Musical or Accurate?

[DrWho]

I just listen to what sounds good...

If I don't enjoy something, then out come the measurements in an attempt to quantify why.

[artto]

I use Memorex []

[kaiser SET say]

This is such a subjective topic and the media we play still has a lot to do with either term but Dean has said it best in one line!

Said more than once, I believe a couple of others mentioned this too. Sure, if something is "musical", than it is "accurate". (replace a with e were appropriate)[]

I make the media statement because I have some recordings that are accurate on my system to a point of that realism spoken of and then I have some that are so jagged in their playback that I think the engineer was bumping the spindle as he recorded[:^)]

The quest for the proverbial accuracy is what drives this crazy hobby and why we have so many snake oil peddlers, bullsh1t reviewers who perpetuate the problem by having manufacturers in their hip pockets & the big one GREED!

I sure don't have the best equipment in the world but after assembling my 4 rig I have come to terms to stop obsessing and start listening more before my time is up here and all I did was seach for some impossible nirvana by perfection!

My thought pattern about listening these days is put on and hope for the best[]

[meagain]

So, maybe the problem here is with the two words, and maybe it is best to dispense with them. So, let's try the question a different way:

Do you prefer your horn system with a lot of detail and somewhat on the bright side, or do you like it warmer, and a bit lush? Do you want it to sound "live", or do you prefer it with a bit of color, with the transients rounded off somewhat? Wide open and clean, or with a thin veil and some richness? Hard truth, or white lie? You all know what I'm talking about here -- so don't go intellectual on me.

I want it accurate. If it's a live recording, I want live. I don't think I want 'everything' to sound live. Like electronic music, etc. I want it pure & pretty. Further - I don't know what "live" means to an unlive recording. I want it to sound like it was intended which may not be "live"! Speaking of live - I don't hear harsh/shrill in a live situation. I've heard distortion, but not shrill. Hence - if my speakers are shrill - I want it fixed or perhaps "musical".

OK - I'm not making much sense. Basically I want it to sound as intended. In my case, there's no way some of the sounds I'm hearing are as intended so I want those pieces that are 'wrong' - fixed. I like the concept of warm/lush in my case but not at the expense of detail? I'm pretty screwed aren't I? LOL OK - I just woke up from a nap cuz I was sick today..... I want accurate wide open clean w/detail - but yes, a bit of color warmth lush for ME in teensy tiny areas would be nice.

And I think with horn speakers, when you do see gripes - there is a common complaint of shrillness/bright/harsh. I read on other forums, etc. people selling their horns. If someone could invent something to fix that ONE piece - I think they'd make some money! I'd buy!

[Mallette]

It's about the source material.

Like a person who depends on the news, audiophiles need a system that doesn't editorialize.

Crappy recordings should sound crappy, and, well...

Many of you know I can go on endlessly about many things in audio.

This one is so close to me that's about all I got to say about that.

Dave

[TheEAR]

Musical

When people refer to musical they have in mind easy to listen to,non fatiguing sound you can enjoy.This is why tubes will be "musical" as they have no harshness and are softer.Are they accurate? Very much in doubt,but they make the music flow so musical they are.

Musical in audio gear often is not accurate.Accurate,what is it? Do most people even know

how instruments sound when played live...at live SPL? Would they even listen? Some instruments have to be mellowed to be called musical.

Take a low power tube amp and copmpare to solid state like a Bryston 4B,while the tube amp will sound more musical the Bryston is more of an accurate amp in the real sense.Add less than the euphonic,colored tube.

Some sound colorations are welcome other not.The welcome colorations make the components musical.

The more accurate less colored gear like amplified studio monitors will often be referred to as dry and analitycal.Try a pair of Genelec main monitors you will see(hear)what I want to say.

[jacksonbart]

musical

[Fish]

I've read some good answers,some long and I got a short attention span,so I'll take door #1,if it ain't musical who cares if its accurate?

[dtel]

I think Fish cut right through the BS

" If it ain't musical who cares if its accerate "

If it's not musical you will not listen very long.

I think the "recording" is where the real answers come from more than anything else.

I like live dvd concerts, the first one i ever bought was Eagles HFO. As i played it the first time from the start it has interviews that lead into the concert. Just before the concert started their was some music playing and i said to my wife i sure hope it sounds better than this, if not it's back to cd's. But when the concert started it was totaly different, like going from 8 track to dvd. And some dvd's i have sound like 8 tracks, i can't even listen no matter how much i like the music.

The quality of music is very hard to put into words and may sound different to the person siting next to you.

[LarryC]

So, we have these two different kind of sounds -- how would you describe the difference, and which do you prefer?

Musical, period. I've heard systems that are not that special in terms of pumping out great detail and dynamics, but do a great job of conveying the feeling and enjoyability of a performance.

A friend of mine has a wonderful system in musical terms -- it consists of an NAD receiver, a close-out NEC CD player (NEC doesn't make them any more), and a pair of small B&W 605 speakers. The sound from this very modest setup is always gratifying and conveys what I want to hear in good, felt musical performances. The speakers are quite precise within their adequate, soft-toned range, and the sound spread is so good that they're difficult to locate while playing. Yet, this setup is a very far cry from the wide dynamics and gripping detail of Klipsch horn-based speakers with fine, extremely clean tube or SS amplifiers.

