What is "musicality"?

Daygloworange · « **Reply #20 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 04:32 am »

Quote

I think your friend may have been a tad bit jealous.

Yeah, I second the notion.

Cheers

boead · « **Reply #21 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 05:10 am »

Quote from: JoshK on 11 Nov 2006, 01:58 am

Krell and JM Labs together tends to be 'hyper clinical but accurate'. Think of a doctor's office, it is super sterile but not necessarily a comfortable place to hang out.

I hate the word distortion...its a stupid word made up by audiophiles....yeah it is in the dictionary but audiophiles invented it.

It is a description that an audiophile uses when they can’t explain something, but they won't admit as much. Oh your cables sound ‘warm’ must be distortion. Oh one tube sounds different then the other? Distortion!

Daygloworange · « **Reply #22 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 05:16 am »

exactly

arthurs · « **Reply #23 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 05:29 am »

I don't think this has been asked yet...how do YOU think your system sounds? Science and audiophilia aside, what is musical to you and what is to your friend, or anyone else for that matter, varies wildly....IMO....

boead · « **Reply #24 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 05:37 am »

I have a pair of KRK V8 Series-II powered studio monitors. I also had a pair of KRK V-88’s and I still have a KRK V12S-II sub.

If your not familiar with KRK monitors, they one of the more popular studio mixing monitors. Studio engineers just seem to LOVE these speakers. You will find them in most better studios and lots of engineers will bring there own personal pairs with them to mix on.

I find them to be extremely revealing. Very accurate, powerful and dynamic. Problem is that they are not very enjoyable to listen to. I actually sort of hate them and I use them on my AV Receiver wired mono for my center channel. I told a studio engineer buddy of mine and he was appalled. I explained that they were great but not musical.

Great speaker, does everything right but just lacks musicality. No body or soul to them. Loads of bass, great mids, amazing transparency, perfect highs but not particularly enjoyable to listen too. Maybe with some distortion they would sound better.

Also, my AVA T7 preamp was like that. It did everything right but it just had no body. It was the same way on my friends system. He has a BAT preamp and he too found the AVA T7 to be good but it lacked a reason to want to listen to it. He felt it was bland. I found the headphone section to be the same way, good, even very good but just bland and uneventful too, must be in the genes. Life’s to short for uneventful anything, since I replaced it, I’m astonished how much more fun my system is – its just as transparent and detailed but has tighter an deeper bass and a beautifully smooth midrange which is something I didn’t realize was the fault of the preamp. I was planning on selling my Dec. amp and tying something different but since I replaced the AVA T7, I LOVE my amp all aver again. Couldn’t be happier with it.

You know Yamaha says their violins are as good as any Stradivarius but a musician will say they lack soul and tone. Maybe they just have less distortion.

Prime examples of musicality.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #25 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 05:46 am »

FWIW, I've auditioned many KRKs and I always felt them to be lacking in transparency and accuracy, especially in the midrange. Talk about a boxy sound...Many other monitors in the same environments sounded much better at similar price points. In my experience, they are, perhaps, not the best analogy. I must admit I don't understand people who would consider the KRKs I've personally heard as being neutral and transparent. They all had a family sound that I couldn't stand.

S Clark · « **Reply #26 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 06:02 am »

Nodiggity-
I am somewhat surprised that no one has asked about your listening room

. Your equipment is reputed to be excellent stuff and should create a very satisfactory audio experience-- but even very good electronics and speakers can be stymied by a room interactions. Before even thinking about pursuing "musicality" I would ask about the nature of your room.

boead · « **Reply #27 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 06:02 am »

Quote from: ooheadsoo on 11 Nov 2006, 05:46 am

FWIW, I've auditioned many KRKs and I always felt them to be lacking in transparency and accuracy, especially in the midrange. Talk about a boxy sound...Many other monitors in the same environments sounded much better at similar price points. In my experience, they are, perhaps, not the best analogy. I must admit I don't understand people who would consider the KRKs I've personally heard as being neutral and transparent. They all had a family sound that I couldn't stand.

Understood but they are tremendously popular and not because they advertise a lot and get there product in every MI store across the nation – they don’t! They got started by word of mouth and it grew and yes they certainly do have a house sound.

You like the Mackie’s?

The M-Audios just suck!

