Musicality. The holy grail?

A week of having to live without my main system has given me pause for thought.

If musicality is so important, why do we all spend fortunes on exotic kit and cables Musicality is oft used on this forum as an arbiter of quality, but if I am understanding the meaning behind the term properly, then I can get this from my cheap AV rig. So why bother with the embellishments

As for the term "musical". as used to describe components, what does it mean I mean, music is musical, so anything which changes the tonality of the music is inherrantly wrong. Accurate reproduction of music must surely be musical by definition.

I have noticed more and more reviewers cottoning on to the fact that describing something in this way, has more impact on the potential buyer than their normal vocabulary. If you ask me, it's just the latest vogue and means diddly, just as people percieve the word accurate to mean boring and sterile in hifi terms.

Seems to boil down to whether you as a listener want all the music or selected parts of it. But if all you need is the latter, why spend a fortune when the likes of Rotel and Nad can give it to you

 

Michael,

That's an easy question to answer.
It's all down to disposable income.
If you have a fairly limited budget (e.g. as a student) you buy to your budget.
As you get older (hopefully richer) you look for ways to spend your cash. Putting it into something you enjoy is a natural thing to do, hence our prediliction with hi-fi. Simple as that really.

Putting it another way, if you knew that you would NEVER be able to spend more than say £500 on a system, then you'd probably not REALLY want to have a £5k set of kit, because you knew it was simply unrealistic.

 

I dont spend fortunes, and nor will I. Good question. All the really expensive stuff I've heard plain and simply isnt worth the money to my ears.

If I had money to burn I might though. But I dont and am happy.

 

So what you are saying is that HiFi purchases above the base level are purely aspirational and don't really improve your apreciation of music

 

Well, I for one don't. I wanted decent hi-fi, I did some comparative testing, I liked the Linn I heard and put together an active system as No.1 system. It makes a great noise to my ears. End of line.

I spent money on No.2 system, but not a lot - well, with the exception of Sideshowbob's Meridian 588 CD player. (Why in No.2 system? That's the one that gets listened to more). Last purchase was a Quad 44 (£160). It also makes a great noise (DIN?) to my ears. End of that line.

I am a profound non-believer in cables and that sort of stuff. My choice of cable for No.1 system (QED Silver, the one with 12 separate conductors) was dictated solely by its thinness (fits under little Swiss skirting boards), the interconnects are usually the ones that came with the equipment, with the exception of one set of Frontfloater's "Orpheus", which appear to be slightly better. Neither Audusa Eupen mains cable nor Mana stands worked for me.

So, I've reached the end of my hi-fi road, until something blows up. All funds are now allocated to music. Yes, I'm sure I can do much better (there's Titian's system, for example, but I'm not prepared to mortgage the house), but I don't care.

I wish you all well in your search for audio nirvana. I've stopped.

 

All I can say is that when I lent my DAC64 to a friend for 4 days recently and had to make do with the onboard DAC on my ancient Marantz CD50SE I found my enjoyment of the music to be much reduced. Sure, it played music and it wasn't bad (the CD50SE is re-clocked afterall) but it just wasn't the same.

Merlin, I agree with you though on the way that the reviewing community has picked up on the term "musical" and uses it all over the place without probably really having a clue what they mean by it. It seems to be the latest "killer" attribute

Michael.

 

For me, "musical" is a system that lets me hear the music, and relax... :MILD:

If I am paying attention to detail, or bass, or treble, or the lack of them, I am listening to hifi, not music...

 

That's not quite what I'm saying.
I'm happy to state that my system sounds better than it did say a couple of years ago, having spent a reasonable amount of cash on it.
Where you came in from was by suggesting that a £500 system is in some ways just as capable as putting across the key musical messages as a £5000, which I wouldn't dissagree with.

Do you remember when you first heard a good £500 system, and thought "wow, I can picture the band infront of me". So just what has changed with a £5k rig? Not a lot really.
I really do maintain that part of our enjoyment is related to expectations. Once we know we can have better, we see faults in what we have already.

 

I feel the 'Holy grail' if you like, is constructing a system you like, and if it majors on the more musical side, rather than the pitch accurate presenation, then cool, simarly if you go the other way, again does it matter, as it's yours, I know a lots of Guys who are musicaly complete at £500 and would never dream of spending more, doesn't make any more appricable of the music. WM

 

it's all bollocks really.

imo above a certain point, which is different for everyone based on their preference in presentation, musical tastes, income and what other stuff they've been exposed to, it's all willy waving.
my system is perfectly good, i can hear minute details which would be swamped out in distortion on most dixons specials however i still hanker after a new pre, why? because my nait 5 isn't a nac 82 that's why. no other reason, i haven't even heard one and i still want one even though i disliked the supposedly better 282. it's stupid really but there you go, that's the nature of the beast.
cheers


julian

 

Musicality is just another word to describe a sound or type of sound.

The hifi press have to change their language now and again to keep their reviews 'fresh'.

Its a mugs game anyway, its bleedin' hard to describe a sound using words, its much easier to hear it and anyway its all down to the individuals ears.


lowrider said

For me, "musical" is a system that lets me hear the music, and relax...

If I am paying attention to detail, or bass, or treble, or the lack of them, I am listening to hifi, not music...

I have a different opinion, I enjoy listening to individual instruments or voices within a song structure and I enjoy the fact that my hifi lets me do that. I don't consider that to be listening to hifi rather than music though.
________
LAMBORGHINI GALLARDO

 

A better system should be more musically communicative, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the most expensive. Cheaper systems can often be extremely enjoyable to listen to, not least because they mask faults at the same time as revealing more than midi systems ever can.