So, I don't subscribe to the idea that accurate necessarily means musical. I do subscribe to comments above that one has to be familiar with the instrument(s) being heard, and definitely in live settings. Classical is largely heard in an auditorium. These have one feature that the home or theatre almost never have: extremely low ambient sound levels. I remember seeing a figure of only 25 db above some standard measure of zero sound. Contrast this with home environments where 40 db or more is very standard.

This brings up a factor in realism I don't think was mentioned above: very low-level detail and background noise. Classical recordings can sound closer to the real thing if the reproduction of very low-level detail stands out in the system and ambient environment. The latest, June/July 2006, issue of The Absolute Sound has a timely TAS Roundtable: Sonic Realism. There were many comments on the importance of low-level detail, one person saying that low-level detail produces a sense of musical vividness without necessarily sonic vividness. Human touch or breath sounds become more important. So is a lifelike size and power of the sound image, something that Klipsch excels at IMO.

While Klipsch wasn't mentioned, it was mentioned that midrange presence is crucial to feeling like one is in the room with the performer, and that may be why so many guys (sic!) remain wedded to "highly colored" horn systems because they do have that kind of presence. Harry Pearson (HP) thought that horns have dynamic nuance, with better macro and micro dynamics. Many here agree with that, I'm sure. It seemed to me that this panel focused mostly on accuracy, but strongly in the service of musicality.

Though I wish it were otherwise, I still think musicality can be a difficult, sometimes accidental quality to achieve.

[colterphoto1]

Superby written Larry- but then I knew your take on this subject would be one I would agree with wholeheartedly. []

M

[Strabo]

I think Musical v Accurate is too broad. I think there is a third category, "Detailed".

To me,

Musical - warm, slower sound, like the difference between a MC30 and a Bryston. Either rolled off highs or a midbass hump so that the music oozes into the room.

Accurate - flat response

Detailed - brighter, an emphasis in the treble that adds extra air to the music.

I (currently [])fall into the musical to accurate category. I cringe when I read reviews that say, "I heard things that I never noticed before" because that usually means a brighter system.

I don't care fore purely accurate either. Some of the most accurate (and expensive) systems I've heard were also the driest, most boring.

[meagain]

Can't Accurate BE Musical? My mind interprets 'Musical' as 'Pretty'. And can't one have 'Detailed' without 'brightness'?

[jpm]

When I close my eyes and drift away with the sweet music coming from my system, I can assure you I'm not analyzing anything. It is what it is.

[Strabo]

Can't Accurate BE Musical?

Why not, it's all subjective. The trick is being able to communicate the differences. We all have different perspectives and different experience levels. One person's musical is another person's slow, etc.

My mind interprets 'Musical' as 'Pretty'. And can't one have 'Detailed' without 'brightness'?

That can be true but until they learn better, a lot of people are fooled into thinking that bright = detailed because the added air exaggerates the details. IMO, detailed should mean fast or tight midrange and bass but it usually doesn't. You have to be familiar with the reviewer to know for sure which they mean when they use the term "detailed".

An example of accurate but boring IMO,

In a good room, Vienna Acoustic Mahler's, dCS Purcell, and a VTL S-400. Approximate value $35k (list). It threw out an amazing image. The midrange was silky smooth, the bass was deep and fast, the high end was clean. Each piece of the music sounded better than my system, but the sum of the musical pieces was underwelming (to me and I'd bet to most on this forum).

Others may love it, that is why it is subjective.

[Mallette]

Since my response elicited no reaction, let me rephrase:

If the source material is no good, what difference does the playback chain mean?

I repeat, it is about the source. Nothing else means anything.

Dave

[Marvel]

Too true Dave, but if the playback isn't any good, you won't know if the source is good or not will you? []

That's probably why all of the different components in systems here tend to all creep up in quality over time.

Bruce

[Mallette]

I disagree, Bruce. The story that comes to mind that fixed this concept in my mind is always the same.

I switched cars with my wife one morning at church and when I started the van I heard piano coming from what I assumed was the radio. I was immediately struck with how good it sounded. Then I noticed it was "Clair de lune," and I thought what a coincedence that I'd recorded that a couple of years before. Then, I realized it wasn't the radio but a CD I'd recorded in concert my wife had been listening to.

Source quality is obvious to me on ANY system, while system qualities tend to be less so.

Dave

[DizRotus]

Dave-<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I agree completely. An excellent performance and recording is evident whether being heard over the Internet from my cheap computer speakers, from FM in a vehicle or over a killer hi-fi system. Conversely, a poor performance and bad recording will sound inferior under all circumstances.

When I refurbished some La Scalas for the high school, it took some time for the band director to understand that good equipment cant compensate for a poor performance and/or recording. Finally he understands that the efficient and detailed system that can play Take Five from Time Out gloriously at high volume to fill that large space will make bad recordings sound even worse, especially at high volume.

[DrWho]

Conversely, a poor performance and bad recording will sound inferior under all circumstances...

I'd have to disagree with that one...there are many times that a

recording sounds like a good one on a crappy system - enough such that

I go get a higher quality version and bring it to my playback system at

home where I am often greeted by all the nasties in the music that make

it a most unenjoyable experience. I think I said that correctly?

Anyways, good music is good music and it sounds good everywhere...but

ideally the better the playback system the more enjoyable the good

music becomes. If it's not becoming more enjoyable then by definition

the playback system is not a good one...