[SoundGame]

I've come across the term musical a number of times.  It is usually juxtaposed with mechanical/clinical and sometimes the term dry. 

I was reading this short article and it got me wondering if Bryston, in it's latest iteration the SST2, would be considered "musical" by the masses.  My feeling is that Bryston let's through the musicality of the source / or source media but if the source is not "musical" there is not too much in the way of forgiveness.

I found this article an interesting read: http://www.echoloft.com/soulofmusic/musicality.htm

[DaveNote]

SoundGame, this is a very good question, issue, because it raises the problem of how to describe changes in one's system. The "professional" reviewers seem to have a language that purports to describe systematically and scientifically (?) what ultimately can be nothing but subjective assessments.

I confess to using this lingo from time to time for the lack of any alternative, but it is far from satisfactory, and it makes me uncomfortable knowing that it is.

All I can say - subjectively, roughly, inaccurately - is that when I hooked up my 7BSST2s and listened to them, it was the first time in more than 30 years of using Bryston amps that I heard something dramatically different. It isn't subtle, it isn't imaginary, and it is thrilling. I almost never listen to live music, but when I do, it has the same effect. It is that thing in music that sends a chill up the spine. The only word in my limited vocabulary that seems to describe this difference is this: musical.

Whatever it is, the SST2 is, in my system, the greatest breakthrough I've experienced, which is saying a lot given the remarkable improvements made in my system by my BDA-1 and BDP-1.

Dave

[Laundrew]

The answer to the musicality of my audio gear is simply "yes" as it is my perception and expectation of what music should sound like. An interesting article but I believe that many individuals are only splitting hairs over personal preferences related to the selection and performance of audio equipment - no wrong answers here.

I enjoyed and agreed with their observations with respect to what makes an Audiophile and underlines why I only consider myself an enjoyer of music.

"Audiophiles usually talk about bass, midrange and highs, about soundstage and imaging, about resolution and detail, about dynamics, including macro dynamics and micro dynamics. They talk about sound, not about music."

Looks like the makings of a great thread 

Be well...

[jaxwired]

Great topic, but the article is clap trap.  "Musical" doesn't mean anything.  Intangible, subjective, and unemperical.  When a reviewer uses the word "musical" he just means that he likes the way the system sounds.  That's it.  It's one of the least useful terms used since it is entirely ambiguous.  At least terms like "neutral", "bright", "lush", "detailed", "resolving", and "warm" for instance, convey some common understanding about hifi sound.  "Musical" doesn't convey anything other than that particular reviewers level of personal satisfaction with the equipment.  How would a review reader use that information?  Since everybody has a different assessment of personal satisfaction.

[sfraser]

SoundGame, this is a very good question, issue, because it raises the problem of how to describe changes in one's system. The "professional" reviewers seem to have a language that purports to describe systematically and scientifically (?) what ultimately can be nothing but subjective assessments.

I confess to using this lingo from time to time for the lack of any alternative, but it is far from satisfactory, and it makes me uncomfortable knowing that it is.

All I can say - subjectively, roughly, inaccurately - is that when I hooked up my 7BSST2s and listened to them, it was the first time in more than 30 years of using Bryston amps that I heard something dramatically different. It isn't subtle, it isn't imaginary, and it is thrilling. I almost never listen to live music, but when I do, it has the same effect. It is that thing in music that sends a chill up the spine. The only word in my limited vocabulary that seems to describe this difference is this: musical.

Whatever it is, the SST2 is, in my system, the greatest breakthrough I've experienced, which is saying a lot given the remarkable improvements made in my system by my BDA-1 and BDP-1.

Dave

Dave do you ever find your PMC's a bit on the dry side? I have PMC TB2's, which I know are not in the same league as your MB2i's but i have always understood that all PMC's share the same acoustical traits? I really enjoy listening to the PMC TB2's , along with the Bryston BP25/4B and Benchmark DAC. The system is accurate as hell,  but if I had to criticize the experience with one word , dry would be the term I would use. 

