Musical Vs Hi-Fi

[Docks]

So... I have my own personal thoughts on the two, but what about you guys?
Have you ever listened to a speaker that sounded good, but couldn't get you "into" it?
Lets hear some examples of "musical vs hifi" speakers and definitions!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Musical is Hi-Fi.

There is no difference to me.

Good is good.

If it's good, I'm into it.

If I'm not into it, then it's bad and it's neither musical nor Hi-Fi.

 

[markw]

I guess it's kinda like choosing a life partner.

You can go for one that everyone says is perfect for you, or you can go for the one that YOU say is right for you.

If they happen to be the same, mazel tov. If not, take your choice.

After all, you're the one who will be living with your choice, no one else.

 

[AJinFLA]

So... I have my own personal thoughts on the two, but what about you guys?

My personal thought is that you should stop reading the moronic audiophile magazines and websites that create these moronic, meaningless terms and false dichotomies.
By excessively reading such idiotic meaningless drivel, you will eventually drag yourself down and start repeating these terms that have no defined meaning, except in the mind(?) of the reciter.

 

[just listening]

So... I have my own personal thoughts on the two, but what about you guys?
Have you ever listened to a speaker that sounded good, but couldn't get you "into" it?
Lets hear some examples of "musical vs hifi" speakers and definitions!

I've been lucky to attend RMAF the past few years and will be there again in a few weeks. I've had the opportunity to hear some amazing gear, a few of which I and some others felt were "too intense" leaving the listener(s) exhausted. It was not a matter of the music being too loud, just hearing every note in a very aggressive presentation. I've never heard the term "hifi" in relation to being too much sound.

Musical to me, and what I've gathered from designers, audiophiles, and reviewers is when the equipment/speakers performs in such a way as the listener gets "lost" in the music. The individual can enjoy tunes all day without fatigue.

Some describe musical as the sound frequency edges being "rounded" or "softened" ever so slightly.

 

[zieglj01]

Musical to me, and what I've gathered from designers, audiophiles, and reviewers is when the equipment/speakers performs in such a way as the listener gets "lost" in the music. The individual can enjoy tunes all day without fatigue.

Some describe musical as the sound frequency edges being "rounded" or "softened" ever so slightly.

Yes, I Agree!

 

[Knucklehead90]

My personal thought is that you should stop reading the moronic audiophile magazines and websites that create these moronic, meaningless terms and false dichotomies.
By excessively reading such idiotic meaningless drivel, you will eventually drag yourself down and start repeating these terms that have no defined meaning, except in the mind(?) of the reciter.

AMEN!

The audio mags/reviewers must have something like a Rolodex with adjectives they change out on a regular basis. Phrases like 'lilting highs' - 'mid-range presence' - 'an airy presence' and 'the soundstage opened up like I've never heard' - etc - etc - makes me laugh whenever I read them.

Reminds me of the old limerick that goes something like this:

(Found on a wall in a public stall)(not by me)

People who write on ****house walls
should roll their *** in little balls
people who read these words of wit
should eat those little balls of ****

Anon...

Thats about what the words of the reviewers are worth to me. And don't get me started on reviews of $12,000 interconnects...

 

[AJinFLA]

Adj. 1. high-fidelity - characterized by minimal distortion in sound reproduction; "a high-fidelity recording"; "a hi-fi system"
hi-fi
accurate - conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a standard or performing with total accuracy; "an accurate reproduction"; "the accounting was accurate"; "accurate measurements"; "an accurate scale"

Musical
or musical comedy

Theatrical production that is characteristically sentimental and amusing in nature, having a simple but distinctive plot and offering music, dancing, and dialogue. Its roots can be traced to 18th- and 19th-century genres such as ballad opera, singspiel, and opéra comique.

By definition, non Hi-Fi would be distortion/additive components of coloration, so insert meaningless term here _____ (musical, magical, toe-tapping, PRAT, hand-in-pants-good, etc, etc, etc.)

