Oops! Not fatigued by B&W speakers

[Jim Taylor]

Since they're both anecdotal, both can be true. It tells us very little.

I suppose, parsing it through, that you are correct. Thanks.

I swear, sometimes this forum drives me nuts.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I swear, sometimes this forum drives me nuts.

YES

 

[Waxx]

Some speakers are voiced (aka deliberated coloured) and some of those work well and others not. This is because there is a public for that. Most will like clean neutral, but not all shows the study done at Harman that we all know. So having coloured options is not bad.

B&W is (today) very coloured and bright, and is certainly not my cup of tea. But some seems to like it and that is is not a problem. It becomes a problem when objective qualities are claimed but not realised. And that is what the brand (and the OP of this tread) do.

Another example of voiced speakers are Harbeth, but the designer does not claim monitor like qualities, he says it himself he tunes the speaker to a housecurve that his customer like, and then i have no issue with that and you also shouldn't. And the sound is for me at least very pleasing to the ear.

I personally think that is more the direction that those brands should go. If you tune your speakers to a certain sound, tell it and don't claim neutrality. There is a public for that (that is not very present here, but they exist). And when you claim neutral low distortion sound, make sure your product is that. And ASR & Co should keep checking those claims vs reality and expose false claims in marketing like they do now, based on measurements and objective criteria that are backed by science. A subjective judgement can be valuable, but only when there are also objective data to compare. Otherwise it's just a opinion with no real value for me.

 

[Dialectic]

Since they're both anecdotal, both can be true. It tells us very little.

I've known dozens, perhaps hundreds, of these people since I was a child.

The OP's assertions about classical musicians - much like his assertions about audio - don't pass the smell test.

He is trying to make other people feel inferior and guilty.

 

[williamr]

Since they're both anecdotal, both can be true. It tells us very little.

I currently know dozens of professional musicians who work in major city orchestras and my experience tracks with Dialectic's. They rarely attend live orchestral performances. The primary reason is that they are working exactly at the same time these other performances are happening. Hard working musicians have no free weekends. When they have time off they spend time viewing other arts like plays, dance, etc.

I also notice a trend for professional musicians not to be so concerned with "hi fi." Naively you might think that as a group they would be more interested in this hobby, but if anything in my experience this is not the case (and maybe even less interested than average). And yes of course there must be exceptions. Again, this is just my anectdotal experience.

That said, I also agree with DavidM1 when he talks about a musician's student years. They are obviously listening very critically to a lot of live performances. These are foundational experiences that along with their musical training give them a uniquely "expert" ear. However, the expertise is generally more music focused than recording/reproduction focused.

 

[LTig]

I also notice a trend for professional musicians not to be so concerned with "hi fi." Naively you might think that as a group they would be more interested in this hobby, but if anything in my experience this is not the case (and maybe even less interested than average). And yes of course there must be exceptions. Again, this is just my anectdotal experience.

I think musicians know by experience how a piece of music should sound so their brain compensates inferior sound quality. They might also listen more to the music and less to the sound. Happens sometimes to me when I enjoy music in my car which certainly sounds much worse than my systems at home.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

I currently know dozens of professional musicians who work in major city orchestras and my experience tracks with Dialectic's. They rarely attend live orchestral performances. The primary reason is that they are working exactly at the same time these other performances are happening. Hard working musicians have no free weekends. When they have time off they spend time viewing other arts like plays, dance, etc.

I also notice a trend for professional musicians not to be so concerned with "hi fi." Naively you might think that as a group they would be more interested in this hobby, but if anything in my experience this is not the case (and maybe even less interested than average). And yes of course there must be exceptions. Again, this is just my anectdotal experience.

That said, I also agree with DavidM1 when he talks about a musician's student years. They are obviously listening very critically to a lot of live performances. These are foundational experiences that along with their musical training give them a uniquely "expert" ear. However, the expertise is generally more music focused than recording/reproduction focused.

They're forced to listen to real instruments all day. It would be normal for them to have hobbies not related to their working life in their downtime. Your brain can only absorb so much music in a day before your ears start hurting. If the purpose is just to rehearse or remember a piece then they can listen on an Amazon Alexa or their smart phone speakers and it will do the job for them. There are some very famous musicians and composers who are huge audiophiles though and who even read all the audiophile magazines.

