what system musicians prefer? Do they care?

Certain musicians are fantastic listeners as well as certain audio people but being a musician does not mean you have a great ear for sound i have come to learn that it is a gift you either have the ear or you do not.

Gano, you really opened a can a worms on this one!

When you really get right down it, what does it matter what musicians or anyone else, for that matter, prefer in a home sound system?  All that matters is what YOUR ears like.  I would hazard a guess that most musicians (including some friends of mine who aren't famous and played  local clubs) have professional type sound equipment at home they use in their own home studios to record their own music and that of paying customers.

I'm sure somebody will chime in and correct me about this but I seem to  recall reading somewhere that The Grateful Dead, at least at one time, insisted upon using only McIntosh amplifiers for their concerts.  I also recall reading someplace that Sting preferred using McIntosh amps, as well, and, as I recall, that's what was used at Woodstock.  What's that old saying?  If you remember the 60s, then you weren't really there.

Anyway, most rockers, back in the day and then some, before the ear monitors professionals use now, probably blew out a good part of their hearing ability after a couple years touring on the road.  Standing right in front of those huge Marshall stacks and in front of those old monitors hour after hour, night after night, year after year, didn't help!  As such, I would be highly skeptical about what those folks would have to say about a home audiophile quality sound system.  I'd be infinitely more inclined to seriously consider the opinions of the great symphony orchestra conductors or studio cats with a reputation for being obsessively compulsive in the recoding studio and driving recording engineers crazy with take after take after take until everything sounded just right (e.g. Steely Dan; famous recording engineers; etc.).  Even then, there is no substitute for your own two ears.  After all, what do you buy a sound system for anyway?  To please your fiends?  Or to please yourself?

Neil Young cares. 

With a few exceptions, most musician's systems I've read about are mid-fi at best.  (a) they're more interested (and dependent on) making music than listening to it, (b) they never had anyone expose them to great-sounding gear, (c) most musicians are barely getting by working multiple gigs just to survive and spending $$$ on gear isn't at the top of their list.

Frogman what an outstanding thread, me being an ex musician starting at the age of 8 in the church, elementary school, high school, Marine corps field, dance and jazz band ending up back into the church; I couldn`t have expound explicated or elucidated any clearer outstanding.

I’ve been a professional musician since the 60s and also (or at least pre-pandemic) mix smaller venue concert sound. Among working musicians it’s pretty much like everybody else...most don’t care about having a high end sound hobby. That’s just how it is...I know a few who clearly are into it, but that has zero to do with how much time they supposedly have or don’t have, or how great they are. Example...Peter Washington is a first call NYC jazz bass player (Bill Charlap trio, etc, etc.) and is way into high end...loves it...tubes, big Tannoys...Also a lot of serious players have home recording rigs that put most residential 2 channel systems to shame, so there’s that.

i concur wholeheartedly with the important and critical distinction between rock/electronic music musicians versus those who play acoustic instruments

just like folks who go to a ’live’ event in the meadowlands with 60,000 fans (pre virus of course)... yes it is sure live but you are listening to banks of huge pa speakers driven by harsh industrial amps... if that is your reference for ’live music’ then you will think certain speakers and gear sound just right

otoh, you go to village vanguard or the met or a live symphony and hear unamplified or minimally amplified music, hear a singer’s voice, grand piano, acoustic bass or snare drum propogate naturally through the room to your ears, your reference would be entirely different

Thanks to the 2 great last posters...

I will only add that i am not a musician but a classical music lover of jazz and Indian and Iranian music...

They are 2 types of audiophiles for me in relation to the gear:

Those who search for the best acoustical rendition of timbre hues....

Those who will buy anything that will increase bass and details and sound pressure excitment....

Those who want that their gear sound like a musical instrument and those who want a live concert excitment....

Someone already said that without an array of subwoofers an audio system is " a transistor radio"...sic... 😊

In a word people listen sound pressure or details or listen music....

The classical musicians i encountered in my life were interested ONLY by timbre impression....

My only discovery in audio is that it takes only relatively good gear, not necessarily costly at all, to create a very good experience of timbre at the condition to study acoustic and applying it....

For sure there is a number of audiophile BETWEEN these 2 categories, but the majority is in these 2 categories.... I may be wrong but it is my experience...

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.

I'm a musician of forty years (local 802) and during my research of buying some gear I recently talked to a few of my friends including one who plays with Steely Dan and they all have very average or below average systems and AirPods.  We really don't care that much because we listen to the content of the music, not so much the sound quality.  After all, what are we going to do, stop listening to Charlie Parker, Lester Young Caruso? If you're skilled, you can filter out the music from the fidelity by training your ear.  If you want to train your ear to listen harder, get a free app called "Functional Ear Trainer" or Earpeggio".  Sound quality is just a perk to us. 