Thanks

[James Tanner]

Great topic, but the article is clap trap.  "Musical" doesn't mean anything.  Intangible, subjective, and unemperical.  When a reviewer uses the word "musical" he just means that he likes the way the system sounds.  That's it.  It's one of the least useful terms used since it is entirely ambiguous.  At least terms like "neutral", "bright", "lush", "detailed", "resolving", and "warm" for instance, convey some common understanding about hifi sound.  "Musical" doesn't convey anything other than that particular reviewers level of personal satisfaction with the equipment.  How would a review reader use that information?  Since everybody has a different assessment of personal satisfaction.

I think I agree with the above .  Over the years my definition of 'musical' has changed. As a teen the corner horns I had were very 'musical' - nowadays - not so much.

james

[rollo]

  Only words and the perception of such as far as I'm concerned. If you really want to find out if your system is up to snuff. Record a guitar solo [ or whatever ] and then play the recording in your system.
  The recording will sound better than you think. No mixing, no EQ, no Engineer to fork it up. Then you will know how musical your system really is.
   Are ya game ??


charles

[sfraser]

I think I agree with the above .  Over the years my definition of 'musical' has changed. As a teen the corner horns I had were very 'musical' - nowadays - not so much.

james

It's funny, my wife finds our basement system with the lascala's the most musical system in the house. Entirely ( I think)  because the dynamic range approaches that of live music. I guess it's all in what moves you. I certainly would not call her an audiophile, but one evening a few years back i played Miles Davis "Aura" for her. Each track on the CD  is named after a color, she sat and listened with hers eyes closed and told me what color "she heard". She got a remarkable amount correct, something like 75%, she got screwed up on "electric red" and violet if I recall. Needless to say my musical perception was not near as good.

Long story short James, i am really interested in finding out just how dynamic your Model T's are after you have an opportunity to give the latest models an evaluation. Might be the perfect loudspeaker for my household.

[JBLMVBC]

Exactly!

Great topic, but the article is clap trap.  "Musical" doesn't mean anything.  Intangible, subjective, and unemperical.  When a reviewer uses the word "musical" he just means that he likes the way the system sounds.  That's it.  It's one of the least useful terms used since it is entirely ambiguous.  At least terms like "neutral", "bright", "lush", "detailed", "resolving", and "warm" for instance, convey some common understanding about hifi sound.  "Musical" doesn't convey anything other than that particular reviewers level of personal satisfaction with the equipment.  How would a review reader use that information?  Since everybody has a different assessment of personal satisfaction.

[VOLKS]

Yes my system is very Musical indeed.

[SoundGame]

Great topic, but the article is clap trap.  "Musical" doesn't mean anything.  Intangible, subjective, and unemperical.  When a reviewer uses the word "musical" he just means that he likes the way the system sounds.  That's it.  It's one of the least useful terms used since it is entirely ambiguous.  At least terms like "neutral", "bright", "lush", "detailed", "resolving", and "warm" for instance, convey some common understanding about hifi sound.  "Musical" doesn't convey anything other than that particular reviewers level of personal satisfaction with the equipment.  How would a review reader use that information?  Since everybody has a different assessment of personal satisfaction.

I tend to agree with this.  We all have a different sense of what is pleasing and as James mentioned, it changes with time, I would also add that it can change with mood or for that matter time of day.  Hence, to describe to someone else what your are perceiving - the impression, the feeling even, that you're getting, you need to add more adjectives and descriptors then just using the term "musical". 

I often find that reviewers tend to use the term "musical" to describe systems that are actually NOT "as transparent", "as detailed", "as dynamic", "as extended".  In some cases musicality brings in the term PRAT (pace, rhythm and timing) but I don't even find this is necessarily consistent with "musicality".  A system could in fact be somewhat full and slightly slow in uptake, yet described as warm, full-bodied and...musical.

It takes us back to the comment that musical seems to be a word that is synonymous to "pleasing to the ears" and is not something that is reliable when extended to "other ears".

[jaxwired]

Yes my system is very Musical indeed.

I have to disagree.  In fact, I've measured and your system is extra unmusical.  Might be ok as a PA.   

[DaveNote]

Dave do you ever find your PMC's a bit on the dry side? I have PMC TB2's, which I know are not in the same league as your MB2i's but i have always understood that all PMC's share the same acoustical traits? I really enjoy listening to the PMC TB2's , along with the Bryston BP25/4B and Benchmark DAC. The system is accurate as hell,  but if I had to criticize the experience with one word , dry would be the term I would use. 

