Question "Lacks musicality" (?)

[AJM1981]

Long story short. I can kind of grab what an individual means with "musicality" when it comes to speakers. Speakers that are a bit dull and have this curtain over them that is impossible to remove aren't really providing enough for an experience. However, it is a label that can probably mean multiple things.

But in this context I was reading a review about my Arylic a50.

Arylic A50

The Arylic A50 digital stereo amplifier is built for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, comes multiroom ready and is DNLA /UPnP compatible

www.trustedreviews.com

The reviewer described how great it could replicate some key points in his tested music (sounds like a speaker-thing to me in the first place (?))

Anyway;after a list of positive comments per song and not much criticism the summarizing bullet points include a con marked "- lacks musicality".

Now I see a reference in his review mentioning that amps twice the price offer more, which can be open to intepretation, I don't see anything really refering to musicality.

What is this?

The best thing I can come up with is to have a marker for high profile sponsors as a message to consumers that states "this is not in our league" while some reviewers mention that it can definitely compete to higher priced amps in terms of sound (powerwise it is a different game).

P. s. the point of lacking an optical input is weird too, since my a50 has an optical input which I have connected, but maybe that was a revision after the period of the review.

 

[Gray]

It's one of those reviewing terms that can mean anything, but usually means nothing.

But I think we all know musical when we hear it.

 

[Florestander]

It is certainly a term that is very much open to interpretation in my opinion. Like many terms used by reviewers and commenters alike, it appears to be 'jargon'. This tends to mark out the people who are (or consider themselves to be more experienced and/or expert, from those who are novice hi-fi enthusiasts. Maybe in some cases, this is deliberate , in other may be not, but It is not helpful.
Indeed, somebody once reacted to my use of the term, 'Natural' when I was referring to the sound I prefer, suggesting that it was an incorrect term, As a novice, all I was trying to portray is that I like a sound from my kit that is as close to the original sound being played, but at least one reader appeared to take exception to my use of this term, so it is clearly an easy trap to fall into too!
Is this a reason to call for plain English to be used in reviews etc., ? Maybe,. However I would guess that regular feature writers may explain that this is not always possible because restrictions on article length and word count prior to publication need to be prioritised.
I do not know if there is a 'standardised' set of terms and definitions that hi fi enthusiasts and journalists alike may refer to and which is also available to those of us who are less experienced - or whether this is something that can be published and adopted for all users. If not , I wonder if it could be considered. It may be useful to a wide audience....

 

[AJM1981]

It is certainly a term that is very much open to interpretation in my opinion. Like many terms used by reviewers and commenters alike, it appears to be 'jargon'. This tends to mark out the people who are (or consider themselves to be more experienced and/or expert, from those who are novice hi-fi enthusiasts. Maybe in some cases, this is deliberate , in other may be not, but It is not helpful.
Indeed, somebody once reacted to my use of the term, 'Natural' when I was referring to the sound I prefer, suggesting that it was an incorrect term, As a novice, all I was trying to portray is that I like a sound from my kit that is as close to the original sound being played, but at least one reader appeared to take exception to my use of this term, so it is clearly an easy trap to fall into too!
Is this a reason to call for plain English to be used in reviews etc., ? Maybe,. However I would guess that regular feature writers may explain that this is not always possible because restrictions on article length and word count prior to publication need to be prioritised.
I do not know if there is a 'standardised' set of terms and definitions that hi fi enthusiasts and journalists alike may refer to and which is also available to those of us who are less experienced - or whether this is something that can be published and adopted for all users. If not , I wonder if it could be considered. It may be useful to a wide audience....

I once read a book from an ex- car reviewer who mentioned that independent reviews were rare to none. Products from within the circle of sponsors and lobbying will always recieve milder criticism than products outside of that circle. Now in the age of youtube in which reviewers depend more on their income from viewers, the approach might have changef slightly. .

I guess the same applies to hi-fi. Products become more compact and progress in technique allows to squeeze more good stuff in a smaller footprint.

A company like Arylic is offering dead cheap products that are not performing dead cheap and doesn't invest much in pleasing reviewers and magazines in general. It is also marketing as in that it is meant to be one of those 'to be discovered' brands and with less costs of marketing prices may drop.

Then giving a good review and topping it with kind of a really negative bulletpoint that is not really appealing (who wants a non-musical amp?) seems to insure that how well the commentary may be, readers should keep in mind that only the circle of higher priced brands they review offer real musicality.

