Chris Frankland

[Blzebub]

The point is, hi-fi is hi-fi. Or it's not. Once you start imbuing mysticism into it, it's the road to mediocrity.

 

[Yank]

Musicality is the Chris Frankland/flat earth trump card. I always use the word with irony, but difficult to transmit the iron bit on the internet. It implies that the piece of equipment understands music, and has a "feel" for how it should be portrayed. Whether that idea is credible, I really don't know. A musical bearing? Or perhaps musical capacitors & resistors. Maybe a musical transformer. You get the picture.

We had the term long before there was any such thing as a flat-earth movement, and it just meant that the gear made a sound that was pleasant to the ear.

I've also heard the term used by academic musicians to describe a pleasant arrangement, or pleasing room acoustics for an acoustic performance.

So the term was not coined by the hifi press, and was never exclusive to the flat-earth faction.

 

[dave]

Musicality is the Chris Frankland/flat earth trump card. I always use the word with irony, but difficult to transmit the iron bit on the internet. It implies that the piece of equipment understands music, and has a "feel" for how it should be portrayed. Whether that idea is credible, I really don't know. A musical bearing? Or perhaps musical capacitors & resistors. Maybe a musical transformer. You get the picture.

The folks who use the phrase "musical" (and most of the rest of the world) would understand it to mean a greater level of low level detail retrieved during playback. Examples might include where the pads of a human's fingertips are clearly heard depressing the strings on a gut string classical guitar as opposed to nothing but the sound of the fretted notes coming out of the speaker or the difference in dynamics and phrasing between Aretha belting out R-E-S-P-E-C-T vs a pimply fifteen year old regurgitating the same song's lyrics on American Idol or when a triangle does or doesn't go missing during a loud passage in a symphony.

No magic implied or required. I suspect it's all quite measurable assuming one knows what to measure when designing the gear.

 

[Blzebub]

We had the term long before there was any such thing as a flat-earth movement, and it just meant that the gear made a sound that was pleasant to the ear.

I've also heard the term used by academic musicians to describe a pleasant arrangement, or pleasing room acoustics for an acoustic performance.

So the term was not coined by the hifi press, and was never exclusive to the flat-earth faction.

I know what the word means. It's not really applicable to hi-fi equipment as a comparator in a review because it is so subjective.

 

[Blzebub]

The folks who use the phrase "musical" (and most of the rest of the world) would understand it to mean a greater level of low level detail retrieved during playback. Examples might include where the pads of a human's fingertips are clearly heard depressing the strings on a gut string classical guitar as opposed to nothing but the sound of the fretted notes coming out of the speaker or the difference in dynamics and phrasing between Aretha belting out R-E-S-P-E-C-T vs a pimply fifteen year old regurgitating the same song's lyrics on American Idol or when a triangle does or doesn't go missing during a loud passage in a symphony.

No magic implied or required. I suspect it's all quite measurable assuming one knows what to measure when designing the gear.

You are talking about low-level detail retrieval, to begin with. Then you move on to comparing AF with an unknown singer (where it is appropriate). Then you go back to low-level detail retrieval. This might be related to noise floor, where the LP12 doesn't do so well.

 

[dave]

You are talking about low-level detail retrieval, to begin with. Then you move on to comparing AF with an unknown singer (where it is appropriate).

Musicality as applied to describing the sonic output of a system can be nothing more than low level detail preserved (or not) during reproduction.

My AF example vs a pimply fifteen year old on AI was simply an alternative example. (A "robot" like voice perfectly in tune and time perhaps but devoid of power and emotion vs a master)

EDIT: I find the LP-12 does exceptionally well despite the measurements compared to the best. However, I find it ironic the only needle drop I've heard on this forum that delivered the emotional impact of a real musician telling a story through his voice and instrument was courtesy of an SME TT as the source. Every LP-12 recording I've heard here was a dismal failure but since I know what the old fruit box can actually do in real time, I can only conclude one thing. The BS I read in some of these forums about the SME is just that. It very well may be the finest turntable available and if not, one of the finest certainly. If I ever wanted back into vinyl my first stop would be at an SME dealership.

 

[Blzebub]

Musicality as applied to the output of a system can be nothing more than low level detail preserved (or not) during reproduction.

My AF example vs a pimply fifteen year old on AI was simply an alternative example. (A "robot" like voice perfectly in tune and time perhaps but devoid of power and emotion vs a master)

Most people would call what you call musicality, low-level detail retrieval. Not a strong point for the LP12.

Who had better musicality, Mozart or Kraftwerk? Illustrate your answer. I think this is actually an interesting question, and one which might generate interesting debate. Whenever I read Linn/Naim people banging on about "musicality", I switch off.

Thanks for your edit, dave. There is a lot of nonsense put about on the forums about how anything other than an LP12 sounds boring. It just isn't so.

 

[Rob400]

I have to agree that the level of "musicality" isn't a word that should be used when judging the merits of hifi sound. It is a reality though that some very expensive, detailed and analytical sounding systems don't engage the listener in the same way that some more modest systems do. Is that totally linked to pace, rhythm and timing? I feel not as creating the illusion of "realism" draws me into the sound equally..

 

[dave]

Most people would call what you call musicality, low-level detail retrieval. Not a strong point for the LP12.

