean in the lower registers) justice either.

This is the biggest weakness of most average small panel louddspeakers and why ML tried to add dynamic woofers to get that semblence of bass, dynamics, pressure, back into the equation. Why spend on a midrange only speaker when you lose 4 octaves top and bottom? Bigger panels I like - the quad 2905 where the bass is there for most music and it has a sweet fast open sound and no ribbon issues in the treble that sound unnatural to me. But basically the 2905 (or 989) is the bare minimum panel for me - and it's $14,000. And you still can't really play anything in the Pop/rock/trance/Jazz full scale classical at anything above medium volume levels. I'd say it's better suited as a relaxing bedroom loudspeaker that wash over the ears in a most delightful all day listenable way. But $14k made in China and you need a damn big bedroom.

I have to say though that most of my listening is doen at medium to low volume levels and that is why I would mostly be happy with the 2905 and I genuinely like this speaker and the 989 before it. The Sonus Faber Cremona is something like $11,000 and it's really not clearcut. I'm not convinced that either are "better" than the Tannoy Kensington at $8k - they each have their appeal - the Kensington has the low power amp capability which is intriguing while the Quad is less boxy but then it has less dynamics and bass because it does not have the needed box. I would recommend all three highly - all three I could listen to over long sessions - all day listenable etc.

[bobsticks]

Eee bah gum, the lads got it right! You know when its accurate/musical because you'll be drawn in to the experience whether you like it or not. If the performance is conveyed in a meaningful way, then thats accurate enough.

In the words of the very musical and highly accurate Daleks....Exterminate! Exterminate!

Shaggy's back!!

[bobsticks]

My view remains that a speaker needs to play ALL music equally well. If a bass guitar are drum kick calls for impact bass then a speaker MUST be able to do it. How can we be serious about a loudspeaker that can't muster what is called for on the source disc and which the amplifier is sending to the speaker only to have the speaker bottom out? If it can't produce that then how does it follow that it is going to produce the piano any better - which goes deeper and can fill a room. My argument is that the panel that can;t do the impact bass also isn't doing the acoustic instrument (that lean in the lower registers) justice either...

And as the words came out of your mouth and were intimated by Stat, there will never be the "perfect speaker" because of this, specifically, the relation of how it(music) is produced to how it's reproduced. I've theorized on these pages before that rock/electronic music will never be reproduced by panels as well because intrinsic to the actual production of the stuff are dynamic cones---woofers to thump. E-Stat and Flo may be perilously close to achieving some parity out of sheer size and brute force but in the end it's all similes in a world of metaphors.

Ya goes with what has the least amount of objectionable characteristics, enjoy as wide a breadth of music as time will allow and call it a day.

[E-Stat]

Leonard made the case that you don't need the speakers in the recording session for comparison by contrast to work - but for absolute accuracy to the recording you would have to get that nutty.
Fair perspective. He strives for accuracy to the recording as his system reproduces it. I strive for accuracy to the musical event. With most pop music, however, the situation is reversed. The last thing I want is faithfulness to the *live* event. I want better than an ear shattering wall of monophonic mud.


My view remains that a speaker needs to play ALL music equally well.
Laudable goal, but there are always compromises. Especially for when with some music, sound reinforcement speakers (and their colorations) are part of the musical event.


If a bass guitar are drum kick calls for impact bass then a speaker MUST be able to do it.
Then the question becomes which is more important - timbral accuracy or sheer volume? My preference clearly is for the former.


If it can't produce that then how does it follow that it is going to produce the piano any better - which goes deeper and can fill a room. My argument is that the panel that can;t do the impact bass also isn't doing the acoustic instrument (that lean in the lower registers) justice either.
Here I simply disagree. Benefiting from some room gain, my stats are virtually flat to 25 hz. They do low bass. The natural wavefront of a 35 hz concert drum wafts past you with all of its weight. You *perceive* organ pedals. What they do not do is 100 db low bass. Nor punches to the solar plexus. A piano is a wonderful test of coherency and full range stats live to reproduce them sounding like a single instrument.


This is the biggest weakness of most average small panel louddspeakers and why ML tried to add dynamic woofers to get that semblence of bass, dynamics, pressure, back into the equation.
They do that because it is cheaper to throw in a 10" woofer than to quadruple the panel area.