 

[Florestander]

Yes, I guess that all reviewers must keep at least one eye upon who pays for the marketing in their publications (and therefore keeps them afloat). I think this is true of dealers too - the manufacturers must have at least a degree of influence in what stock a dealership carries. They cannot be anti competitive of course, but it would be unusual if they did not 'express preferences, that would promote their own product, to the exclusion of other similar competitor products. It is after all a market economy and this is what makes a truly independent view valuable, and probably why we are all willing to share our experiences, good and bad.

 

[AJM1981]

Yes, I guess that all reviewers must keep at least one eye upon who pays for the marketing in their publications (and therefore keeps them afloat). I think this is true of dealers too - the manufacturers must have at least a degree of influence in what stock a dealership carries. They cannot be anti competitive of course, but it would be unusual if they did not 'express preferences, that would promote their own product, to the exclusion of other similar competitor products. It is after all a market economy and this is what makes a truly independent view valuable, and probably why we are all willing to share our experiences, good and bad.

True

When I compare this review to what an ex-dependent and now more independent youtube reviewer told about the A50 as a scaled down "to power" version of something 10 times its price with absolutely no zero's in terms of sound and music it seems like the contrast is bigger than just a difference in opinion.
Now it could be that he is exagurating but still something can't be bad and excellent at the same time.

 

[davidf]

My guess is that with it being a Class D design (presumably, I’ve not checked, but it looks small), it will by nature be very neutral sounding, without the added warmth that many Class AB amplifiers can have. This can come across as lean, cold, dry, etc etc, and it is this lack of “character” I think many describe as lacking musicality. Plus, not all Class D designs work with all speakers, and some pairings can come across as just plain dull and lifeless.

 

[AJM1981]

My guess is that with it being a Class D design (presumably, I’ve not checked, but it looks small), it will by nature be very neutral sounding, without the added warmth that many Class AB amplifiers can have. This can come across as lean, cold, dry, etc etc, and it is this lack of “character” I think many describe as lacking musicality. Plus, not all Class D designs work with all speakers, and some pairings can come across as just plain dull and lifeless.

Mostly it is about the midrange being slightly dryer, and it sounds plausible.

Still I miss a reference in the written article as one is easy to make in a line. It would also mean that they would have to consequently mark all reviewed class D amps the same way as they are no class A or A/B.

 

[12th Monkey]

Musicality isn't the most precise term, is it? But some systems make your toes tap and others don't. That'd be it for me.

 

[Friesiansam]

Musicality isn't the most precise term, is it? But some systems make your toes tap and others don't. That'd be it for me.

That's how I see "musicality". I sent back a pair of Beyerdynamic T5Ps, because to me they sounded a bit too clinical, whilst the Focal Elegias that replaced them give music more life, or musicality if you like. They make music more fun to listen to rather than just analyse, whilst listening to the system rather than the music.

 

[AJM1981]

That's how I see "musicality". I sent back a pair of Beyerdynamic T5Ps, because to me they sounded a bit too clinical, whilst the Focal Elegies that replaced them give music more life, or musicality if you like.

Reviewer Andrew Robinson described the A50 as a rhythmical excelling amp that provides an answer to the wish mentioned.

 

[Gray]

....it is this lack of “character” I think many describe as lacking musicality.

Yes and I'm sure that by 'musical' what many of them mean is comfortable. They like a bit of added warmth with softer edges. To some, neutral can never be musical.

 

[Deleted member 160668]

My take on the word musical:

A metaphorical jaw-hits-floor moment as it sounds so freeking amazing.

The vivid depiction of every aspect of the music. It is no longer music, you have the band/artist etc. in front of you singing to you in your room.

The first time I listened to my Sugden... I laughed out loud and grinned my ass off as it blew me away with how "musical" it is (imo of course). Next thing and it's very late a night I'd spent hours and hours listening to tunes. Totally having forgotten all about the kit you are listening to the music on - just being enraptured and enveloped by the songs.

Proper musicality is rare ime. But when you hear it. Wow, it's fun!

 

[nopiano]

If I’m ever stuck with terms like this, the redoubtable Stereophile glossary is my ‘go to’ source

musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant.

It starts here, if you’re curious…

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary

Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures. This was a natural outgrowth of the 1950s high-fidelity "revolution," which...

www.stereophile.com

 

[Friesiansam]

Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear.

Isn't that how we all judge new kit when we get it home?

I suspect the Beyerdynamic T5Ps I sent back to Amazon, might measure better than my Focals but, I found them too clinical. Figures mean little other than offering a rough guide, for as long as everyone's ears are different.

 

[AJM1981]

Isn't that how we all judge new kit when we get it home?