Who had better musicality, Mozart or Kraftwerk? Illustrate your answer.

I can only address your Mozart and Kraftwerk comparative from a musical genre preference since I didn't care for the entire synth-based pop movement of the late seventies in Europe.

How about Varese vs Mozart for me? Zero difference musicality-wise as both move me.

 

[Blzebub]

I have to agree that the level of "musicality" isn't a word that should be used when judging the merits of hifi sound. It is a reality though that some very expensive, detailed and analytical sounding systems don't engage the listener in the same way that some more modest systems do. Is that totally linked to pace, rhythm and timing? I feel not as creating the illusion of "realism" draws me into the sound equally..

It could be anything. Room acoustics are probably way more important than what cartridge you have, for instance. "Analytic-sounding" is never going to be good, is it? For me, that conjures up a lift in the treble, for whatever reason (room, etc.)

 

[Blzebub]

I can only address your Mozart and Kraftwerk comparative from a musical genre preference since I didn't care for the entire synth-based pop movement of the late seventies in Europe.

How about Varese vs Mozart for me? Zero difference musicality-wise as both move me.

Very good question as I know nothing of Varese. Please recommend his good stuff.

How about Miles Davis versus Beethoven? Or Bob Dylan versus Nigel Kennedy? This is why musicality is such a poor comparator, but Frankland's review conclusions were almost always based upon it.

 

[jair]

It was a great read. Wish there were a hifi mag now that is equally enjoyable.

Tim

Me too. I found it a compelling work of fiction.

HFR was never boring but using rontoolsie's phrase from earlier in this thread, it became obvious that 'tone, detail, space and humanity' were totally disregarded in the single-minded obsession with PRAT. I was to find out for myself years later, and after much cost in time and money that, in the words of the late Harvey Rosenberg, 'THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTE OF MUSIC IS TONE'.

Hi-Fi must be a difficult thing to write about because apart from KK and David Price most published articles are only fit for the treatment of insomnia.

 

[dave]

I have to agree that the level of "musicality" isn't a word that should be used when judging the merits of hifi sound. It is a reality though that some very expensive, detailed and analytical sounding systems don't engage the listener in the same way that some more modest systems do. Is that totally linked to pace, rhythm and timing? I feel not as creating the illusion of "realism" draws me into the sound equally..

The "PR&T" term as far as I know is someone's attempt at creating an acronym for whatever it is about a hifi that keeps you up all night spinning tunes vs one that doesn't.

 

[dave]

Very good question as I know nothing of Varese. Please recommend his good stuff.

How about Miles Davis versus Beethoven? Or Bob Dylan versus Nigel Kennedy? This is why musicality is such a poor comparator, but Frankland's review conclusions were almost always based upon it.

Varese: His complete (recorded) works (and cheap enough so no big loss if you hate him):

http://www.amazon.com/Varèse-Complete-Works-Edgard-Varese/dp/B00000AFR8/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1420327036&sr=1-1&keywords=edgar+varese

Regarding the comparative...the examples myself and others use are simply typical of what the world as a whole uses as a reference for musicians who have a message to deliver vs others who typically do not.

I do realize some folks find a connection with Lawrence Welk, The Partridge Family and The Osmonds which many of us may not find, regardless, I suspect those fans will find an even closer connection when using gear that reveals the most information in the signal.

Heading out for a few hours but will be back later

 

[Rob400]

It could be anything. Room acoustics are probably way more important than what cartridge you have, for instance. "Analytic-sounding" is never going to be good, is it? For me, that conjures up a lift in the treble, for whatever reason (room, etc.)

Do you ever agree with anyone about anything?

 

[Blzebub]

Yes. I agree completely with this:

I have to agree that the level of "musicality" isn't a word that should be used when judging the merits of hifi sound.

 

[Yank]

I know what the word means. It's not really applicable to hi-fi equipment as a comparator in a review because it is so subjective.

Of course it's entirely subjective. And it relates to equipment with obvious flaws, which are nonetheless musically consonant in the view of the reviewer.

 

[Blzebub]

Yes, and so it's totally meaningless to any reader other than the reviewer himself. CF might as well have written "I prefer the <LP12/Naim amplifier/Isobarik/whatever> because I like it more". Instead, he wove a web of mysticism around alleged special "musical" abilities.

 

[Yank]

Me too. I found it a compelling work of fiction.

HFR was never boring but using rontoolsie's phrase from earlier in this thread, it became obvious that 'tone, detail, space and humanity' were totally disregarded in the single-minded obsession with PRAT. I was to find out for myself years later, and after much cost in time and money that, in the words of the late Harvey Rosenberg, 'THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTE OF MUSIC IS TONE'.

I suppose that all depends on individual listener preferences, but I also tend to focus on timbre and formants first. Overt midrange coloration and odd vowel sounds will put me right off. If that part is wrong, it doesn't matter what else the system may do well. Which is why Linn speakers always sent me running away screaming. The US Linn importer told me I was hung up on "audiophile categories" and didn't know how to listen to music.

 

[Yank]

Yes, and so it's totally meaningless to any reader other than the reviewer himself. CF might as well have written "I prefer the <LP12/Naim amplifier/Isobarik/whatever> because I like it more". Instead, he wove a web of mysticism around alleged special "musical" abilities.

Follow the money.