 

[goat76]

I currently know dozens of professional musicians who work in major city orchestras and my experience tracks with Dialectic's. They rarely attend live orchestral performances. The primary reason is that they are working exactly at the same time these other performances are happening. Hard working musicians have no free weekends. When they have time off they spend time viewing other arts like plays, dance, etc.

I also notice a trend for professional musicians not to be so concerned with "hi fi." Naively you might think that as a group they would be more interested in this hobby, but if anything in my experience this is not the case (and maybe even less interested than average). And yes of course there must be exceptions. Again, this is just my anectdotal experience.

That said, I also agree with DavidM1 when he talks about a musician's student years. They are obviously listening very critically to a lot of live performances. These are foundational experiences that along with their musical training give them a uniquely "expert" ear. However, the expertise is generally more music focused than recording/reproduction focused.

It may be that the classical musicians, in general, don't attend that many orchestral performances listening from the audience seats, but that's not the main point here. What they are definitely exposed to a lot is how these acoustic instruments sound in real acoustic environments, as they have played and listened to each other thousands upon thousands of hours while practising. It's not like they have never heard their type of instrument being played by other orchestral members, and from different perspectives than sitting down playing the instrument on their own.

I'm pretty sure many orchestral musicians can tell you if the recording was able to capture the sound of their type of instrument in a fully convincing way or not, with all the experience they have of hearing these instruments in a live environment. I find it a bit silly to think that they only know how these instruments sound from the close perspective of playing them themselves, as @Jim Taylor seems to suggest.

 

[MattHooper]

The point isn't how pleasant or unpleasant an equalized frequency response is; the point is that to translate an artistic intention exactly as it was intended by the artist/sound engineer, it's essential that we speak the same language. If a song is mastered with a flat-response monitor and I listen to it with a flat-response monitor, I'll have a good approximation of the creative intent.
If the masterer uses a listening curve and masters to that, unless I happen to have the same curve, I'll have a very difficult time faithfully reproducing that song (that is, faithfully, similar to what the masterer heard).
It doesn't matter if the end user is happy with equalization to make the sound more pleasant to their ears (I do), the point is that flat frequency response is the common language we must start from to ensure we can reproduce high-fidelity audio.

That is a sensible approach.

My own view is that, for music, the artistic intent - lyrics, melody, rhythm, performance, production techniques - largely makes its way through a wide variety of sound systems, including speakers from neutral to a variety of colorations.

As one of many examples: I’ve been listening to Rush’s song Cygnus X1 for most of my life on plenty of different sound systems, from the KEF 105.2 speakers we had in our home when I was (dad was an audiophile), to many of my friends coloured speakers, to the cheap almost white-Van-level system I was able to afford once I moved out, to Quads, to my car stereo… whatever… on all of them there was that instantly recognizable sound of Geddy Lee’s Rickenbacker bass slowly emerging from the distinctive little alcove of reverb, marching forward towards the speakers , becoming ever more dry and upfront until it fills the speakers. It’s distinctive on every system I’ve ever heard . Countless other similar artistic choices and specific sounds translate through all sorts of different systems.

So I’m not too fussed about missing out on the artistic intent myself.

I do tend to prefer speakers that do not stray very far from neutral. But that’s not because I’m worried about the artistic intent. It’s because I just think it tends to sound better. I prefer a system that sounds nicely balanced, and I don’t like to notice obvious suckouts or peaks, so I generally prefer a close to flatish response. (I’m fine if there’s a bit of coloration here or there, could be a slight swayback in the mids like my old Hales speakers, or a bit of a rise in the highs for some air and sparkle in other speakers, so long as it is integrated in a way that I don’t perceive it as an obvious colouration).

But, again I think there are various reasonable approaches for audiophiles to take given people have different goals and criteria.

 

[MattHooper]

Which is why the more reasonable goal is to listen to the recorded media reproduced as accurately as possible. And that’s something we can know and measure and verify.

That is a reasonable goal if you’re searching for something on which to hang the concept of accuracy. Then you’ve got something that is actually measurable.

On the other hand, it still leaves the question open: “but why?”

Why does one care about accurately reproducing that signal rather than just having the goal of “ producing sound that I find pleasing?”

If you have decided that you can’t hear the artistic intent in terms of what they actually heard in the studio, then what is it about the recorded signal that demands accuracy? Beyond some scientific urge to simply have something to which you can be “ objectively accurate?”

I’m not saying, of course this doesn’t have answers. But it’s interesting to see the answers that people give to such questions.

 

[MattHooper]

It may be that the classical musicians, in general, don't attend that many orchestral performances listening from the audience seats, but that's not the main point here. What they are definitely exposed to a lot is how these acoustic instruments sound in real acoustic environments, as they have played and listened to each other thousands upon thousands of hours while practising. It's not like they have never heard their type of instrument being played by other orchestral members, and from different perspectives than sitting down playing the instrument on their own.

I'm pretty sure many orchestral musicians can tell you if the recording was able to capture the sound of their type of instrument in a fully convincing way or not, with all the experience they have of hearing these instruments in a live environment. I find it a bit silly to think that they only know how these instruments sound from the close perspective of playing them themselves, as @Jim Taylor seems to suggest.

I also think it’s good to remember that there are likely plenty of members here who are also musicians or at least amateur musicians who have played one instrument or another in their lives. So there’s some familiarity there.

I grew up in a large family, where our dad was a jazz musician, composer, and then high school music teacher as well. We had practically every instrument you’d find in the school band or jazz band at home at one point or another. My dad could play most of them - every horn every woodwind instrument. We all played piano and my brothers and I played several different instruments.

So I think some of this may be formed my desire that when I hear instruments voices through a sound system, that they sound something like “ correct” to my ears.

This isn’t any claim to a stellar acoustic memory where I have perfectly formed memories of all these instruments. More like the impetus for the motivation of what I look for in a sound system.

I was fascinated with live versus reproduced sound and I used to do my own live versus reproduce comparisons on various sound systems I don’t, which was really fun and I think enlightning.

But in the end, I concluded that whether my memory is accurate or not for instruments voices, I care about all I have to do is please that memory, those impressions I carry around in my head , and I’m happy. It’s very rare for me to hear instrument on a sound system that sounds natural or organic or the “right” timbral colour - as opposed to bleached of tone, timbrally gray or electric in character. When I do hear something that seems to transcend the electronic aspect that feels special.

So for instance, a couple nights ago, I was listening to a piece on my system which had trumpet, and then woodwinds trading off… sax…. Flute…oboe. And every single one matched the timbre/tone that led my brain to declare “real! THAT’s the warmth of timbre I remember from those real instruments!”
For me that’s so incredibly satisfying and it’s to a degree “ what it’s all about, one of the main things I’m chasing with High end audio” that makes achieving it so satisfying.

(and it ultimately doesn’t really matter to me if somebody else listened to the system would disagree, so long as I’m fooling my own brain).

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Why does one care about accurately reproducing that signal rather than just having the goal of “ producing sound that I find pleasing?”

good question, some answers:

1. If I'm accurately reproducing that signal it's trivial to eq/dsp/otherwise tinker to make the sound of any particular recording more pleasing to me. And then if I play another recording, I can easily do that again. This is much more of a pragmatic solution to me than starting with a colored sound and hoping I like it with all the vastly different recordings I listen to.

2. Finding a pair of speakers that are colored in a way that I find pleasing sounds like an exhausting job. I'd have to audition a lot of speakers. In my space, not a showroom. Some people enjoy that kind of thing, but I don't at all. And while I live (much of the year) in a big city where that would be at least theoretically possible, the vast majority of people don't even have access to that kind of long-term hunt, like, they'd have to move to even begin a process of that magnitude. But even if I did enjoy hunting for speakers, how would I know when I've finished? When my money ran out? When I somehow convinced myself that the speakers I had "please me" more than [other speakers raved about by subjective reviewers]? Pleasure, after all, like desire, is non-fungible and can always be exceeded by the next thing, at least in our imaginations. There's a reason audiophiles are known for constant gear churn. Admirable to some, perhaps, but a cautionary tale to me.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Why does one care about accurately reproducing that signal rather than just having the goal of “ producing sound that I find pleasing?”

The old Kodachrome vs. Ektachrome argument. You're free to use whichever one you wish.

. It’s very rare for me to hear instrument on a sound system that sounds natural or organic or the “right” timbral colour - as opposed to bleached of tone, timbrally gray or electric in character. When I do hear something that seems to transcend the electronic aspect that feels special.

I know that you said you have synesthesia, but the vast majority of us don't.
You have the freedom to satisfy yourself. OTOH, don't I (or we) have the same freedom? If I want to hear what's on the recording, don't I have that right? People come to ASR complaining that they feel put-upon by those of us who advocate accuracy. Aren't we who desire accuracy then put-upon by those who belittle us, denigrate us and argue with us as The Enemy?
No matter how many rhetorical questions that you might ask, we are not required to explain ourselves to you .... or anyone else. Despite that, you'll notice that we usually do explain ourselves ... over and over and over again, patiently and tolerantly. What do we get for it? More argument, more vituperation, more insults and more trolling. After so many years, it gets sickening.

