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 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.
