What does it mean to you when someone says that system is “musical”?

Mike

Mike

Audioshark
Staff member
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
30,492
Location
Sarasota, FL
The comment I heard over and over again last night when I demoed the VAC, Harbeth, AQ, MSB system was how “musical” it sounded.

What does it mean to you when someone says a system is “musical”?
 
What it should mean is that you stop listening to the system and only hear the music. I think there can be several different reasons that could occur, so I doubt it is just one audio characteristic.
 
To me, a "musical" system is one that doesn't call attention to any specific areas or frequencies and allows you to relax and enjoy the music.
One obvious sign of this is the uncontrollable urge to bob your head and tap your toes. Often followed with a large grin.
 
To me it means, the music I hear is close to live music letting you get away from the system itself. Of course it also has a lot to do with the choice of music played and its quality along with the system that is projecting that music into a treated or adequate room.
 
A musical system lets me connect emotionally with my music. That’s all I really want/need.
 
A very low noise floor ...is what it means. If you are playing digital, that is. When your ear/brain stops being confused and easily discerns sounds as coming from instruments. It's an incredible sensation.
 
joeinid said:
A musical system lets me connect emotionally with my music. That’s all I really want/need.
Click to expand...

yes i have used this expression of kit when there is an amazing realism rather than just a hi fi sound . a sound that makes you want to dance or really engage with the music
 
Musical as a high-end term is almost meaningless. A car stereo can be musical too, and completely get you involved in the music -- at least with some music. But it is low fidelity.

The other problematic area is pitting "musical" against "accurate". Well, if something is accurate it is by definition musical, since it reproduces all the sounds that music makes, including in a correct manner all the ones producing emotional and intellectual involvement. And music as perceived by the listener is sound, nothing else (the issue of musical scores and musical ideas in the mind of the composer aside).

If "accurate" is used as a pejorative term, for instance leaning toward "analytical" (another problematic term), then in that instance it does not really mean "accurate". For the reason, see above.
 
Al M. said:
If "accurate" is used as a pejorative term, for instance leaning toward "analytical" (another problematic term), then in that instance it does not really mean "accurate". For the reason, see above.
Click to expand...

I think there is Analytical on one extreme and Musical on the other. I usually ignore the term Accurate because without being there at mastering there is no point of reference.
 
As others have said, I think the term "musical" is used to mean sounding like actual music that you emotionally connect with, which obviously involves multiple factors like tonal balance, timbre, dynamics, timing ("PRAT"), etc.

And probably the reason this term is used at all is because of the fact that some systems clearly sound analytical and mechanical -- like some sort of technical feat of reproducing a recording in such a way that it doesn't make you "feel" the musical performance. So people say "musical" when it doesn't sound like this.
 
When somebody says, "that's really musical", I would hope that it's not the equivalent of saying, "she's got a really nice personality". Lol
 
rrwmd said:
And probably the reason this term is used at all is because of the fact that some systems clearly sound analytical and mechanical -- like some sort of technical feat of reproducing a recording in such a way that it doesn't make one "feel" the musical performance. So people say "musical" when it doesn't sound like this.
Click to expand...

Here you have a point. Many car stereos really do sound better than some high-end systems in terms of musical involvement ;) (No, seriously.)

I guess "musical" should then not be used as a compliment, but as a way of saying "disaster averted" ;).
 
My thoughts are not far off from what has been already posted. I think of musical as similar to PRAT, the sound is less mechanical and allows you to hear the melody and emotion of the song.

I may differ some as music being to soft or rounded leading edges can ruin it for me. I like my sound to be musical yet be able to present the dynamics and transients of real instruments.

Regarding listening to lower quality systems, I can enjoy a song, music, without it necessarily being "musical", at least in the sense we are discussing here. However, when having a choice.........
 
When I use the term musical as it relates to reproduced sound I am saying that the essence of actual live sounds being reproduced approaches the level and sonic integrity of real instruments and voices in a live performance. The tonality, timbre, dynamics, sustain, decay, depth, metallic ring, harmonic overtones, silence, and the active ambiance of the space must, as accurately as possible, duplicate the actual event. The electronics, transducers, and cables must act as invisible conduits to the performance without restrictions or coloration. When reproduced sound allows one's imagination to function as an extension of a live performance, with the same visceral feelings and physical responses one would experience at a live event, I would then say the sound system is truly musical.
 
jdandy said:
When I use the term musical as it relates to reproduced sound I am saying that the essence of actual live sounds being reproduced approaches the level and sonic integrity of real instruments and voices in a live performance. The tonality, timbre, dynamics, sustain, decay, depth, metallic ring, harmonic overtones, silence, and the active ambiance of the space must, as accurately as possible, duplicate the actual event. The electronics, transducers, and cables must act as invisible conduits to the performance without restrictions or coloration.
Click to expand...

This would be the ultimate goal, yes. The problem with such a definition is that no system truly approaches this, so no system could be called musical.

When reproduced sound allows one's imagination to function as an extension of a live performance, with the same visceral feelings and physical responses one would experience at a live event, I would then say the sound system is truly musical.
Click to expand...

This seems a better description of a system being musical. But this does not require the perfection described in the first part of your post.

I would add to this description that the presentation should have the potential for the same intellectual involvement as at a live event, something that I especially value for classical music and complex jazz. All musical lines should be as separated, and the polyphony should be as easily followed as at a live event. By the way, this also would more easily separate high-end reproduction from a car stereo.

Unfortunately, here we also quickly encounter limitations on the vast majority of systems (even though usually they are better at this than a car stereo ;)). On the other hand, this quest is often greatly helped by the much maligned multi-miking of recordings, filling detail into the overall mix. The irony is that in this case perhaps truthfulness to the original sound and musical intelligibility clash, with the latter winning and making the presentation ultimately more musical. Turns out, there is a reason for multi-miking.
 
Al M. ......By stating reproduced sound "approaches the level and sonic integrity of real instruments and voices in a live performance" I am not saying the system "duplicates" the level and sonic integrity of real instruments and voices in a live performance. There is a substantial difference between the two, and by referring to "approaches" there is plenty of wiggle room for differing levels of opinion on what is considered musical. None the less, a system that gets into this revered arena of audio reproduction can and does quite often sound very musical, hence the term "sounds musical". My first comment does not require perfection be established to accomplish a valid sense of musicality. I clarified this with the comment "as accurately as possible, duplicate the actual event." Obviously the goal is to achieve some semblance of sonic integrity when we assemble high-end audio equipment for that purpose. It is a given that a perfect reproduction of a live event is essentially an impossible task, but it doesn't stop many audio enthusiasts from making bold efforts to that end. Ultimately, it is each listener who determines what sounds musical and what doesn't. That variable alone leaves the definition wide open to personal interpretation.

At any rate, my post was just my opinion in response to Mike's original topic. Like most opinions, the author supports the premise more than anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top