You need to remember that the reason so many people who advocate objective principles are here at ASR is because it is one of the very few sites on the web where we can find shelter .... one of the very few havens of sanity. On so many of the audio sites on the web, we are constantly attacked by predatory ragebaiters and fanatical subjectivists, so much so that we leave in disgust ... or at least I did.

Then I found ASR. A breath of clean, fresh air in a vast internet polluted by voodoo, superstition and the tyranny of ignorance. I love it here. I can relax here, enjoy the membership of like-minded people here.
Don't we have the right to our own peace and quiet? You laud your own ideas ... don't we have the right to laud our own, too? Don't we have the right to everything that you have the right to? Don't we have the right to congregate with people who understand our language, who feel the way we feel, and who share our value system?

Why don't you just leave us alone? If you want to push your subjectivist agenda, do it elsewhere.

 

[MattHooper]

good question, some answers:

1. If I'm accurately reproducing that signal it's trivial to eq/dsp/otherwise tinker to make the sound of any particular recording more pleasing to me. And then if I play another recording, I can easily do that again. This is much more of a pragmatic solution to me than starting with a colored sound and hoping I like it with all the vastly different recordings I listen to.

2. Finding a pair of speakers that are colored in a way that I find pleasing sounds like an exhausting job. I'd have to audition a lot of speakers. In my space, not a showroom. Some people enjoy that kind of thing, but I don't at all. And while I live (much of the year) in a big city where that would be at least theoretically possible, the vast majority of people don't even have access to that kind of long-term hunt, like, they'd have to move to even begin a process of that magnitude. But even if I did enjoy hunting for speakers, how would I know when I've finished? When my money ran out? When I somehow convinced myself that the speakers I had "please me" more than [other speakers raved about by subjective reviewers]? Pleasure, after all, like desire, is non-fungible and can always be exceeded by the next thing, at least in our imaginations. There's a reason audiophiles are known for constant gear churn. Admirable to some, perhaps, but a cautionary tale to me.

OK, thanks.

I think your answer #2, while I certainly get your approach, isn’t directly addressing the issue of why one is focussing on the recording signal as the target of accuracy.

But your answer #1 seems to be justified in terms of the ultimate goal being pleasing sound. In other words, it’s not focussed on
“ I want to hear the signal reproduced accurately” as an end, instead, it’s a means to an end: accuracy tends to entail, low distortion and low colouration, which is associated with being able to more reliably manipulate via EQ or tone controls.
So in your case, accurate gear does not seem to be aimed at some artist intent in accurately reproducing the musical signal, but is aimed at allowing you to arrive at pleasing sound.

If I’ve interpreted the implications correctly.

 

[pablolie]

... why one is focussing on the recording signal as the target of accuracy...

I know why I would consider it. It is the version the artist approved at the time, although with some music labels at certain times that may not mean much (hello Motown).

I personally look at it as a Venn diagram. Was the original recording any good, as in does it sound good? Does it sound realistic or artificially boosted in any way? Does it make me feel like everything is there?

Let's not fool ourselves: we shall never establish how "accurate" a recording is. If the cowbell is recorded on its own... Bruce Wilkinson (?) wouldn't have asked for as many retakes..

 

[RexrothPigeon]

OK, thanks.

I think your answer #2, while I certainly get your approach, isn’t directly addressing the issue of why one is focussing on the recording signal as the target of accuracy.

But your answer #1 seems to be justified in terms of the ultimate goal being pleasing sound. In other words, it’s not focussed on
“ I want to hear the signal reproduced accurately” as an end, instead, it’s a means to an end: accuracy tends to entail, low distortion and low colouration, which is associated with being able to more reliably manipulate via EQ or tone controls.
So in your case, accurate gear does not seem to be aimed at some artist intent in accurately reproducing the musical signal, but is aimed at allowing you to arrive at pleasing sound.

If I’ve interpreted the implications correctly.

re: #1 - I want equipment that can reproduce the source accurately. If I'm going to adjust something, I'd like that something to start in as neutral a position as possible.