I've spent a reasonable amount in the last 18 months or so, more than I ever planned to, but I do play music virtually all the time I'm at home, and the expense seems worth it to me. I have no interest in going any further up the ladder, however, I think I already have a reasonably engaging bunch of components that do the job for me and I have no desire to willy wave or compete with anyone else. Dissatisfaction and upgradeitis come from a combination of faults in one's current setup (irrespective of cost), boredom with one's music collection, and a desire to have the most expensive system on the block, IME.

-- Ian

 

Musicality's an odd one...

My main hifi is OK, so it's no WM/Henryt system, but it's "good enough" - although the vinyl front end needs a better rack...

Mind you, last night I was bunging together a spag bol (it's about the only thing I'll cook from scratch, as I *hate* cooking. So I started off with The Doors' "The Doors" on the main system at fairly high volume. I then thought "hmm" and stopped the hifi, and dropped Kate Bush's "The kick inside" into my 3 year old Sony boombox in the kitchen. So the bass is flabby and one notey, but the piano was flowing like a bitch on "Moving" and overall it grooved pretty well.

Sometimes I do wander why I bothered upgrading from my old 2nd hand JVC amp/JPW Gold Monitors/stands, and Pioneer PDS703 CDP (my first, ex-student) system, as (and Henryt/Lhatkins will vouch for this) it kicked out rock and dance REALLY well, even though there were obvious faults. While Loved Up sounds more detailed and flows a little bit better on my current rig, it worked blooming well on that one too. And that was about £4k ago (lots of additions, upgrades and box swapping).

I could have gone on holiday 8 times with that, but no. My new passport is still unused. I should take my mates' advice and stop buying DVDs, records and kit, and get saving for a holiday. After Christmas, I will. I'll have my Glasters money saved by then as well

 

For me the "musicality" of a hi-fi system is a measure of how much it sounds like the music it's playing. The best way to guage this is to compare the sound of the system with the sound of live, preferably acoustic, music.

A better term for me is "natural". To achieve a natural sound a system would be more than just tonally neutral. It would be detailed, open, fast, controlled and transparent. In addition, it would image well (so the performers and instruments are held steady in space).

To what extent these qualities have to be present for a system in order for it to sound natural depends on the perception and preferences of the listener.

It's true that there isn't always a clear correlation between the price of equipment and its musicality. Nevertheless, good equipment is often expensive.

 

I totally agree with those that have said that "musicality" is nothing more than another "subjective" term. In fact it's the one of the worst words ever for conveying how a system/component sounds or communicates "music"!! Unless of course, you know precisely what the other person means and how they listen, and their prefered style of presentation.

Another word which is just as bad, even worse I think in this forum is the use of the term "hi-fi" to describe the sound or presentation. "Hi-fi" means that the sound does not communicate the spirit or emotion of the music, but we all get turned on emotionally or find involvement or interest in music in different ways, as is witnessed by our different choice of kit, and music too.

But I think I've worked by what WM means by "Hi-Fi", apart from the fact he doesn't like it! Does not "time" or present rhythms correctly? Rhythm to me is secondary, I notice when it's not right, but like ram I listen first and foremost to the expression put into the way an instrument is played (not so much when it was played), but that's just me.

The problem with timng is that it gets more difficult to reproduce correctly as you gain wider and wider bandwidth. More sh!te coming through the open windows which needs to be controlled, which is why some find the cheaper (more bandwidth limited) kit sounds more "musical" to them.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear, I think we have similar opinions, of course I also enjoy listening to the individual instruments or voices, but to listen to the music a bass guitar is playing, is not the same as listening to how low and tight it goes instead...

 

Isnt that what you just said in the first place.

You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. Yes, IMO expensive hifi is a waste of money. But each to their own, I aint got a problem with people spending that much if it gives them enjoyment. But for me, my system performs extremely well for the amount it cost, and is good enough for me.

I listen to a lot of dance music and I might want something different if my listening habits were otherwise, but they arent, and my system gives me plenty of energy and bass and thats what I want.

 

There is actually a DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) Standard that defines "high fidelity" in respect of sound equipment and the physical measurement of its performance. This of course has nothing to do with the character of the sound produced.

 

It does seem ironic that for a few people in the forum "hifi" has come to be regarded as mutually exclusive with "musical" - afterall, hifi is high fidelity ie accurately representing the original. Surely the pinnacle of high fidelity (and the origin of the term) is something sounding as close as is possible to the original live sound? In other words, if a system was truly "hifi" then it would also be the most musical.

By contrast, a system could be "musical" without being very high fidelity. The sound coming from a mono Tivoli One radio is very musical but it's not hifi by any stretch of the imagination. So, IMO, "hifi" is a superset of "musical". Something "hifi" is, by definition, "musical" but something "musical" is not necessarily "hifi".

Since the terms "musical" and "hifi" (as used in this forum) map loosely onto "flat earth" and "round earth" I can extrapolate:

Any round earth system necessarily has flat earth attributes, but not the other way around :devil: :duck:

Michael.

 

michael,
i've heard some very hi-fi systems without an ounce of musicality (in the flat / round sense of the word). i think it's more of a 2d graph with one axis being musicality and the other axis being hi-fi ness. that way you can have very musical systems with no hi-fi qualities (the tivoli) and you can have very hi-fi systems with no musicality (the big lummox i listened to first at jj's which was all analysis and no fun).
cheers


julian