I am saying that is how it manifests itself. Like rolled off HF sounds dull.
So that’s a “no” then, you cannot provide evidence that say a rolled-off HF (or other audible distortion) specifically affects music and doesn’t also roll-off HF and “sounds dull” with sound/s other than music.
This equipment has one job, to the majority of the public: Play music. There is a part of music that makes it fun: rhythm. The interplay of rhythm, it's subtleties, and the emotional effect. If some equipment makes that more open to how it was played then others, I have stated that it is more musically transparent. If the equipment is less so, then it is less audibly transparent. Agreed?
Of course I don’t agree!
Firstly, to the majority of the public, audio equipment obviously does NOT have only one job of reproducing music, they use it to listen to: Podcasts, game audio, YouTube vids, phone/video communications, TV/films and Radio (and even music channels commonly include speech/a presenter).
If you’re talking about the majority of audiophiles then maybe many of them do use their audiophile equipment exclusively for reproducing music but I doubt they all do and of course, audiophiles are a very tiny percentage of the public, not a majority.
Secondly, the majority of the public have very little knowledge of how audio equipment works or audio terminology and what they do know is often just plain wrong or an oversimplification which is somewhat wrong.
Thirdly, even if we are only talking about music reproduction, some music is partially or even entirely based on sounds/noises rather than on “musical instruments”: Musique Concrete and other modern classical genres as well as occasional, individual examples from more popular artists for example. Also, some music isn’t supposed to be “fun” and has little (or in rare cases no) rhythmic interplay. So, you are not even including all music!
And lastly, audio equipment doesn’t suddenly cease to function if you feed it audio that is not music. Even if someone does use certain audio equipment only for music reproduction, it is still capable of reproducing other audio content and these audible distortions you’re talking about will manifest with this other audio content and therefore are NOT specifically “musical” distortions or lack of them (“musical” transparency).
It is a myth in your world because you will not believe it.
That doesn’t make sense. Even if I were to believe in a myth, that doesn’t stop it from being a myth. Until there is some reliable supporting evidence, there’s no grounds to even question that it is a myth. And, this isn’t “my world”, it’s the world of rational thought, critical thinking and science.
It is a repeatable fact in mine.
If it really is a repeatable fact then you must be able to provide some reliable evidence, which you so far haven’t. Both of your examples so far (group delay and HF roll-off) apply to audio in general, not specifically music. If it’s only a repeatable fact in your world, then it’s no more of a repeatable fact than the audiophile world’s “fact” of night and day audible differences between cables, which many audiophiles have repeatedly experienced.
You like tearing people down for not having the same world view as you. I don't.
This is the Sound Science subforum, so I refute a “world view” based on myth and audiophile marketing. If you don’t, that’s up to you of course, but this isn’t the subforum to promote or argue for that view.
I am an engineer, so I do not believe dragons and fairies. I'm not an antivaxer.
Firstly, there are several engineers/equipment designers here on head-fi who may or may not believe in audiophile myths but they certainly promote them!
Secondly, “musicality” and “musical” are not engineering terms and there’s no reason an engineer (apart from possibly a music recording, mixing or mastering engineer) would have a better understanding of these terms than say a member of the public or an audiophile.
But I also do not believe we know everything yet.
That’s both a non-sequitur and irrelevant! I do not believe we know everything yet and have detailed that more than once and so far you have not detailed anything we don’t know about.
I was lucky to work with people who discovered this and I didn't put my head in the sand, or my fingers in my ears.
If the “
people who discovered this” have no reliable evidence, then as an engineer you should have put your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears! If you don’t, how can you design anything if you believe any old nonsense audiophile claim/“discovery”. If there is reliable evidence, then present it.
You are replying to another point here. I was talking about the title of the instrument of "musical saw". You are losing you threads here.
No I’m not, I am replying to the use of the term/description “musical”, be that a musical saw, musical transparency or musical audiophile equipment.
Is there even the possible thought in your mind that there is something new you hadn't thought of or experienced yet?
Asked and answered more than once! You’re not just grasping at a straw but a straw that I’ve already answered. Again, there are undoubtedly things in development I haven’t thought of or experienced yet and obviously there are things in the past and present I haven’t thought of or experienced. I obviously haven’t heard every piece of audio gear or every audio recording for example and I definitely would never have thought of a green marker pen improving the sound of CDs! To consider the possibility of some audible distortion that is unmeasurable and/or only affects music, all you have to do is present some reliable (and obviously relevant) evidence. So far you haven’t, despite claiming otherwise!
G