#2 is about focusing on the signal as the target of accuracy because it's something we can measure and identify and assess remotely--amir and erin and others have developed powerful, thorough regimens for exactly this, and it's a a big reason their work is so popular, since most people don't have time/inclination/access to audition dozens (hundreds?) of speakers. You are definitely right that I'm not concerned much with "artistic intent," which is unknowable anyway (or, alternately, that's a possible concern for the recording and mastering engineers, not the home listeners). Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

 

[MattHooper]

The old Kodachrome vs. Ektachrome argument. You're free to use whichever one you wish.



I know that you said you have synesthesia, but the vast majority of us don't.
You have the freedom to satisfy yourself. OTOH, don't I (or we) have the same freedom? If I want to hear what's on the recording, don't I have that right? People come to ASR complaining that they feel put-upon by those of us who advocate accuracy. Aren't we who desire accuracy then put-upon by those who belittle us, denigrate us and argue with us as The Enemy?
No matter how many rhetorical questions that you might ask, we are not required to explain ourselves to you .... or anyone else. Despite that, you'll notice that we usually do explain ourselves ... over and over and over again, patiently and tolerantly. What do we get for it? More argument, more vituperation, more insults and more trolling. After so many years, it gets sickening.

You need to remember that the reason so many people who advocate objective principles are here at ASR is because it is one of the very few sites on the web where we can find shelter .... one of the very few havens of sanity. On so many of the audio sites on the web, we are constantly attacked by predatory ragebaiters and fanatical subjectivists, so much so that we leave in disgust ... or at least I did.

Then I found ASR. A breath of clean, fresh air in a vast internet polluted by voodoo, superstition and the tyranny of ignorance. I love it here. I can relax here, enjoy the membership of like-minded people here.
Don't we have the right to our own peace and quiet? You laud your own ideas ... don't we have the right to laud our own, too? Don't we have the right to everything that you have the right to? Don't we have the right to congregate with people who understand our language, who feel the way we feel, and who share our value system?

Why don't you just leave us alone? If you want to push your subjectivist agenda, do it elsewhere.

Hi Jim,

I don’t know why this seems to happen occasionally … where it seems you manage to wildly misunderstand some of my posts . I’ve explained my position quite a number of times when this has happened in the past…. but here we go again I guess….(because some people may actually have read what you wrote and imagined it was actually warranted).


I think you’ve mashed together two different posts and drawn the wrong inference.

You quoted me asking RexrothPigeon why does one care about accurately reproducing the single?

The first thing is that I’m NOT asking the question as a means to dismiss the goal of accuracy! Far from it. I’ve written plenty on ASR and elsewhere in defence of accuracy and neutrality in a system.

My question about accuracy was not rhetorical. Especially in a thread in which the subject of accuracy is being discussed.

It goes to the heart of the goal any of us here have for our systems. We see constant talk on ASR about having accuracy as a goal. It would be incredibly strange to never raise or address question “ why do we have the goal of accuracy in the first place - accurate to what and why?” Don’t you think?

As I said: I’m not saying this doesn’t have answers. Rather, it’s interesting to see the answers that people give to such questions.

And when you ask these questions, even here you get a range of different viewpoints.

Talisman and RexrothPigeon gave differing viewpoints on the justifications and aims for “accuracy.” Their answers represented some of the common different views repeated by other ASR members.

Did you not notice that I responded with agreement that each of those views was reasonable?

Do you see how this fits in with what I also said write to Talisman:

“But, again I think there are various reasonable approaches for audiophiles to take given people have different goals and criteria.”

That has been my consistent position throughout all my posts on ASR: to recognize that there is a variety of different goals and philosophies and approaches, which can be well justified. (without having to justify pseudoscience or woo woo).

I’ve exclaimed until blue in the face that the common ASR idea of appealing to measurements to evaluate equipment and purchase gear is obviously well justified. It makes perfect sense to me. I look at measurements too . And different nuanced takes on the subject of accuracy seems sensible to me.

As I wrote: I prefer speakers that do not stray too far from neutrality, because I prefer that over gross colorations (which coincides with the general justification for why ASR appeals to measurements based on blind test preference ratings in the first place!)

But we also need to acknowledge audiophiles who are not seeking strictest accuracy per se as well. Not just in other forums but here as well . A number of ASR members have said that they are comfortable with certain deviations from accuracy in their gear.

Don’t they have a home here too?

Yes, they do IMO.