Boxy? Well all studio monitors tend to sound boxy but I think the KRK’s image better then most – maybe it’s the setup or studio you heard them in. Most small suites stuff the speakers up behind the console and no speaker sounds right that way but what are you going to do?
I had them in a few different home environments and they really do throw a large soundstage thats deep and wide and they don’t need a sub, thats for sure! I have the V12S sub and its what I use at home, its one of the best subs I’ve ever heard but I haven’t heard many outside the Velodyne class audiophile sub. I HATE home theater subs with that big fat thumping bass or rolling rumble that shacks the room. I really hate that, its distracting.

nathanm · « **Reply #28 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 07:05 am »

The word "musicality" would better be used to describe a sound you hear which does not come from a typically musical source like an instrument or voice but has properties indicative of music. Perhaps something like birds, crickets, whales, or similar. Once I had an open window where the wind was sucking the venetian blinds so hard that they whistled a tune. That was musicality. Something which should be noise but seems musical. In the context of dudes sitting and listening to speakers it seems to be simply one of those weird audiophile words which isn't really meaningful.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #29 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 07:34 am »

Nathan, were you aware that aeolian harps almost fit your description of the venetian blinds. Thay were/are a set of strings stretched across a shallow and wide sounding board/resonator and placed on a window sill near a slightly open window. When the wind blew, musical sounds came from the vibrating strings.

This was, as you can imagine, pre-muzak, and was a lot simpler than the complex maze than can materialize in the name of audiophilia.

Witness this Japanese doctor's beautiful obsession:
http://klangfilm.free.fr/index.php?lng=0&music=&type=0&frame=1&item=&title=&dir=&num=

click on Dr. Takeshi Mikami

enjoy!

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #30 on:** 11 Nov 2006, 08:14 am »

Quote from: boead on 11 Nov 2006, 06:02 am

You like the Mackie’s?

The M-Audios just suck!

I don't want to hijack the thread too much, so in brief, I did think the mackies were best in class. For the price, they did the best job. Events offerings at the time were close, but no cigar. I agree, the m-audios were no good. Shhh, I know some big m-audio fans, too

NoDiggity · « **Reply #31 on:** 12 Nov 2006, 03:00 am »

Clark,
My room is quite big.. I mean it's 25 ft wide, 34ft long, 9ft tall. My speaker is 14 ft apart and I'm sitting 15 ft from them. I am using all RPG stuff..the treatment concept of my room is pretty similar to this:
http://www.rpgdiffusors.com/residential/projects/trans.htm

Dylon

Quote from: S Clark on 11 Nov 2006, 06:02 am

Nodiggity-
I am somewhat surprised that no one has asked about your listening room . Your equipment is reputed to be excellent stuff and should create a very satisfactory audio experience-- but even very good electronics and speakers can be stymied by a room interactions. Before even thinking about pursuing "musicality" I would ask about the nature of your room.

boead · « **Reply #32 on:** 12 Nov 2006, 03:15 am »

Quote from: ooheadsoo on 11 Nov 2006, 08:14 am

Quote from: boead on 11 Nov 2006, 06:02 am
You like the Mackie’s?

The M-Audios just suck!

I don't want to hijack the thread too much, so in brief, I did think the mackies were best in class. For the price, they did the best job. Events offerings at the time were close, but no cigar. I agree, the m-audios were no good. Shhh, I know some big m-audio fans, too

I have wanted to hear a Meyer HD-1 for years now.
http://www.meyersound.com/products/studioseries/hd-1/

I’d also like their sub.
http://www.meyersound.com/products/studioseries/x-800/

The company I work for does business with Meyer Sound. A friend has an older but similar pair of their monitors for 2-channel listening in his living room. They sound nice.

The Mackie’s are real nice agree with you.

G Georgopoulos · « **Reply #33 on:** 12 Nov 2006, 04:40 am »

I hate the word distortion...its a stupid word made up by audiophiles....yeah it is in the dictionary but audiophiles invented it.

It is a description that an audiophile uses when they can’t explain something, but they won't admit as much. Oh your cables sound ‘warm’ must be distortion. Oh one tube sounds different then the other? Distortion!

-------------------------------------
i dont agree with that statement
i think musicallity is real how do you define it i dont know
there is so much involved with sound if you look around,
musicality is some product of it, for example a loudspeaker
in a different room will have its musicality altered, as for
other equipment they too have dependancies on other
various parameters, whats important here is that musicality
is a term that describes some unknown/known inner quality of
a musical component

kind regards
George

JLM · « **Reply #34 on:** 12 Nov 2006, 12:05 pm »

IMO studio monitors are designed to provide a highly analytical, detailed response with accurate (flat) frequency response (so sound "engineers" can do their jobs). On the surface those seem to be a very reasonable goals for any audio playback system. More in the consumer market I find M&K speakers fitting this mold (except that most professional studio monitors are active designs).