I suspect the Beyerdynamic T5Ps I sent back to Amazon, might measure better than my Focals but, I found them too clinical. Figures mean little other than offering a rough guide, for as long as everyone's ears are different.

Maybe it is why some people prefer warm interiors over office-like sterile ones. I also wonder if there is a correlation between sight and sound within this group.

 

[Samd]

Maybe it is why some people prefer warm interiors over office-like sterile ones. I also wonder if there is a correlation between sight and sound within this group.

Do any manufacturers, well known for delivering warm-sounding speakers ,say, offer them in sharp white? I don't know the answer - your post intrigued me beyond the group issue.

 

[ThisIsJimmy]

Musicality for me falls under 2 categories:

1. If the device is Linear, like you expect to find in monitoring equipment or a decent DAC. This may sound boring if people want more lively tonality.
2. If the device has such a poor noise floor due to noise issues that it audibly affects audio playback.

In the case of this devicce, it's most certainly the latter, and falls under the category of do not touch with a 10ft barge pole...

Arylic A50 Review (wireless amplifier)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Arylic A50 stereo amplifier with wireless streaming support. It was kindly donated to me by a member and costs US $169 from company website (normal price $199). This is a nice package of features in a small package with remote, etc.: The...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[ThisIsJimmy]

Sorry if what i've said above is offensive in any way, it's just really bad from a noise standpoint. Most PC built in Soundcards have advertised SNRs of at least 70db, so to even be below them is just really bad

 

[Friesiansam]

Sorry if what i've said above is offensive in any way, it's just really bad from a noise standpoint. Most PC built in Soundcards have advertised SNRs of at least 70db, so to even be below them is just really bad

I'd say you are right. My last soundcard, before moving to an external DAC/headphone amp (Audiolab M-DAC), was an Asus Xonar essence STX, with a claimed SNR of 128dB.

 

[AJM1981]

Sorry if what i've said above is offensive in any way, it's just really bad from a noise standpoint. Most PC built in Soundcards have advertised SNRs of at least 70db, so to even be below them is just really bad

Thanks for sharing.

It is impossible for me to take any research or opinions related to it as an offense. It turned out I have the A50 + (missed the + behind it at the beginning) and assume it has the same ST Micro STA326 IC base, so that doesn't change.

My priority is the living where conditions are much better for for sound in general and there I have a yamaha wxa50 with a pair of Evo 4.2s. I used to own a Harman Kardon HK3270 for the living with a 90s Denon amp in the bedroom but made a choice for more compact systems.

In the bedroom I play music usually at lower volumes and ocassionally on a moderate one. The room is ok for listening but not perfect, and the diamond 12 speakers are placed on little shelves in the far corners for practical reasons. So I think most audiophiles would wave it away as it isn't up to most standards probably.

I am sure that the A50 is fine for these purposes and that smaller energy saving and affordable amps are much better than comparible stuff from let's say 10 years ago. I was once considering a second hand Marantz compact amp before looking at what's in store these days, but the reviews were not really optimistic.

The A50 usually does well in reviews as a bang for buck where some reviewers even mark it as their most used gear. They might be improvable, but fot me and the way I use them I don't have any complaints.

 

[RoA]

I just had extensive time with two reasonably quality active speakers, namely the Kef LS50 Meta Wireless and a pair of B&W Formation Duo's.

Both impressive speakers in different areas, both Class D powered.

However, something was niggling me a little and was lacking with both. A certain cohesiveness and fluency was missing and upper midband/lower treble had a little body missing was a tad lean.

I don't want to make too much of a deal of this but for me it was enough to return to Class A/B and sell both active systems.

The above is a trait I have heard repeatedly with Class D amplifiers. Even the best (Hypex) have it and although it can be very, very subtle once heard I can't 'un-hear' it.

I now have three amplifiers here; A Hegel H95 (I really enjoyed both the H90 and H120 both of which I owned), the Arcam SA20 (Class A/G) and the Audiolab 6000A (an itch I had to scratch).

Pictures and my impressions to follow but all have a certain 'musicality' that makes me want to listen to music again.

That is just me and others may disagree.

 

[12th Monkey]

Each to their own, but I'd struggle to have more than one part of any link in the hifi chain - I'd rather spend as much as I can budget on each part.

 

[AJM1981]

Given all plausible explanations, I just hope that a reviewer in general doesn't include any cons related to a personal preference for an A/B amp in a class D amp review.

That would be similar to stating that someone prefers red wine personally over white wine when reviewing white wine.

I assume it is just a class D to D comparison and that there are probably more lifely sounding amps to his taste.