 

[KEW]

Musical
or musical comedy

Theatrical production that is characteristically sentimental and amusing in nature, having a simple but distinctive plot and offering music, dancing, and dialogue. Its roots can be traced to 18th- and 19th-century genres such as ballad opera, singspiel, and opéra comique.

Try looking up "musical" as an adjective rather than as a noun if you expect the definition to have relevance to an intellegent discussion!
If you are just stirring the pot, well, never mind...

 

[ski2xblack]

In our home the SET based system gets played pretty much all waking hours, while others lie dormant. Its not 'hi-fi' strictly speaking, but greatly preferred to the other systems, which conform to the prevailing technical morality (meaning systems which AJ would approve of). The SET system pulls off the 'musicians in your living room' effect, despite inherent technical limitations. I'm sure it measures like crap, but frankly I don't care because it sounds more realistic. More musical? That's subjective. To each his own. I like SETs and big ol' horns.

 

[just listening]

In our home the SET based system gets played pretty much all waking hours, while others lie dormant. Its not 'hi-fi' strictly speaking, but greatly preferred to the other systems, which conform to the prevailing technical morality (meaning systems which AJ would approve of). The SET system pulls off the 'musicians in your living room' effect, despite inherent technical limitations. I'm sure it measures like crap, but frankly I don't care because it sounds more realistic. More musical? That's subjective. To each his own. I like SETs and big ol' horns.

SET's can be wonderful intimate-sounding rigs. Someday, when I'm no longer traveling so much I'm going to put one in my home office.

 

[KEW]

So... I have my own personal thoughts on the two, but what about you guys?
Have you ever listened to a speaker that sounded good, but couldn't get you "into" it?
Lets hear some examples of "musical vs hifi" speakers and definitions!

I have a fairly detailed comparison which hits on this topic in the link below:
In the context of this link, consider the Focal Solo6 (active studio monitors) as a HiFi speaker and the Salk Songtower as musical speakers.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59911&highlight=solo6+salk



I also experience the same categorical differences with the Behringer 2031P's (hi-fi) and the P362 (musical).

I'm not sure that musical and hi-fi are the best terms, but I think I understand the intended distinction. I just think that for a speaker to be musical does not eliminate it from having high fidelity and vice-versa.

I have continued to listen and compare these speakers since I wrote the post linked above and my personal conclusions are:
1) "Musical" speakers sound better on smooth music and smaller ensembles. Terms like rich, lush, warm, muddy, and smooth come to mind.
2) "Hi Fi" speakers are better for highly-syncopated music and larger ensembles. Terms like articulate, lean, distinct, cold, detailed, dead, and open come to mind.

Which of the above terms comes to mind depends entirely on the music. For something like a typical acoustic jazz trio, the musical speaker will sound smooth, sweet, and warm as compared to the hi-fi speaker, which will seem a bit dead in comparison. I believe it is safe to say the musical speaker would be preferred by the majority of people.

But if you are listening to a "full-on" orchestra the musical speaker gets a bit jumbled and the hi-fi speaker exhibits a clarity which I think most people would appreciate.

As you might expect, these shortcomings of either type speaker are not pronounced unless you are switching from one to the other and back without interruption. For me it is only because of instantaneously switching between speakers in the same room that I can comfortable resolve and conclude these differences. I have experienced where a "musical" speaker in one room sounds more "hi-fi" than a "hi-fi" speaker in another room which is why it is critical to find the sound you like in your own room.

If I had control over what music you listened to, it would be easy to convince you which speaker sounds better! Of course an audio sales guy is going to play the music that makes a speaker shine and if they are unscrupulous, they may also play music to make another speaker fall short to push you in a certain direction. This is why it is important to bring an array of your favorite music styles.

Another factor is what your musical background is. Having spent 15 years in jazz bands and pit orchestras, I am used to the sound of a flute/sax/trumpet/trombone/drums/etc as it is presented less than ~25 feet away and the hi-fi speaker better duplicates that sound. If, however, I had spent my life going to concerts, I would be used to the sound of those very same instruments as they are heard farther away in a theater or music hall full of people and I believe the "musical" speaker better duplicates that experience.

