Accuracy versus Musicality

[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

[GMichael]

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

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

[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

[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.

[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/s...nic-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?

[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/s...nic-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.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Auricauricle]

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?