[electropop]

Quote:

I agree. "Analytic" and "euphonic" aren't mutually exclusive. The Shure SRH1840 for instance is quite adept at extracting details and precise rendering, yet it's quite musical.

Heh, though you might disagree when I say that the K701's, for instance, are extremely musical headphones. Not euphoric or sugary... or whatever the head-fi paradigms are for "wrongfully musical" headphones
 
I also believe we might disagree on the term itself and what it stands for. Ultrasones are the epitome of fail in musicality, in my view. I purposely threw that out there since I've read that you like Ultrasones, thus generating discussion perhaps.
I think I'm clear on what I mean by musicality however. Sound is completely secondary to the ability to discern musical detail. Not that a headphone has to sound like a K701 (in audiophile terms) to be musical, not at all: a relatively "sweet" or "euphoric" headphone can do this as well. Relatively. 

 

[CantScareMe]

'musical' is probably the most subjective of all subjective terms at headfi. I struggle to put into words what it means - please try yourself.

Just to show how logically incoherent it is take the denon d7000 as it's meant to be among the most 'musical' of them all. How come it's easily beaten, to my ears by the k550 in trance or classical (Not-only rarely rather-within most other genres like ambient, pop,new age prog rock..) I'm not going to mention the many reasons why, but for starters with the k550 we have a far more suited upfront presentation, more airy soundstage, way better attack and decay, more punchy.....and so on. The d7000 quite a few times here sound downright lazy, muddy and errrr, what's the word.....'unmusical'!

This is especially true out of the mstage amp (with modded opamps) which improves the k550 and the denons significantly as expected.

So what's my point -
How can the denons be so musical yet so unmusical? No one says there bass light and bass heavy, small soundstaged large soundstaged, sibilant prone and sibilant shy. With every song they are always to varying degree more bass heavy, larger soundstaged and more sibilant prone than the k550. It's technically my opinion but it's still always the same.
The fact is, Musicality isn't a property of any headphone. If it was then it won't grossly contradict itself like it does. It's purely purely our personal subjective varying emotion. Emotion.

You may say the d7k is musical in more instances than the k550 and so it's more musical. Maybe true, but it just highlights my point that the term musical is so loosely defined around here that it's quite redundant. I've seen it cause issues on the hd800 threads quite a lot. You wont be saying that the denon is lusher, sibilant or even possesing a more natural timbre than the k550 just for some occasions. It's pretty much true all the time. Even in classical and trance based music.

IVE GOT IT. Maybe people here don't consider classical or trance/electronic music to be able to be heard musically! No?

In my opinion 'musical' is a useless word. Anything that reproduces music is musical to some degree. That's why 100's of millions of people world wide continue to use the apple's white ibuds.

Just to not leave a lingering false impression- the d7k are clearly better sounding headphones than the k550. No contest and no point me trying to explain why this is.

All in all (i cant be bothered to follow this thread now- it's run its course for me) this thread gives a very negative account of the k550. I've never said the're world beaters. What bugs me is how shure 940's and the dt770 can get so many positive reviews amongst the few negatives, yet this can't come close. Having heard, owned, both headphones this is not justified.Maybe what this thread needs is for someone to introduce the ath m50. So the 'm50's trash this headphone' talk starts to come up. Or maybe a beats headphone. Surely you'll choose the k550 over the beats given a choice? hope so...

 

[MuppetFace]

Quote:

Heh, though you might disagree when I say that the K701's, for instance, are extremely musical headphones. Not euphoric or sugary... or whatever the head-fi paradigms are for "wrongfully musical" headphones
 
I also believe we might disagree on the term itself and what it stands for. Ultrasones are the epitome of fail in musicality, in my view. I purposely threw that out there since I've read that you like Ultrasones, thus generating discussion perhaps.
I think I'm clear on what I mean by musicality however. Sound is completely secondary to the ability to discern musical detail. Not that a headphone has to sound like a K701 (in audiophile terms) to be musical, not at all: a relatively "sweet" or "euphoric" headphone can do this as well. Relatively. 

Like much of the terminology in the audiophile lexicon, there's rarely going to be a consensus regarding definitions for things. If this is true for concepts like 'soundstage,' all the more so for broader and more nebulous terms like 'musicality.'
 
