What is meant exactly by the description 'more musical'?

@mahgister 

Why should I, or why should anyone, accept your word salad as the only definition of "music" and/or "musical" and reject Mirriam Webster?  Please explain.

You need more thinking

here ...

I dont contradict the dictionary... Everybody who read my post can see it .. 😊

I contradict you simplistic appeal to the dictionary as the ONLY means to define musicality...

For sure musical is a question of taste ...

It is a common place fact my friend ...

But musical is ALSO an acoustic specific concept ... A dictionary dont replace acoustic book ..

By the way speaking of my "word salad" have you listened the acoustician in the video i suggested to you speaking  about how to evaluate "musical" experience, by analysing the experiences cumulated of all people and doing so define in a better way what is "musicality " ?

is it a word salad too ?

@mahgister

Why should I, or why should anyone, accept your word salad as the only definition of "music" and/or "musical" and reject Mirriam Webster? Please explain.

You are right it is better to discuss in the right thread... My mistake ...

😁

Now if i read your post :

I am not sure how you managed to take the "definition of musical" thread and transport it over here to the "synergy of gear" thread, but since you did,

and what you have also did is taken the word "musical" which has a concrete meaning (which is "pertaining to music" in that a musical instrument is an instrument that pertains or produces music) (but then, unfortunately, the word "music" might need to be defined) and also has another less concrete definition (per Mirriam Webster)

having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music

(which is less concrete because what is pleasing to one is not pleasing to all, and that could also apply to a lesser extent to "harmonious")

and then you watched some videos and decided that, armed with what you thought you have gleaned from those videos, you would rewrite the definition of "musical" (with your own rambling stream of consciousness interpretation) And that is fine if it works for you on a personal level. But that is not how language works.

On it’s own, "hot" is somewhat subjective.

"Be careful, that is hot." That is subjective.

"Be careful, , that is 212 degrees f." That is objective.

Objective versus subjective/signs versus symptoms.

So apparently you have listened and watched some quacks that want to give the word "musical" a meaning beyond "pertaining to music" with their own acoustic interpretation and say that there is a "212 degree f definition" of music and that this is so because they say that it is so. And it doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other, but I am simply informing you that language does not work that way. If over a period of time more and more people start watching these guys and enough people start using the definitions that they use, dictionaries will be rewritten and new meanings will be attributed and you (and them) will stand vindicated. And it won’t matter to me either way. But do not hold your breath--this is not liable to happen in your lifetime.

You dont seems to understand that OBJECTIVE parameters and SUBJECTIVE perceptions are analysed in psychoacoustics experiments ...

Then "musical" as a psychoacoustics facts , because it is psychoacoustics the field who studies "musicality" , musical is described by the ACOUSTICIAN you called a " Quack" to correlate to Timbre perception factors, to distortion perception factors and to Immersiveness perception factors...

Nothing here contradict the definition of "musical" as euphonic and harmonious in the Webster Merriam as perceived by every INDIVIDUAL subject in his own way ... Acousticians , not real quack , study the general characteristic of "musical" in a population , then isolating the main factors creating it for ALL HUMANS in general , in spite of their difference ...

it is  precisely why the Merriam DONT define "musical" as a purely incomprehensible experience for each individual with no relation to one another because each one had his own taste ... Do you get it ?

The Merriam define "musical" as harmonious and euphonic experience as HISTORY taught it because thousand of years of successive musicians and acoustician define the territory with experiment and knowledge of what is "musical" experience in music history as in acoustics architecture and applications ..

Do you get it ?

Is the acoustician and scientist in my video a "quack" as you accuse him and me to be one or is it you instead ? the reader of these posts will decide ...

By the way immatthewj i succeed two times to create a satisfying audio system in two different rooms ... And with an headphone TOP system ...

How?

No sorry it was not guided by my mere taste for a branded name piece of marketing gear ...

"musical" is not merely about my taste about sound or about my HEARING as individual at some point in time ... Why ?

Because my hearing experience has changed a lot when i experimented and studied acoustics in my dedicated room ... My taste for and about sound now are no more the same as 10 years ago ...i learned how to create the sound on all new levels and aspects unknown to me before ...This is why ...

Even my headphones and speakers modifications were not guided by my mere "taste" but by my learning about acoustic concept as Helmholtz resonators among other concepts or immersiveness or timbre , and the way to modify them in a system/room ..

Then "musical" as harmonious and euphonic, was a result of my LEARNING JOURNEY not from my taste for the gear pieces of some company ...

We must learn how to hear and listen , sorry for your innate taste, mine had been put in an evolutive journey by studying ...

By the way dont come back here saying that i claim that all pieces of gear are the same nevermind their price ... I perfectly know why my actual low cost speakers cannot be satisfying as could be a High end maximal acoustic satisfaction with speakers like my past TOP Tannoy dual concentric which were on another level Then my actual low cost speakers can only be a minimal acoustic satisfaction ... The problem is i never really experience my Tannoy at their real potential BECAUSE i was ignorant of acoustics and i never used them the right way for 40 years , nevermind my taste here .....Do you get it ?

In "musical" perception , Taste there is, but it is not  so much about taste but about TRAINED knowledge in music as in acoustics ...

And even if a piece of well chosen gear matter for sure ( i just changed for a better cable ) the essential of an experience descriptible as "musical" is related to hundred of parameters , electrical, mechanical and acoustical one , NOT mere TASTE ...Sorry you must STUDY ...gear bragging taste is not enough ......

The Merriam define "musical" as harmonious and euphonic experience as HISTORY taught it because thousand of years of successive musicians and acoustician define the territory with experiment and knowledge of what is "musical" experience in music history as in acoustics architecture and applications

You obviously took different history courses than I did.