Cheers!

 

[AJinFLA]

consider the Focal Solo6 (active studio monitors) as a HiFi speaker and the Salk Songtower as musical speakers.

No, the Salk is far more Hifi than the Focal, which is more musical, having a very liquid, relaxed presentation.

I also experience the same categorical differences with the Behringer 2031P's (hi-fi) and the P362 (musical).

Complete opposite. The Infinity is far more clinical and cold (Hifi), while the B2031P has more toe tapping PRAT, making it the musical speaker.
You have the two clearly defined terms mixed up.

 

[KEW]

No, the Salk is far more Hifi than the Focal, which is more musical, having a very liquid, relaxed presentation.


Complete opposite. The Infinity is far more clinical and cold (Hifi), while the B2031P has more toe tapping PRAT, making it the musical speaker.
You have the two clearly defined terms mixed up.

Are you being sincere?
If so, I would appreciate your experience and opinion.
Can you elaborate on these statements?
Obviously your definition and mine are not the same.
What is "toe tapping PRAT".

Would you categorically consider speakers designed for home audio to typically be more "clinical and cold" than speakers designed for the recording industry?

Thanks,
Kurt

 

[just listening]

Comparing the Focal Solo6 to the Salk Song Tower doesn't make sense. One is a nearfield monitor, while the other is a tower relying on space to create it's best sound.

Then, to use the term "HiFi" is illogical, as it is not a word used in comparison to "musical". "HiFi" is used to define equipment and speakers with no obvious output limitations. Now, "analytical" is the more appropriate term as it is used by manufacturers and audiophiles alike as the antonym to musical.

This forum focuses and tilts towards the scientific side of sound reproduction, great it is needed. However, one part of the science component that is regularly overlooked is resolution, which is made up of depth/detail/dynamics. Poster talk endlessly of measurements, both on and off axis. But rarely if the measurements translate into truly impressive resolution.

All the audio science and measurements in the world don't matter if the listener isn't emotionally connected.

 

[KEW]

Now, "analytical" is the more appropriate term as it is used by manufacturers and audiophiles alike as the antonym to musical.

Yes. I agree with this. I don't know if this distinction is what the OP intended, but that was/is my interpretation.

Comparing the Focal Solo6 to the Salk Song Tower doesn't make sense. One is a nearfield monitor, while the other is a tower relying on space to create it's best sound.

All of my observations were made 9.5 to 10 feet from the speakers in a 13'-4" X 18'-11" X 11' or about 2720 cu. ft.
Why doesn't it make sense to compare them?

 

[PENG]

All the audio science and measurements in the world don't matter if the listener isn't emotionally connected.

Scientists and engineers design/build equipment to meet or exceed specs, they would probably do the same to meet your requirements of "emotionally connected, musical, and all those other adjectives used by audiophile magazine reviewers too, but only if they know how. I doubt they even bother trying, giving that those adjectives are often hard to define, let alone translate them into specs or measure them with currently exist instruments.

I suppose one way to do it is by trial and error, the designer/builder team would keep tweaking the design and build, while rounding up people like yourself to provide feedback all the time. Tweaking would not stop until you tell them the equipment sounds musical, whatever that means to you and your team. It is going to be a lengthy and complicated process. The process would have to deal with other elements in the food chain, such as the source recording, the way the transfer is done, the media players, preamp, processor, speakers, room acoustics, and more. Well at the end of the day I would rather trust equipment that are designed and built by knowledgeable people who based everything on facts and figures, and verify everything with precision instruments, instead of relying on subjective human feedbacks. If the end products happen to sound musical to me, great, if other people feel they sound clinical, analytical, hifi whatever, it will be fine too as long as the verifiable specs tell me the system is free from audible distortion, i.e. hifi (high being high enough for normal human beings). That's just me.

 

[just listening]

All of my observations were made 9.5 to 10 feet from the speakers in a 13'-4" X 18'-11" X 11' or about 2720 cu. ft.
Why doesn't it make sense to compare them?

