Musicality what is it?

i always thought that it meant rhythm of music you enjoy to give you a pleasure to enjoy listening to?// perhaps i am wrong.

 

Yes, of course - what's your point - no sooner than you question my premise than you acquiesce?

You make and sell bits of hi-fi related ephemera for profit - what makes you think you have any more of 'a life' (or rite to patronise) than anyone else?

Good to hear that freedom of speech is safe .

 

Pawned...

 

Agree that as description of the 'added value/effect' of [sound reproduction] kit 'musical' and 'musicality' is nonsense, and one with PRaT [which I thought meant ' presence , rhythm and timing"] meant that it allowed the music, as played, to be 'as though being played' in the 'here and now'.

its a quality, not easily measured in components but perhaps measured as 'user satisfaction' for a set-up/system

 

The term originated from Martin Colloms as Pace, Rhythm and Dynamics.
Timing was substituted for Dynamics by the more hard-core flat earth crowd.

Read all about it from the man himself:

http://www.hificritic.com/downloads/Archive_A7.pdf

 

rob, do they make their wording as they go along? or is it just bull.

 

it's a methodology for describing aspects of sound reproduction that he is unable to measure, either they can't be measured as they aren't simple to measure and involve convolution of more than one sample period or the integration of multiple measurements as the aspect he describes is simply a function of the brains processing and doesn't exist in the measured world- or it's just bullshit to help him define his own priorities for claiming one product sounds better than another.

Or more likely than either, it's a little bit of both.

 

Yes it requires a little effort.

 

Sorry, too busy with what passes for my 'life' to respond.

 

i thought as much, nothing the wiser.

 

Discussing musicality or reading about it in magazines is pretty pointless.
As others have said, it is simply too subjective a response to properly quantify in a way that has meaning to a wider audience. You can just about get away with it where the forum/publication has a very specific and closed shop audience.

Out in the wider world, the different mix of strengths, weaknesses, colourations, distortions, room interactions and music preferences will mean that what sounds musical to one person on one system will sound quite unmusical to another.

There are some groups where what they are describing as musical can be easily broken down and understood as a set of quite distinct system anomalies or characteristics - traits that subjectively enhance certain types of music (usually quite a narrow range) but the problem with that approach is that such systems usually sound dreadful when you switch to a completely different music genre.

 

some comments read as somewhat of a put-down, verging on the patronising.

when I go and listen to music being played in front of me - in many cases these are instuments being played without amplification, is all a matter of subjective perception? If so, what language would be admissible?

When amplification is used, when recording is made, and when sound reproduction is attempted, a lot can be added or suppressed.

Labelling a reproduction system or component as 'life-less' or 'having musicality' is a bit twee but surely it is only attempt to comment on the added or suppressed effect of the kit - an allusion to a signal/noise ratio.

 

when i worked in recording studios we played music with groups who just out of the blue in their minds have created lyrics and rhythm notes on their acoustic guitars, in a pub outside hammersmith bridge, after a few pints we will go to the studio and improvise with out any amplification, sometimes having to sleep there for 3 to 4 days and send someone to the shops to get some food and soap/ to freshen up, now that was musical.

 

Musicality, like pr@t, is a word people use to validate their choices. It is wholly subjective and, apparently or perhaps obviously, immeasurable. It must never be subject to blind or any other objective test.

 

Very accurately, and succinctly, put.

(I bet you're glad you raised the subject now Keith - you cheeky monkey )

 

Last resort

It's as I thought the last resort of the charlatan, next week PRAT , would you base you your decisions on a thirty year old advertising byline, 'do the shake and vac' anyone?
Keith.

 

The thing is Keith, every time they ran those adverts sales of shake and vac increased four-fold. I imagine PRAT has served NAim and Linn similarly well over the years.

 

I would genuinely like to know what language people do feel is appropriate / reasonable to describe sounds.

I know when I've been auditioning kit that I've mentally used the word 'soulless' to describe at least one manufacturer's kit. It's a very subjective word, but it was the only thing I could think of to describe the sound I heard.

 

I like what someone said in a similar thread (on another forum, a long time ago): Musicality is like pornography, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

 

How does one 'see' Musicality Marcus?