|
Richard Jernigan -> RE: Musicians' ears (Jun. 7 2013 21:28:29)
|
As an amateur musician since the age of 9, and a hi-fi buff since adolescence, I tend to agree that musicians have crappy stereos.
I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that even the very best, and certainly the very most expensive stereos, don't sound like the real thing. This is obvious to musicians, so why shell out a lot of money?
The second reason is that few musicians are wealthy.
But even wealthy ones may not have very good systems. I don't know what kind of stereo Paul McCartney has, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were fairly rudimentary.
An example that I do know of is the very famous and well off conductor Arturo Toscanini. The RCA engineers who recorded Toscanini in the latter part of his career tore out their hair. He listened to playbacks of his recorded symphonic efforts on one of the "console" radio-phonographs of the 1940s-50s, and insisted on altering the tonal balance to suit. The results were dreadful.
Toscanini was noted for the acuity of his hearing, even in old age. He could pick out a single fiddler who was a little out of tune from a mass of twenty-odd, and berate him accordingly. It seems likely to me that Toscanini had no expectation at all that recordings should sound like the real thing.
My goals for a hi-fi system are more or less correct tonal balance among treble, midrange and bass, and the ability to hear clearly through low distortion and a good stereo image. I listen mostly to classical and guitar music.
When I put on some rock-n-roll, I want it to be loud, and to kick ass in the bass.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
