|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.106.140
In Reply to: RE: Gordon Holt, "subjective flatness", etc... posted by hahax@verizon.net on August 18, 2014 at 09:22:48
If he had known about my definition of musicality, I'm pretty sure that he would have believed in it. You are the one with the mental block, as far as I can tell.Holt believed in the "subjective evaluation" of audio gear, did he not? And, when I use the word "musical" that is exactly the type of thing that I'm referring to (I keep on explaining this, but you don't seem to hear). The *reason why* Holt believed in the "subjectively evaluation" of audio sound is because he knew that it was the only way to make sure that audio sounded like... (drum roll please!) "MUSIC".
"Music".., "Musical".., "Musicality"... "Musical Accuracy"... "Musical Fidelity", etc... Get it?
Maybe I'm unaware of what the word "musicality" was supposed to mean back when Holt was alive but I really don't care about that, partly because I have the feeling that it always was a fairly vague term. So now, this (the above) is what the word "musicality" means to ME. I am trying to make the term seem like less of a vague thing, the only requirement being that you read and try to understand what I'm saying.
Edits: 08/18/14Follow Ups:
Gordon believed in reproducing the sound of live music as closely as possible. He judged things subjectively because the measurements of the day were insufficient not because he didn't believe in measuring
And he was quite precise in his description of sound. He hated what people thought was good sound as the years wore on. It's one of the reasons he wrote less and less. He thought it was a waste of time because very few understood what he was writing any more.
And I can say this with reasonable authority. I knew Gordon well from the early 70s. I stuffed envelopes, etc. for him. I helped him with recordings. I wrote for him while he was the editor of Stereophile. And we stayed in contact up until he died, a very sad day for me.
I don't think it was any mystical experience or philosophical hoo ha.
I bet he thought, as I do, it is an empirical physical and psychoacoustic effect which could be quantified.
A musician would call it natural tonality. Anything like musical would refer to the performers sensitivity in interpretation to the musical structure of the piece, nuanced performing technique, and appreciation of the genre and style. They could hear it in a wax cylinder from 1919.
Neither do I, actually...I never said (or thought) that the word "musical" or any of it's derivatives were the better types of words to use around here. To me it is almost like audio slang. A friendly neighborhood term. I think I know what some people are alluding to when they use it, so I try not to let my undies get in a wad whenever if I see it.
Yes, there might be better words to use. But to tell you the truth, sometimes I'm glad when I don't fully understand what others are trying to tell me!
BTW, your "guessing" is just that and nothing more. Holt seems to have left many of us in a state of wonder, so you are not alone.
Edits: 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: