What sounds more musical than audionote equipment

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, I think you have to define what 'musicality' means to you- while you may think it is obvious and intuitive, take these examples- my Crosby Quad/ARC tube system with a vinyl source yielded consistently lovely sonics, unstrained and liquid sounding, but not lifelike. My Avantgarde Duo/Audiopax tube stuff is far more 'alive' sounding, but does not always sound
'smooth' or honeyed. Both are, however, musical in their own ways. I recently heard some Viva electronics playing through the JBL K2 and it was, at first blush, quite impressive, though without any real familiarity with the system or its components, I could not say more.

Luke- I appreciate that you defined what you meant, but there are two difficulties, at least: first, trying to describe in words how a particular phenomenon, such as a musical performance affects you, if at all (some of which is pretty subjective, don't you agree?) and second, whether the equipment, in combination, actually brings you more of that experience- and this is where I say there are many ways to convey the emotional impact of music through electronics and associated hardware- the Quads present an image that is not distorted by box-like colorations, but it is in miniature, and not dynamic or full range enough; the Avantgarde system has the dynamics and the range (most of it, anyway) and creates a sense of immediacy but is not as pleasing in some ways. Both systems do, however, convey what you are describing in different ways- these days I'm favoring the characteristics of the horn system over the electrostatic one, but I don't know if that makes one more 'musical' than the other by your terms.

I am with you Luke, but part of what you are describing, at least to me, is a great musical performance in and of itself. In other words, a fabulously 'musical' system in your terms will not convert an otherwise uninspired performance into something that will set your toes to wiggling- on the other hand, the emotional impact of a well turned musical phrase, or spot-on drum beat, can move me even over a sucky system. Yet, I acknowledge that some systems get you closer to this than others. Just not sure it can be used as a bright line test to separate the great from the not so great in hi-fi. For example, my horn system makes even not so great recordings much more involving- yep, I can hear into the performance in a way that puts me in touch with what's happening on the stage. Does that make my horn system, overall, more 'musical' than the Quad-based system? The Quad system is far more 'coherent,' ie of a piece, but it is not lively sounding and mediocre records sound, well, mediocre. Is the Quad system truer to life or less musical for this reason?
I'm not claiming that what you realize doesn't exist, or isn't important- just not sure its a useful way to discriminate among components. (Not that I have a better way). And, the virtue of your approach is that your focus is on the music, rather than on the analytical aspects of its reproduction. Best.

Luke- I didn't take your observations as ones soley attributable to AN equipment and didn't read your question as an equipment 'challenge' by brand- rather, I thought you were making a more general statement about what separates the 'best' reproduced music from the rest. Nor was I suggesting that any particular brand, or combination of brands, would achieve audio nirvana. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you asked alot of musicians what they 'intended' by a performance, they would look at you with a furrowed brow. (I'm not talking the intellectual stuff of music, but instead the soul of it, as you are- ever hang out with musicians? :)) Meantime, Trelja, I'm not sure what I
"missed," unless it was your joke- I wasn't playing one-up-manship on equipment or anything else. Just trying to understand what Luke's litmus 'test' for an absolute really means in practice.

Trelja- As in sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but...

:)