That's why, I feel, it's most helpful to discuss relationships--- be they between two headphones or two terms. Even if there's disagreement on what a headphone sounds like or what a term constitutes, in many cases the relationships between two variables can be more readily agreed upon. That's why, regardless of what my personal definition of 'musical' is, I feel we can agree that it's not in binary opposition to "analytic" or "detailed."
 
As for Ultrasone headphones, which are you referring to specifically? I try not to generalize when it comes to an entire brand of headphones. For instance I feel the PRO 2900 is a terrible headphone: metallic, artificial, shrill, and all-around unpleasant. The Edition 10 is also irredeemably flawed, though I can appreciate some of its qualities despite ultimately feeling indifferent toward it. I am fond of the Edition 9 and Signature Pro, though for differing reasons.

 

[electropop]

But that's exactly what I'm trying to do here: define the term. It is used too loosely around here. It's not a synonym to "subjectively orgasmically toetapping" it's objective.
 
Emotion and what causes it in different colors is subjective to everyone, yes. Yet the term "musical" does not have any correlation to that factor.. Musical is musical: you either hear music or you don't. The Edition 9 is one of the musically worst headphones I've ever tried; try tabbing notes to any rich jazz piece. I dare you. I've tried those and the ED 8's. Sorry that I come on so harshly. Please explicit your views why you like them! Do you disagree that the term "one note bass" is not to be added to ED9's list of qualities?
Music has absolute value, as does language: it has meaning. If that meaning does not come through a headphone, it is musically flawed. The Edition 9 to a musician is like dyslexia to a book lover: frustrating in a sense that you can't distinguish notes or letters... Maybe not the best analogy, but regardless.
 
Care I also explain how actual musicians use the word?
 
Regardless of all this, I have high hopes for the K550! 
 
ps. CantScareMe, do you think the Denons just sound nicer or are also musically more accurate? Your definitions of sloppy bass and what not side my experience with them and the reason I didn't care for them too much.
 

 

[MuppetFace]

Quote:

But that's exactly what I'm trying to do here: define the term. It is used too loosely around here. It's not a synonym to "subjectively orgasmically toetapping" it's objective.
 
Emotion and what causes it in different colors is subjective to everyone, yes. Yet the term "musical" does not have any correlation to that factor.. Musical is musical: you either hear music or you don't. The Edition 9 is one of the musically worst headphones I've ever tried; try tabbing notes to any rich jazz piece. I dare you. I've tried those and the ED 8's. Sorry that I come on so harshly. Please explicit your views why you like them! Do you disagree that the term "one note bass" is not to be added to ED9's list of qualities?
Music has absolute value, as does language: it has meaning. If that meaning does not come through a headphone, it is musically flawed. The Edition 9 to a musician is like dyslexia to a book lover: frustrating in a sense that you can't distinguish notes or letters... Maybe not the best analogy, but regardless.
 
Care I also explain how actual musicians use the word?
 
Regardless of all this, I have high hopes for the K550! 
 
ps. CantScareMe, do you think the Denons just sound nicer or are also musically more accurate? Your definitions of sloppy bass and what not side my experience with them and the reason I didn't care for them too much.
 

 
 
You can say that music is a language, and you can define terminology from the perspective of a musician, and that's fine, however the term 'musical' is not going to correlate completely with 'music' in the sense of it representing that language one-to-one. 'Musical' also entails the experience of listening to music, and that is completely subjective for both musicians and non-musicians alike. It is filtered through subjectivity. In that sense, 'subjectively orgasmically toe-tapping' as you put it is just as much a part of the experience of music as what you're defining. One could argue that the experience of musicality is more than experiencing notes, indistinguishable from the emotions that color it as you put it. Therein lies the problem. Unlike 'music' as a discipline---something that has clearly defined parameters and is readily agreed upon---the terms 'musical' and 'musicality' aren't so clear cut.
 
I appreciate attempts to define terminology in this hobby. I find objectivism more satisfying from an intellectual standpoint, certainly. However most attempts will simply remain attempts: they are still one's personal definition of something. That's just the way it goes, for better or worse. Music theory is not my forte, so I have little to add beyond this, suffice to say that my original point---the entire reason for my posting---is that I agree with your original assessment: highly detailed or "analytic" headphones aren't precluded from being described musical or considered as such.
 
As for why I like the Edition 9, the "one note bass" is actually part of my fondness. It takes on a hypnotic quality with certain material, and the effect is enveloping and transcendental. I suppose my appreciation for the likes of Philip Niblock and other "musicians" who play surprisingly few notes helps contribute to favoritism.

 

[electropop]

Quote:

 
 
You can say that music is a language, and you can define terminology from the perspective of a musician, and that's fine, however the term 'musical' is not going to correlate completely with 'music' in the sense of it representing that language one-to-one. 'Musical' also entails the experience of listening to music, and that is completely subjective for both musicians and non-musicians alike. It is filtered through subjectivity. In that sense, 'subjectively orgasmically toe-tapping' as you put it is just as much a part of the experience of music as what you're defining. One could argue that the experience of musicality is more than experiencing notes, indistinguishable from the emotions that color it as you put it. Therein lies the problem. Unlike 'music' as a discipline---something that has clearly defined parameters and is readily agreed upon---the terms 'musical' and 'musicality' aren't so clear cut.
 
I appreciate attempts to define terminology in this hobby. I find objectivism more satisfying from an intellectual standpoint, certainly. However most attempts will simply remain attempts: they are still one's personal definition of something. That's just the way it goes, for better or worse. Music theory is not my forte, so I have little to add beyond this, suffice to say that my original point---the entire reason for my posting---is that I agree with your original assessment: highly detailed or "analytic" headphones aren't precluded from being described musical or considered as such.
 
As for why I like the Edition 9, the "one note bass" is actually part of my fondness. It takes on a hypnotic quality with certain material, and the effect is enveloping and transcendental. I suppose my appreciation for the likes of Philip Niblock and other "musicians" who play surprisingly few notes helps contribute to favoritism.

Heh, of course you make a point. But I'm not a relativist in ethics nor in terminology  
 
It could be due to a language barrier I can not see past my ideal of the term. I think it is most simple and does not entail the subjective experience of the perceiving individual... That's where the stepping stone might be. Anyway, I appreciate your response and see your point highlighted in your first sentence. But! ... Is it not true that it is most likely the melody (could be purely rhythmic as well of course) of a song that subjectively "moves" you? Hypothetically, let's say I (or anyone) listen to elitist bebop jazz with modal melodies and that I'm used to hearing the presentation holistically, note to note, as I put it, but fail due to inadequate reproduction of the integrity? Let's say someone without musical education or trained hearing listens to the same music, "understands" it via an accurate reproduction, but then changes to lesser reproduction and doesn't hear the same integrity? Would you say, that regardless of the preferred sound signature, the listener would be "moved" by the music to the same extent, knowing that he's missing crucial information? If he knows what he's missing, does that educate him or does he simply not care? 
I don't think this is completely moot, since you can distinguish shades of colors as well without academic education in arts.. Of course my example could be switched to provide support for other qualities as well: if I'm missing out drum squeaks on recordings do I miss it? However I think for most music is the main premise for this hobby. Most just don't know what they're missing in the music itself. 
 
Interesting topic, although highly off the original one! Sorry, I did it again Shall we continue somewhere else? What led me to this, however, was that I have not yet received an answer for my question: Does anyone think the K550 are musically accurate as I see it (explained in previous posts)? K271's for instance are splendid headphones, even though they don't fill in the head-fi quota for "moar bass" and "punch"... Maybe that's actually why..? 

 

[CantScareMe]

The debate about the philosophy of language should get more attention around here as a large chunk of the headfi experience is simply a struggle to put in words what we hear.

'musical' is probably the worst offender for me. I just can't put it in words what it means. Therefore it being self contradictory doesn't matter; can only be expected. You don't get this problem to anywhere near this extent with other terminology used to describe sound. I can't see it anywhere.

electropop:
The denon d7k sound more natural. And by natural i mean how the music would sound if it were playing live in front of me, unamplified.

So the tone may not be accurate in this sense with the k550 (compared to the d7k), but accurate in the general sense they are. Imaging is fantastic. Very neutral across the freq spectrum also. Incredibly resolving, coherent and balanced.

