what system musicians prefer? Do they care?

Phil Barone makes a good point, but let’s put things in a different perspective. It may be true that MOST musicians aren’t interested in high end gear. However, after 45 years as a professional musician and having known and worked with hundreds of musicians I can confidently say that as a percentage of the overall community of musicians the number who are audiophiles is far far greater than the percentage of music lovers in the general population who are also audiophiles. Additionally, the number is even greater if the criterion is simply to have better than average music playback gear. I think that the idea that there are only a few exceptions (audiophiles) among musicians is greatly exaggerated; to the point that if this last criterion were used I would probably change “most” to “many”. So, why the misconception?

I have noticed that when this topic comes up in discussions here and elsewhere the overwhelming majority of the time the musicians used as examples are rock musicians. “My rock band mates”, “My cousin the rock drummer”, etc. This brings up an interesting issue.

I work primarily in the chamber and orchestral music field, and in a previous (professional) life in the Jazz field as well. In any one of the orchestras that I play in regularly I can’t think of a single instrumental section that doesn’t have at least two members who own quality audio playback gear. In many cases the gear is definitely of audiophile quality. I recently helped a violinist set up his newly purchased Crosby Quad 57’s and Audio Research gear. In the same orchestra one oboist owns all EAR tube amplification and Maggies. A clarinetist owns Proac and VAC. One bassist owns Vandersteen and BEL, another Vandersteen and Moscode. I could go on.

I believe that the fact that these musicians perform acoustic instruments in live unamplified settings is the reason that more of them gravitate toward HE audio gear than do Rock musicians. I know that some will take exception to this notion, but it points once again to the idea that the sound of live acoustic instruments is the best reference for judging the sound of audio gear. It is true that musicians generally prefer (need to) spend much of their time practicing their instruments instead of fiddling with audio gear. However, owning quality audio gear does not mean that one has to be constantly fiddling with it; obsessive tweaking and swapping out. That is a separate issue that afflicts many audiophiles, but not all. For musicians, the tweaking is often reserved for the set up of their instruments. You would be amazed at the number of “tweaks” that are available to, for instance, a professional woodwind player:

Besides the very personal choice of instrument you have the endless search for the perfect mouthpiece (philbarone knows all about this). Then, the different types of ligatures to hold the reed to the mouthpiece; brass, silver, 10k or 18k gold? What type of Reed? French or German cut? Did the cane come from France or Argentina? What strength? Then, how to tweak (shave) the reed with the reed knife for a specific response and sound? Get the saxophone’s neck gold or silver plated for a different sound? Or, change out the springs for a stiffer or lighter/faster action? Raise the keys for a brighter and more resonant sound? It is endless and it all impacts the sound produced. Moreover, often the subtlety in the sonic nuances produced by some of these “tweaks” make the differences between audio cables and many audio tweaks seem grotesque. There’s only so many hours in the day.

I know some will object to this notion, but this level of timbral nuance simply doesn’t exist in most rock/pop music due to the use of mostly electronic amplified instruments. In no way is this a comment on the validity of the music or comment on the superiority of one genre vs the other. The point is simply that for Classical and acoustic Jazz musicians owning quality audio gear may be more important in order to be able to hear more of the extremely subtle details in the timbre and texture of acoustic instruments and unamplified vocals that they are used to hearing when performing live or practicing. Much of this nuance is simply lost when instruments are amplified.

It is also true that just as with audiophiles, some musicians are of a personality type that is more prone than others to be preoccupied with the endless search for the elusive “perfect” sound; sometimes at the expense of missing the (musical) forest for the trees.

Several Maggie owners among the Classical musicians that I know, johnto.

I can’t speak to anyone else’s experience with Classical or Jazz musicians and their audio systems, but as I said previously, I know many who have systems that are far better than “crap”. Now, it is true that many musicians don’t have a lot of discretionary income, but many successful working musicians manage to afford decent sound. Of course, one man’s good audio may be someone else’s crap.

I agree with phasemonger. I think there is sometimes a tendency to equate the “sound” of music with music itself. Musicians listen primarily for performance values (the music) and not just the sound of the music. I disagree with the comments made suggesting that high end equipment is absolutely necessary for the appreciation of performance values. It may be for some listeners, but not for all. Of course, we’ll chosen (!!!) high end equipment makes those performance values more obvious, but the “necessity” for this has to be weighed against a given listener’s ability to hear and appreciate them if a general comment about the necessity can be made.

Please don’t misunderstand, I love my high end audio toys. However, while I enjoy reveling in the huge soundstage and extended frequency response of my main audio rig, there is seldom a time when I feel I missed the musical message of the performance listening to the same recording over my car’s radio. I think it’s possible to become too dependent on the ear candy aspect of high end audio. How many times have we read a comment by an audio reviewer (!) to the effect that component X or Z finally made it possible to tell that the instrument playing on a particular recording was an English Horn and not an oboe? The difference between those two sounds is obvious even on a “crappy radio”.

Personally, I feel a worthy goal should be to always strive to be a better listener of the music as much as of the sound of it.

tomcy6, fair question, I will try and clarify.

mahgister puts it well and as an extension of philbarone’s succinct comment, “musicians listen to the content of the music before the sound of it”:

I believe that I acknowledged that well chosen (!) high end gear can make performance values (content) more obvious, but that it wasn’t absolutely necessary to appreciate the musical message and that the need for this varied depending on the listener and his priorities. I also said that none of this is a judgment of how anyone chooses to or is able to enjoy the listening experience; it’s a personal call. This is what I wrote:

**** Of course, well chosen (!!!) high end equipment makes those performance values more obvious, but the “necessity” for this has to be weighed against a given listener’s ability to hear and appreciate them if a general comment about the necessity can be made. ****

Yes, as you suggested the content of the music is obviously communicated via sound. However, a distinction (conscious or not) can be made between certain aspects of the overall sound. Some of these are musical content and some are not. The aspects of the sound that I find are sometimes the focal point for some listeners have little or nothing to do with the musical content. These things can be subjectively positive or negative depending on the listener and are what I described as the “ear candy” aspects of high end audio (the sound):

Sound staging and its effects (realistic or not), hyper detail and air-less separation of instruments, exaggerated high end passing off as “accuracy”, overblown bass, bass that is too dry, overly thick midrange passing off as “warmth” or “musicality”. These and other aspects of sound have nothing to do with musical content. Sometimes, depending on the listener, focusing on these can distract from the musical content:

A flute blending beautifully with a muted trumpet in a perfect unison line, a seamless crescendo by a string section, “is the bass player too relaxed for the drummer’s back beat?”, “did the piano player add the flatted 9th to that dominant chord?”, a singer’s expressivity, “is the bass player staying away from the piano player’s left hand?”, the guitar player bending the pitch (to use your example). These and many other musical considerations are things that remain obvious even when sitting away from the sweet spot and are what are referred to in the comment “musicians listen to musical content before the sound of it”.

In my experience crappy equipment does a much better job of destroying sound than it does destroying musical content.

**** Music survives sound **** - mahgister

Hope this helps.

Me too.  I appreciate both aspects of the experience, but some don’t and don’t feel they are missing much.  

“tonally bleached out”. Great description that I use often. “Gray”. Can’t stand that type of sound. Instrumental sounds have a lot of natural color.