My analogy uses a bowl of fruit. The highly analytical, detailed, and accurate system will reveal the number, size, and color of the fruit. The musical system concentrates on the texture, taste, and feel of the fruit.

Another analogy uses dogs. Humans perceive mostly using visual (and some audible) cues. Dogs rely on smell primarily (and taste). Things aren't always as they seem (visually) and our sense of hearing can be more easily fooled but its much harder to fool a good sense of smell or taste.

It's really a matter of why you listen. Which side of the brain are you primarily trying to stimulate? The analytical or the emotive? Are you primarily interested in knowing the number and type of instruments in the orchestra or do you seek to be swept away and stirred by the piece? For some, "excessive" detail distracts from the texture, taste, and feel of the music. Others need a high level of detail so that the brain is freed from filling in the missing information or just plain enjoy hearing the lips part and other subtle details.

Scotty · « **Reply #35 on:** 12 Nov 2006, 09:07 pm »

I think it helps to remember what setting 10 to 15ft. away from a Jazz quartet
sounds like. There is no shortage of detail or texture, and no separation between the two halves of your brain,this a complete listening experience.
In my opinion that is the goal we should be striving toward in home music reproduction. I am quite happy with the progress I have made in this direction with my own system but this has required patronizing manufacturers that are out of the main stream of audio and also have the goal of bringing back it alive instead
of DOA.
Scotty

boead · « **Reply #36 on:** 13 Nov 2006, 12:08 am »

Quote from: Scotty on 12 Nov 2006, 09:07 pm

I think it helps to remember what setting 10 to 15ft. away from a Jazz quartet
sounds like. There is no shortage of detail or texture, and no seperation between the two halves of your brain,this a complete listening experience.
In my opinion that is the goal we should be striving toward in home music reproduction. I am quite happy with the progress I have made in this direction with my own system but this has required patronizing manufacturers that are out of the main stream of audio and also have the goal of bringing back it alive instead
of DOA.
Scotty

You are assuming the microphones and recorder are recording the same live event you are hearing but they are not. I can hear the spit in the throat of a singer on a recording but I seldom hear that in a live venue. Do you?

How can you be sure that the shear amount of detail isn't unnatural?

The goal is flawed and pointless to even begin to obtain.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #37 on:** 13 Nov 2006, 12:19 am »

Quote

You are assuming the microphones and recorder are recording the same live event you are hearing but they are not. I can hear the spit in the throat of a singer on a recording but I seldom hear that in a live venue. Do you?

How can you be sure that the shear amount of detail isn't unnatural?

The goal is flawed and pointless to even begin to obtain.

Very, very true. I've said this in other posts around here, but it really is worth saying again because I think people who haven't experienced it, have a sort of blind faith in the recording process.

Microphones do not hear at like the human ear. Period.

Condensers, dynamic, ribbon microphones all have very different sounds. The way they pick up sound is different, and the way they interpret and convey is different from each other. The best analogy I can think of is they are kind of like the paint brushes an artist uses. They all apply paint in a different way to the canvas.

It's very hard to find two microphones of the same make and model that sound the same.

Cheers

JLM · « **Reply #38 on:** 13 Nov 2006, 01:11 am »

Yes, we audionuts fixate over all kinds of sound quality issues when we're helplessly held hostage by the whole recording end of the process. It's normally a complex maze of compromises.

It's like going through strangers refrigerators for leftovers and trying to make gourmet dishes out of them. Maybe they were really good the first time, maybe not, (you can't know until you get it home) but rarely will they taste better heated up again.

The quality of the orginal ingredents (music) was probably very good. Maybe the recording (cooking) process went well, maybe not. Often the best results come from those who are talented enough to make it look easy. But the original studio (kitchen) folks had no idea what was going to become of the recording (leftovers) the next time its served (played back).

Daygloworange · « **Reply #39 on:** 13 Nov 2006, 01:20 am »

Quote

The quality of the orginal ingredents (music) was probably very good. Maybe the recording (cooking) process went well, maybe not. Often the best results come from those who are talented enough to make it look easy. But the original studio (kitchen) folks had no idea what was going to become of the recording (leftovers) the next time its served (played back).

A lot of times, recordings were compromised so that they would translate well on the majority of playback equipment, leaving people with very high end stuff to be shortchanged. Years ago, a mix would be tweaked so that it would not have phase problems when summed in stereo. ( for television, AM radio )

Sometimes, particularly with ambient recordings, you have to be very careful when using multiple microphones on a single source, the phase problems you can encounter when you blend the different microphones together at the mixing process are tremendous.

Compromises abound everywhere.

Cheers