@petg60 
why musicians? I don't know, because.... that's what we listen to? :)

Why musicians? They are consumers as we do.
Like asking a car race driver if having a sports car, maybe yes, maybe not. Had a girlfriend who was a mezzo soprano, and going to choose together a system she liked most a pair of Mission 707 because most likely they were doing some things rather well in that region. 

If you can create/play music yourself, why care about silly boxes attempting at  creating an illusion?

All my musician friends could care less. Some appreciate the effort, but I get the feeling they're  just being nice, and think audiophoolery is silly. A good musician usually has great ear for sound.

A minimum level of fidelity is nice, but a transistor radio tuned in properly will still get attention if the music is "right".

"Douchebag" qualification is not limited to wallet size, creed, political belief or nationality.

well, I guess it's a similar question to "what car racecar drivers drive". Sometimes they drive a minivan.

First off, I am sorry about the   rich douchebags comment. It was completely unnecessary. I am a poor child with audiophile system-envy.

But on the other hand I am still intrigued. Some musicians produce  super sharp and precise sound (like M Ward) and some a bit messy (like Jeff Lynne) and I assume it has to do with their listening preferences. (Both of them are my favorites and geniuses). And I can go on an on, would a speaker company benefit from having Dave Grohl review their latest model?

Louis Armstrong had a pretty cool and high-end system back in the day:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/louis-armstrongs-audio-rack-from-nyt-article.932987/

Most musicians I know will listen to music on anything. they're not interested in high end audio gear. They devote their time to practicing, writing, band rehearsals, recording and playing live. I agree with the post above. I remember reading an article about Tony Bennett years ago, which showed pics of his apartment in NYC, and his high end system. not an all out system, but a descent one. That's one exception and I thought it was pretty cool.

Most musicians don’t care. There are a few notable exceptions. But typically creating music is about stringing notes together, melodies... the structure... the performance. If they hear that clearly that is enough. They spend time in studios... a very different kind of setup. So, personal playback it is not a passion. 
There are exceptions of course. 

Certainly, there's got to be exceptions galore, but I've found over the years that musicians usually aren't audiophiles. Mostly they either spurn or just don't care about the accuracy of reproduction.  They'd rather spend their time and money elsewhere. They'd rather be playing/practicing than obsessing over things like soundstaging or spitty sibilants. 

With perhaps just one exception, every single one of my old rock-and-roll bandmates was more fixated on how they themselves played or sounded  on a recording than on anything else. How's MY tone? Shouldn't I be louder? Probably the only musician I ever hung around with who had a genuine appreciation for fidelity is Todd Garfinkle of MA Recordings.

1) you can have money and not be a douchebag, you can be a douchebag and not have money (though obviously, extravagant d-bags call the most attention to themselves) ... but money and character are pretty much independent variables as far as my experience goes, just like some poor folk sure ain’t nice folk

2) that being said, in my travels, i’ve found that trained musicians tend to value the realistic tonality/timbre in music reproduction rather than more ’hifi’ attributes like imaging, detail retrieval and so on

3) many working musicians are indeed busy and unless they are lucky and talented enough to be famous and successful, most don’t usually have the money to pour into a high end hifi system

4) those who are, are known to have some pretty excellent systems, like keith jarrett, fred hersch, burt bacharach, yoyo ma, gregory porter, tom harrell ...

5) but many don’t, presumably for the same reasons that many successful chefs eat very basic, elemental food at home... when something is your work, you don’t want to do a lot more of it much for pleasure

6) this may be of interest, if curious ... https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/great-photos-of-musicians-with-hi-fi-gear.941493/

@gano now that is one funny post. Mick is a talented drummer but he is not Ginger Baker, Art Blakey, or Max Roach. 
My son is an accomplished drummer and percussionist. He played in College in the Jazz band and percussion ensemble. He has sat in on sessions with Snarky Puppy and Trombone Shorty. He knows sound and guess what his stereo system just sucks! He is at Norte Dame now earning his PHD and said when he is not working he is in the studio playing. He has no time for our hobby.

You also have done a nice job alienating 1/16 of the members here and I love it “rich douche bags” lol. I am not wealthy but I made my choice and have a modest system that set us back maybe $20k and love it. Could also care less what Jeff Beck or Buddy Guy listen to I want to listen to them.

Good listening.