IMHO, my reasoning is that these two speakers are designed for different situations. One is nearfield, the other is traditional placement. For fun comparison, sure, play around. I doubt that the average educated buyer is looking at SongTowers in a nearfield situation.

Scientists and engineers design/build equipment to meet or exceed specs, they would probably do the same to meet your requirements of "emotionally connected, musical, and all those other adjectives used by audiophile magazine reviewers too, but only if they know how. I doubt they even bother trying, giving that those adjectives are often hard to define, let alone translate them into specs or measure them with currently exist instruments.

I suppose one way to do it is by trial and error, the designer/builder team would keep tweaking the design and build, while rounding up people like yourself to provide feedback all the time. Tweaking would not stop until you tell them the equipment sounds musical, whatever that means to you and your team. It is going to be a lengthy and complicated process. The process would have to deal with other elements in the food chain, such as the source recording, the way the transfer is done, the media players, preamp, processor, speakers, room acoustics, and more. Well at the end of the day I would rather trust equipment that are designed and built by knowledgeable people who based everything on facts and figures, and verify everything with precision instruments, instead of relying on subjective human feedbacks. If the end products happen to sound musical to me, great, if other people feels they sound clinical, analytical, hifi whatever, it will be fine too as long as the verfiable specs tell me the system is free from audible distortion, i.e. hifi (high being high enough for normal human beings). That's just me.

PENG:
I've talked to dozens of designers during previous RMAF's, CES, etc. I can tell you that once all the measurements are complete, manufacturers sit down and listen. If the result isn't an impressive emotional connection to the music, they go back and tweak the design until they achieve that goal. Why? Because they understand that the human brain is both a measurer of sound frequencies, and an emotional catcher's mit. From a business standpoint they understand the power that emotion has in purchase decisions, and happiness afterwards.

Quality designers see the value of both good measurable specs and musicality as necessary steps in the component or speaker they build and sell. At events like RMAF it is easy to spot these designers, they are the ones who talk about the endless hours getting the sound "right" in the final stage, along with the look on their face when they see a listener at the show close their eyes and the body moves to the music.

 

[KEW]

IMHO, my reasoning is that these two speakers are designed for different situations. One is nearfield, the other is traditional placement. For fun comparison, sure, play around. I doubt that the average educated buyer is looking at SongTowers in a nearfield situation.

I agree - you are definitely the first person I have ever heard even suggest using the SongTower "in a nearfield situation"! I always looked at it as using the Focal Solo6 as a home audio speaker!

So, you would consider my situation (listening at 9.5 to 10 feet from the speakers in a 13'-4" X 18'-11" X 11' or about 2720 cu. ft.) a nearfield application and inappropriate for the SongTowers?

This Wikipedia commentary (and the referenced material) is consistent with my experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor#Monitor_vs_Hi-Fi_speakers

 

[just listening]

I agree - you are definitely the first person I have ever heard even suggest using the SongTower "in a nearfield situation"! I always looked at it as using the Focal Solo6 as a home audio speaker!

So, you would consider my situation (listening at 9.5 to 10 feet from the speakers in a 13'-4" X 18'-11" X 11' or about 2720 cu. ft.) a nearfield application and inappropriate for the SongTowers?

This Wikipedia commentary (and the referenced material) is consistent with my experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor#Monitor_vs_Hi-Fi_speakers

Sounds like you have a nice-sized listening room. Personally, I wouldn't go with an active monitor. I'm not a fan of BASH amplifiers beyond usage for subs or desktop speakers. I like separate electronics, and for me the additional resolution is worth the price. (BTW, I have a Moscode 402B amp, CJ Classic preamp, and Harbeth Speakers in a man-cave).

I understand those that want to eliminate extra gear when possible, especially if dealing with a multi-purpose room or the WAF. If Focal didn't make such good speakers across the board I would seriously wonder with that high ceiling of yours if they could adequately pressurize the room. But having heard their models in a couple of different showrooms I have no doubt you enjoyed their presentation.