I’m also usually someone who complains about the term “musical” and did so when Paul had a post about it. This time I took it, because I had a guess what Bruce meant with it.
I’m not arguing about anything that was said, all correct. More accurate should always be better (and ideally lead to a sound that pleases everyone) and also no arguing, that the DS improved with each Firmware update and got more and more accurate ( I fully trust Ted regarding this). However it can’t be denied, that it sounded very different from release to release (due to phase effects or whatever). So let’s say: I prefer its accurate sound of today to its accurate sound of a few years ago and I prefer it’s accurate sound to the accurate sound of a Chord
That’s where I want to encourage Bruce:
Even if you choose euphonic components at the moment to reach the sound you like, this doesn’t mean, that you can’t reach the same with all accurate components, you just didn’t find a proper combination of them yet. If accurate doesn’t lead to a sound that most consider lifelike, it isn’t yet accurate enough. And I really think most have the same sound preference as you have, the ones just reached it so far with integrating some euphonic components, while others reached it with quite accurate components throughout in a more ideal surrounding. And in case you like it a bit more euphonic then ideally accurate, that’s fine too. You’re not alone preferring tubes for their more or less euphonic character and more. I think until you reach a certain extremely high standard within your setup, such combinations with tubes will be more “accurate” regarding the final listening result, than a non tube setup would be in your case at a lower level.
Why can’t someone just express in words what “they feel” whilst listening to “MUSIC” without being lectured to.
How it perturbs some sensitive souls when the term musical is used to describe MUSIC! Well, Music is Emotion. And it is impossible to convey one’s inner emotions, one’s inner core to the universe in mere words, no other person in the universe can ever experience what someone else feels when listening to a beautiful piece of MUSIC.
And this need to intellectualize how someone articulates music - or the terminology deemed appropriate to describe music - is pompous in the extreme.
Piano, Cello, Violin, Guitar, they are all MUSICAL instruments.
Better instruments - More accurate instruments. Clever - Cleverer instruments ? Just doesn’t do it for me !!
The terms we easily bandy about are always problematic in my opinion. I am guilty of using the term “musicality” a lot and that is because to me it signals the difference between cold, un-involving electronic and warm approachable sound.
The problem is we need a ready set of accepted words we can speak freely and without too much bickering in order to communicate ideas and concepts.
So what do you do if the music is meant to be cold, uninvolving and is electronic?
Thom Willems’ “In the Middle Somewhat Elevated” is a good example, and is an absolute classic that changed the course of an entire genre.
I think your reply very clearly makes the point that “musical” is an expression of subjective taste rather than anything objective.
A system that is accurate, as Ted describes his DSD software, will with absolute fidelity present the subjective taste of the composer, performer and production team.
While music can expression emotion, it is more than this. Music can be intellectual, random, etc. It says many things, invokes a multitude of reactions - emotional, rational, irrational.
I disagree that music cannot be defined and discussed. It is also possible to convey one’s inner emotions, novelists and poets do this regularly. Of course, some of us are better at this than others, just as we all have degrees of other skills.
To produce and control sound is remarkably compelling to the human animal. Almost all cultures make music and have done so as long as they existed.
I find surprising that some can describe any reproduction of music as unmusical. I enjoy listening to music on the cheapest of transistor radios. It is still music and it is musical. Similarly, I have recorded community orchestras and other musicians who do not play all that well. Yet, what they produce remains musical.
I find interesting to learn how others approach music and music playback. For example, the toe-tappers. They determine whether playback is good by whether they tap their feet. While I am not a toe-tapper - even while listening to a superb live performance - if I were I would tap my feet to any reproduction of music I enjoy, regardless of the quality of the equipment. The equipment itself is unimportant to my fundamental enjoyment.
I am not criticizing anyone else’s approach, but rather am fascinating by the myriad of reactions.
“Unmusical” is even worse than “musical”, a nihilistic relationship to sound?
The premise seems to be that music must induce positive emotional feeling to be meritorious. So that cuts out chunks of Shostakovich, Berg and a recent wonderful experience with Janacek?
Should all paintings be of flaxen maidens dancing through golden fields at sunset? Where would that put the likes of Anselm Kiefer or Louise Bourgois? Do we have to like something to appreciate its merit?
p.s. I had this argument with an art teacher when I was about 14 about Matisse. it took about 20 years for me to understand.
Here we go, subjective / objective bollocks. Away back to my haven, what (MUSIC) are you spinning right now. With me it’s all about the emotional engagement with music and discovering music. I will leave the pseudo-intellectuals to debate the meaning of it all…
" I enjoy listening to music on the cheapest of transistor radios."
To wit, my buddy purchased one of the first Infinity Q45s… crazy egg car. He was giving me a tour and said something like “the stereo is fantastic!”. After a few moments of listening… I heard a high frequency whine… not the alternator… something else. He did not hear it… then after a while of me pointing it out, he did. He called me two weeks later and was really upset… he said it is driving him crazy and the Infinity dealer said there is nothing they can do about it… one other customer complained.
So yes, I can enjoy music on a “cheap” one speaker radio… but there are other things going on that either add to or detract from enjoyment… what we call musicality.
It’s great how our bystanders make these wonderful insightful comments - often without knowing anything changed. Terri used to be more bellwether when I worked at home. I would play a familiar something after having tweaked a circuit and she’d call out from
the next room - “that sounds more like music” or “what did you do, that sounds awful”.
I personally believe that some added distortions can make recorded music more enjoyable. Tubes for example have a different harmonic distortion profile than transistors. I am not going to repeat the research here, but Nelson Pass has been known to add-subtract harmonic distortion profiles that he notes will change the perceived depth of an image. He even made a small device to add harmonic distortion for circuit designers to play with.
The very reasonable assumption that perfect accuracy should be the most musical experience is… well… not my experience. This is why I am toally into tube equipment but then oddly, pursue accuracy within this distorted domain. Weird.
My equipment fantasy, is Willson Audio’s most accurate speakers coupled with my “lowly” and beautiful Prima Luna HP integrated tube amp.
Better is more accurate, more like instruments. Music, as well as instrumental sounds, can be beautiful, ugly, positive, negative. I want tot hear it all, accurately reproduced.
“Sweetening”. That’s the best word yet in this conversation. I think we can probably all agree that even the most accurate/transparent/musical reproduction still doesn’t sound “live”. I’ve heard systems that cost stratospheric prices, including the IRS V’s and while they sound gorgeous, huge, impressive, apply any superlative you want, they are still not convincingly “live”. I can still tell immediately that the saxophone coming out of the third floor window is being played live and I haven’t heard a system that can reproduce that convincingly.
I once had some speakers that were, in my mind, the most “accurate”, “transparent”, the fastest, the most detailed, etc and they were quickly replaced with speakers that are all that, but have a dose of “sweetening”. Not “live”, just sweeter, lovable, livable, fun to listen to for hours. So far nobody has found “live”, so just find what makes us happy.
I agree that no system sounds like actual physical instruments playing live.
I find in intriguing this includes reproduction of instruments which have no sound but for amplification, such as electric guitars, synthesizers, a rock singer’s voice, etc. Even when I hear a good club system in the same space in which such a group would perform, it still does not sound real.