Why spend on a midrange only speaker when you lose 4 octaves top and bottom?
I agree wholeheartedly. 80 hz - 5khz is not particularly wide bandwidth. The U-1s are nine and a half octave speakers.


I have to say though that most of my listening is doen at medium to low volume levels and that is why I would mostly be happy with the 2905 and I genuinely like this speaker and the 989 before it.
A funny thing happens with extremely high resolution speakers - they sound *louder* for a given output than do lesser systems. 650 watts only gets me peaks in the low 90 db range. Which is quite acceptable for me (and to the health of my hearing).

rw

[E-Stat]

I've theorized on these pages before that rock/electronic music will never be reproduced by panels as well because intrinsic to the actual production of the stuff are dynamic cones---woofers to thump. E-Stat and Flo may be perilously close to achieving some parity out of sheer size and brute force but in the end it's all similes in a world of metaphors.
This is what I am saying. As for Flo, the Grands come with some rather outrageous dynamic cone woofers. :)

rw

[bobsticks]

This is what I am saying. As for Flo, the Grands come with some rather outrageous dynamic cone woofers. :)

rw

Ooops, true enough...big woofers, big woofers.

[Auricauricle]

[QUOTE=Auricauricle]
Pig contests? What kind of "pig" contests?
:1:

It's an experiment. I think there remains an unexplored sonic territory that cannot be reproduced via conventional channels. Woofers and tweeters occupy a certain place on the aural spectrum, but somewhere there is an untangible quality of musical production that if tapped into can make a real difference. I will devise speakers that do just this and the UNIVERSE WILL BE ALL MINE!!! Ha ha!!

I will call them "Squealers"

(Ahem)

[bobsticks]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]

It's an experiment. I think there remains an unexplored sonic territory that cannot be reproduced via conventional channels. Woofers and tweeters occupy a certain place on the aural spectrum, but somewhere there is an untangible quality of musical production that if tapped into can make a real difference. I will devise speakers that do just this and the UNIVERSE WILL BE ALL MINE!!! Ha ha!!

I will call them "Squealers"

(Ahem)

I think I read somewhere that the police used "The Squeller" in the riots in the Sixties, and evil, shrill high-pitched device to stun folks into submission. Mebbe go the other way with it...http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/14/michigan-tech-students-craft-20-000-watt-snow-horn/ ...then the universe can be yours. I'm cool with that, I've got my own travels and agenda ahead...

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Chinese-cheerleaders-prepare-Olympics/ss/events/sp/070808chinacheer/s:/csm/20080708/wl_csm/ocheerleaders#photoViewer=/080708/photos_lf_afp/9a52a49eee4091e4d3f2912be1cf04b7

[markw]

I think I read somewhere that the police used "The Squeller" in the riots in the Sixties, and evil, shrill high-pitched device to stun folks into submission. Now I know why my first would never tell me what she did for a living before we got marrried.

[markw]

Accuracy is relative. Is it what I hear from the eighth row center of the State Theatre in New Brunswick, or from the fifteenth row right in the Count Basie Theatre in Red Bank? Or is it what I hear from a corner of the Irridium when Les Paul is playing on a Monday night with a pickup band? Or is it what I'll be hearing in a few weeks when we hear the NRPS at the Stone Pony?

It's a relative term and, as E-Stat touched on before, it doesn't exist in the real world. It's just what one wants to THINK is what they would hear live if they were there.

But, they probably would be wrong.

[Worf101]

I ran into this the first time I upgraded my equipment from a Pilot receiver and basic JVC speakers to an Onkyo unit with some Ohm Walsh 2's. I quickly discovered how badly some of my CD's sounded.all of a sudden, no bass, no mids all brittle and alike. But I sound found out that most first generation CD's sounded like this. Those AAD transfers sucked. Later on when albums became engineered for CD with a fuller range of bass and mids, the newer system sounded wonderful. My current system is not 'great" but it sounds marvelous. I upgraded my mains and my receiver and can't be happier. Accurate, nah, musical yah!!!!!

Da Worfster

[Spancticles]

a friend of mine likes to say
if your system sounds boring
listen to more interesting music

he really gets quite evangelistic about it