You like the k271. I remember reading your views on that headphone last year. I'm sure you'll love the k550!

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

 
I only tried the 8.35D's and MB Quart equivalents (300ohm). Been thinking about selling them, since I haven't yet. PM me anyone who's interested, heh. I like their robust design though, mmm, quite on another level to everything else. The SP-1 or QP450 are out of question since they don't seal well. I only use headphones outdoors and my primary music listening at the moment, sadly, is on the go. Though I do love my Linn Akurate 212's
 
 

Ah, I own the QP805 myself (8.35D equiv in 300ohm).  Quite bassy and the mids are a little off TBH.  It is kind of a fun headphone, but it does lack refinement in the midranges compared to the SP-1, and definitely isn't as detailed or "true" IMO.
 
The GMP450PRO/SP-1 really needs to be advertised as "semi-open"
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

'musical' is probably the worst offender for me. I just can't put it in words what it means. Therefore it being self contradictory doesn't matter; 

Which is why the word means absolutely nothing to me.  If you describe a headphone as "musical" everyone is going to interpret that differently, I feel - just redirect back to their ideal sound.  More redundant than contradictory, but I agree
 

 

[estreeter]

How about 'engaging' or 'immersive' in place of 'musical' ?  Outside of a professional setting, is there anyone who does not want to be immersed in their music ?  The 'forensic microscope' approach to audio has never particularly appealed to me, but its a broad church.  

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

Which is why the word means absolutely nothing to me.  If you describe a headphone as "musical" everyone is going to interpret that differently, I feel - just redirect back to their ideal sound.  More redundant than contradictory, but I agree
 

I can certainly understand this point of view.  Yet for those of us who started listening in the 50's through 70's "musical" usually means a vacuum tube like (warmer) sound.  It means much the same thing to a number of guitar players and other musicians who prefer the old style tube amps such as older Fender Supers and Twins--among many others.
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

I can certainly understand this point of view.  Yet for those of us who started listening in the 50's through 70's "musical" usually means a vacuum tube like (warmer) sound.  It means much the same thing to a number of guitar players and other musicians who prefer the old style tube amps such as older Fender Supers and Twins--among many others.
 

Interesting!

 

[electropop]

Quote:

The debate about the philosophy of language should get more attention around here as a large chunk of the headfi experience is simply a struggle to put in words what we hear.
'musical' is probably the worst offender for me. I just can't put it in words what it means. Therefore it being self contradictory doesn't matter; can only be expected. You don't get this problem to anywhere near this extent with other terminology used to describe sound. I can't see it anywhere.
electropop:
The denon d7k sound more natural. And by natural i mean how the music would sound if it were playing live in front of me, unamplified.
So the tone may not be accurate in this sense with the k550 (compared to the d7k), but accurate in the general sense they are. Imaging is fantastic. Very neutral across the freq spectrum also. Incredibly resolving, coherent and balanced.
You like the k271. I remember reading your views on that headphone last year. I'm sure you'll love the k550!

Nice! Thanks for the heads up Here's to hoping.
 

 

[electropop]

Quote:

Which is why the word means absolutely nothing to me.  If you describe a headphone as "musical" everyone is going to interpret that differently, I feel - just redirect back to their ideal sound.  More redundant than contradictory, but I agree
 

Which is more reason to explain your premises to music listening every time you throw around the general hifi-phoolery. (Not pointing at you, speaking in passive tense) I agree that the word is thrown around here rather recklessly.. That's probably why I grasp it so sensitively, heh. Can't really trust what everyone says though I do believe everyone is hearing what they think they are, just that they're probably not listening to the important stuff, which to me is the musical integrity itself. 
 
KG Jag: You're right, it is often used to describe a certain "sound" among musicians. But that's just the same as in Hi-Fi, it has nothing to do with the actual integrity. A musician, at least a jazz-musician, uses the term about a style of play, not sound, for instance.
 
Estreeter: This is a good point. Why not use those words instead? I think the message goes through with the same intent (subjective) were someone to use any of those words. 
 
 

 

[louis12345]

Thank you Harman for ruining an amazing company, again.