Because in explaining how audio gear actually works, ASR can help anyone….whatever their personal preference…understand what’s going on and use this information if they want to meet their goals. “You find you like a certain colouration or altering the signal now and then? Here are some practical ways to integrate that into your system…”

This is why we often see even accuracy-focused members here point out they aren’t arguing against personal preference… but if personal preferences are accompanied by technically incorrect claims… those are going to be corrected here.

It’s a big tent. At bottom I believe ASR is about promoting accurate information about audio gear. It does NOT put restrictions on members having to all have precisely the same goal and criteria, or all own the most accurate gear possible.

If that were the case, ASR wouldn’t include a forum section devoted to turntables and vinyl playback.

Do you actually disagree with any of this?

I’m interested in other people’s audio philosophies and goals which is why I like to ask these type of questions.
Whenever my personal goals may be different from a poster… I don’t denigrate their goals - I acknowledge their approach makes a sense. And then I simply add my own preferences on the subject.
So my approach is completely the opposite of your suggestion that I’m insulting or denigrating those seeking accuracy.

I mean… that’s what we do on enthusiast forums right? Exchange information and opinions.

I’m not saying this facetiously but seriously: maybe it’s worth bookmarking this post to revisit the next time you get the impression I am here to troll/belittle/denigrate the ASR approach, and hopefully we can avoid going through this again.

Cheers.

 

[goat76]

But even if I did enjoy hunting for speakers, how would I know when I've finished? When my money ran out? When I somehow convinced myself that the speakers I had "please me" more than [other speakers raved about by subjective reviewers]? Pleasure, after all, like desire, is non-fungible and can always be exceeded by the next thing, at least in our imaginations. There's a reason audiophiles are known for constant gear churn. Admirable to some, perhaps, but a cautionary tale to me.

But is there really any difference here at ASR?
I see the same chasing, over and over again, for new gear and speakers going on here on this forum, and actually even more of that here on ASR than on any other audio forum I’ve visited. The only difference here is that you could replace the bolded part in your text with "objective reviewers".

That's just the nature of some people; they never seem to be settled on what they already have. They go out chasing for that latest “hot cake”, no matter if it's based on objective measurements and reviews, or subjective listening and reviews.

 

[MattHooper]

But is there really any difference here at ASR?
I see the same chasing, over and over again, for new gear and speakers going on here on this forum, and actually even more of that here on ASR than on any other audio forum I’ve visited. The only difference here is that you could change out the bolded part in your text to objective reviewers for other forums.

That's just the nature of some people, they never seem to be settled on what they already have. They go out chasing for that latest “hot cake”, no matter if it's based on objective measurements and reviews, or subjective listening and reviews.

Yes. It’s natural to want to justify our own approach to buying gear, but it doesn’t seem we have actual data to suggest that audiophiles buying neutral gear have more satisfaction, or have longer lasting satisfaction or retain their gear longer.

In some other ASR thread about this, I posted a link to a Steve Hoffman forum poll asking how long people had owned their loudspeakers, and there were plenty of members who owned their loudspeakers for quite a long time. And there wasn’t any particular rhyme or a reason in terms of which speakers were providing that lasting satisfaction for individuals.
As Toole points out: we are very good at adapting to colorations.

 

[Waxx]

I think many audiophiles overthink the "artist intent". Like Matthooper says, any half decent system can give you that. I know many, as former musician (cello & bass), dj, radiohost/tech, music producer and sound engineer. I've been arround artists of all kind most of my adult life and can tell you that most don't care that much. They want good speakers, but their standards for that are quiet moderate, and not that different than the general public. If it is, they tend to listen to more neutral "studio monitor" speakers than esotheric custom gear because they know those from studio's, or even have a small studio at home. Many musicians also have hearing damage from performing, so they don't hear that good anymore (certainly when older). And they rather spend money on instruments and music, than to audio gear.

And the one quiet high level classical musician who came to me to get advice during covid on what to get, at the end chose for Neumann KH420's for his music room. He is wealthy (lives in a very expensive villa in Uccle, the upperclass region of Brussels). He was tired of the B&W's he had (800D3 model) that he tought was to sharp sounding, and did not like what the "high end shop" in his region had to offer (all hyped up snake oil stuff). Now he uses the Neumanns with JBL subs (he already had) and a minidsp flex as preamp (with dirac) and is perfectly happy. He did also spend way more to make his music room (also his rehearsal space) sound good, than on gear. But he is an exception, most don't care that much and get what the masses get.