Thanks

sfraser, given jaxwired's strong rejection of subjective descriptions of personal preferences, and James's quasi-official endorsement of same (an assessment with which I don't entirely disagreed, BTW), I am a bit reluctant to answer your question about whether I find my MB2i speakers dry.

At the risk of giving jaxwired et al an opportunity to blast the hell out of me, the answer is that before the 7BSST2s, these speakers sounded terrific, but I didn't know then what I know now. Something was missing.

One member (it may have been SoundGame) once asked a simple question: Does your system make the music have a presence as if the band is right in your room. That is what was missing! It's the thing I describe, poorly, and for the lack of another word, musical.

Bottom line, the hole my system was not caused by the MB2i speakers, it was what my old 7BSST amps didn't have and what the 7BSST2 amps do have, whatever that is.

Incidentally, the MB2is, as wonderful as they are, have a comparative weakness to my ear.  in another thread I mentioned building a second system with a very old Pioneer SX980 receiver and standmount B&W 685 speakers ($800 a pair). I seldom listen to classical music, but yesterday I did. I found I preferred the sound of the B&Ws playing classical music. I think it is because of the predominance of strings, especially violins, in classical music. The B&W tweeter has a smoother, sweeter sound in this frequency range. It may be that the PMC tweeter is less kind to the type of tinnitus I have. On the other hand, the MB2is are absolutely great for the kind of music to which I listen most often, jazz.

Hope this helps.

Dave

[Diamond Dog]

Is my system musical?  No, but I've been encouraging it to take up the banjo...looooves me some banjo.

D.D.

[Stu Pitt]

An interesting take on 'musical'...

I bought my Rega DAC unbeknownst to my wife.  No, I didn't sneak it in, shè just doesn't care about this stuff.

The first night I had it playing, I saw her foot tapping for the first time.  She was enjoying the music.  When I went to turn it off, she asked me to leave it on.  We weren't listening to her music, nor anything she's shown any enjoyment from before.  We listen to far more music together now than we ever have before.

Does that define musical?

My system was always 'musical' to my ears.  The Rega DAC made it far more musical than it's ever been.  Before you think I'm praising Rega and bashing my B60 and speakers (as a guy in another forum thought), keep in mind that they're letting the DAC's signal get through!

[Stu Pitt]

However, everyone's idea of musical is different.  Just as everyone focuses on different aspects of a complex painting, everyone focuses on different aspects of music IMO.

[DaveNote]

An interesting take on 'musical'...

I bought my Rega DAC unbeknownst to my wife.  No, I didn't sneak it in, shè just doesn't care about this stuff.

The first night I had it playing, I saw her foot tapping for the first time.  She was enjoying the music.  When I went to turn it off, she asked me to leave it on.  We weren't listening to her music, nor anything she's shown any enjoyment from before.  We listen to far more music together now than we ever have before.

Does that define musical?

My system was always 'musical' to my ears.  The Rega DAC made it far more musical than it's ever been.  Before you think I'm praising Rega and bashing my B60 and speakers (as a guy in another forum thought), keep in mind that they're letting the DAC's signal get through!

Excellent! Seems to bridge the gulf on this topic bewteen those who think "musical" may be a term that has some meaning unto itself and those who think that it simply means a sound that is enjoyable to oneself.

Dave

[PRELUDE]

This one is very musical.I am just wondering which one of us can hear it at home in way it should really sound.

[Diamond Dog]

This one is very musical.I am just wondering which one of us can hear it at home in way it should really sound.

You can't, man....you just can't.

D.D.

[Crimson]

Great topic, but the article is clap trap.  "Musical" doesn't mean anything.  Intangible, subjective, and unemperical.  When a reviewer uses the word "musical" he just means that he likes the way the system sounds.  That's it.  It's one of the least useful terms used since it is entirely ambiguous.  At least terms like "neutral", "bright", "lush", "detailed", "resolving", and "warm" for instance, convey some common understanding about hifi sound.  "Musical" doesn't convey anything other than that particular reviewers level of personal satisfaction with the equipment.  How would a review reader use that information?  Since everybody has a different assessment of personal satisfaction.

+1

It's all hooey.

If it sounds good to you, well then you have the best sounding system.

Audiophilia is a hobby, a journey. Read the rags with a grain of salt.

Decide for yourself. And then buy the best.

Maggies and Bryston.