Musicality" in a system? What IS that ?

Wow, good thread Doug. Coming up with this topic was probably like building our systems. Simple yet quite elusive. I have to add that there have been many excellent points. As others have mentioned, when someone mentions a system is "musical", i think that most of us picture something that is slightly warm and euphonic while "detailed" or "acurate" comes across as being slightly lean and dry sounding with a slight tilt upwards in tonal balance. In reality, a "musical" system is all of the above and a combination of the two AS the recording calls for it.

Live performances are "live" because they have all of the detail, "zing", pace, warmth, "air", "space", etc.. that the instruments, players and hall are capable of. Nothing is hidden or softened ( euphony ) or highlighted ( detailed ) any moreso than what was actually played and the acoustics of the hall presented to you. As to comments about the sounds of specific halls or venues, that is SOMEWHAT hogwash ( no offense intended to anyone ). Just as the acoustics in your room vary from sweet spot to the corners to slightly off center, so will the acoustics or "sound" of the hall. Due to the perceptions of direct vs reflected sounds, two people could have different takes on the very same performance. Changing seating arrangment would alter the ratios of direct to reflected sound and could further complicate the differences between what they heard. Certain notes, frequency ranges or sections of the performers might be highlighted or lost in the mix. Due to the various direct / reflected ratios and how sound works, this would alter our perceptions of tonal balance, harmonic structure, definition & impact, etc.. In case part of this reminds you of an advertisement for Bose 901's, it might give you some idea as to how / why Dr. Bose came up with his theories. While they DO have validity, they lack thoughtfulness in terms of execution and quality of components.

As to what makes a system "musical", i think it is one that is hard to describe. We have all heard systems that sounded well balanced, offered excellent detail without sounding harsh, were full bodied without sounding bloated, had a wide soundstage, imaged well, etc... but STILL sounded like "2 dimensional stereo". The "magic" or "depth" just wasn't there. Quite honestly, i think that this is the VAST majority of systems out there. This includes a couple that i own too, so don't think that i'm picking on everyone else and excluding myself. Like i said, coming up with a TRULY "musical" system is pretty elusive and something that i think that most of us are still working on.

One of the things that i notice about "musical" systems is that the sound appears "seamless" and seems to "float". Nothing calls attention to itself in any special way while the sound just seems to gel before you. You don't even THINK about speakers or where they are. Spatial properties and "air" are very prevalent in systems like this, giving the appearance of increased height, width and depth that you get from the natural reverb of a hall. The sound seems to project itself away from the speakers, making the entire room part of the "soundstage". Evidence of this is being able to go into an adjoining room and "feel" that the performers are right next door. You get the same impression when you leave the main hall where the event is taking place to make use of the bathroom, refill your cocktails at the back or side bar, etc... Your not really "there" anymore but the presence of being "there" is still quite strong. With a good system, you get these impressions even though the volume level is not loud per se.

Timbral balance and harmonic structure also play KEY roles in achieving this effect. After all, having notes that ring or fall off too quickly is what gives our systems the "bloated" or "dry" characteristics that they might suffer from. These characteristics also give us cues as to instrument placement and the overall "pace" of the music. I think that this is a place that most systems fail miserably in.

I also USED to believe that much of what made a "musical" system "musical" was speaker based. While i still believe that this DOES play a key role in the sound due to radiation pattern and room loading, i had to change my mind as of last night. Once again, i ended up re-arranging components in one of my systems and stumbled across something that was quite eye / ear opening and pleasant to say the least. It made me COMPLETELY change my outlook on a few things but further instilled in me the need to experiment within the system if one is truly seeking optimum results. Once again i have to say, you may never know what an individual component or system is capable of until you've truly tried quite a few different combinations. Quite honestly, i've had these components for a while now and never tried them in the configuration that i have them now. It's been my loss too. Then again, that is fodder for another thread if we're going to stay on topic here.

Kudo's to all who contribute to this forum, thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences and good listening to all who frequent this site. Sean
>

I believe JeffL has it covered but to add-synergy has a lot to do with a system being musical. When each piece of gear you may have is in sync with each other there's nothing left but the music. When you go to a live show and the band just clicks, they know it and the audience feels it-synergy. I have played in a couple of bands and I know this feeling. Also I believe this can happen with tubes or S.S. Hope I made sense.

Everything that is important in describing musicality has been expressed here in one way or another by nearly every poster. I awarded most every post with + votes, admiring how much work went into the thought and emotion expressed. This is exactly what Audiogon should be about.

My addition to the topic would be to say that for my own system, my effort has been to achieve musicality to the degree that I may play every piece of music I own. Certainly there are tremendous quality differences among my thousands of pieces of software. A system that can play them all, hear them for what they are, remain emotionally engaged, and on occasion be convinced it is real, is about as good as it gets. Great thread!

Dynamic resemblance to live music. Gordon Holt said: "A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant." (Stereophile, Aug. 1993) By euphonic he meant "pleasing to the ear," not necessarily sweetened. (Id.)

So why dont we just say "accurate?" Because, I think, we usually use the term accuracy to refer to tonality, but when we judge a component or system to be musical we are responding to its faithfulness to real life dynamics, more than tonality. The ability to track large and small, even tiny, changes in amplitude that give us the impression we are present at a musical event. As Jeffl implies, timing has a lot to do with it.

"Don't play the notes, play the meaning of the notes".- Pablo Casals. The ability of a performer to communicate the MEANING of the notes is what defines a musical performer; not all performers are musical. MUSICAL: 1. Of, relating to, or capable of producing music. MUSIC: 2. Vocal or instrumental sounds with RHYTHM, MELODY, and HARMONY.- Webster's II. Let's look at those two definitions for a moment. Melody alone, can and does imply harmony, at the same time we know that rhythm alone can in the loosest sense create melody, albeit implied, due to the tuning of the rhythm instruments and the creation of cadences and rhythmic progression. So, what can we deduce from all this? You can have music without melody (harmony) in the usual sense; but you can't have music without rhythm. All music, if it is to qualify for that definition, must have rhythm; not necessarily of the 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 variety, but rhythm nonetheless. Rhythm, IMO is where the soul or meaning of the notes lies. The things that define a performer's phrasing, the subtle or not so subtle inflections and feelings of tension and release that make a performance moving are found in the areas of dynamics; micro and macro. If an audio system cannot do justice to the rhythm of a performance, it cannot be musical. This area is where most systems fall short IMO. I have heard systems that are actually quite accurate, transparent, whatever you want to call it, TONALLY, and still don't covey the message; still don't quite let the music move the way that the performer(s) intended. In my experience most audiophiles (reviewers) tend to use the term musical to define tonal issues, such as wether the system sounds pleasantly smooth and lacking in harshness or not; obviously not necessarily a bad thing. But the system must be able to not only actually sound tonally harsh if that is what the music calls for, but at all times do justice to the rhythm. So, as much as I dislike most electronic music; I can't get around the fact that comparison to "real instruments in a real space", to use that old H. Pearsonism is NOT the only valid test for musicality. Clearly, electronic music created in a studio environment can have the necessary ingredient(s) for musicality; regardless of what I or any other listener might think about the artistic value of the music itself. Did I just defend electronic music? I better go take my temperature.