An interesting article by Anthony Tommasini from this Sunday’s New York Times, which talks about the relatively inferior sound quality of the typical mp3 player (i.e., iPod) compared to a top-end audiophile quality hi-fi stereo system. It would seem to be the triumph of wi-fi over hi-fi. It’s true.
When I was a college student, I had a roommate who was a trombonist and physics major who also was a major hi-fi nut. He saved money and bought very good components and put together a very nice system. I still remember sitting in the dark and listening to Elie Ameling and Dietrich Fischer Dieskau, the Berlin Philharmonic, and the Empire Brass on his great system, almost feeling like I was in the same room with these greats.
Later on, I stayed with an acquaintance from my youth orchestra when I went to Cleveland to take an audition for the orchestra (washed out in the first round). Her husband was a total audiophile, and had cobbled and borrowed together (with help from a friend who owned a super high end hi-fi shop) an unbelievable system. The speakers were six feet tall, each with its own mono amplifier, and with cables that were jacketed with a layer of heavy water and cost $14,000 a pair. He had a favorite demonstration recording, which was a jazz album consisting of the great baritone Johnny Hartman in duets with sax great John Coltrane. Unbelievable! I could hear the smallest tingle of the vibrating rivet on the ride cymbal on the drum kit, and it seemed as though I was inside the singer’s vocal chords. I could even place where every musical voice was on a virtual sound stage, though there were only two speakers.
Great, yes. But I was making about as much money as that system cost in every two years that I worked. So I made do with a Sony Discman and crappy headphones, and gradually got some semi-decent hi-fi equipment as time went by. The funny thing was, as I worked in an orchestra, my listening lessened. I still listened to music, but not sitting down for a prolonged session for enjoyment. I was putting on headphones to listen to a score we would be working on for the upcoming rehearsal, skipping ahead to the hard bits to see how the viola part fit into the others, and then it would be on to the next piece. All strictly business. So this paragraph from the Times story struck a chord very strongly with me:
In another twist to the story, though musicians tend not to be audiophiles, they do like their MP3s and iPods. The sound is acceptable, but convenience is the selling point. They typically spend lots of time listening to recordings for professional purposes. To get this listening accomplished while exercising on a treadmill or walking to a rehearsal is an efficient use of time.
So true! And, we tend not to listen to that much classical music during our time off. I listen to a lot of NPR in the car, and if that’s not interesting I’ll plug in the iPod to the stereo and listen to downloaded podcasts of other shows. Occasionally, on a long drive, I’ll pull out some pieces that I haven’t heard for a long time and have them on there just in case, but mostly there will be popular music: AC/DC, Sting, U2, Journey, and others.
I think part of it is what the author of the Times describes – musicians are practical listeners. We listen largely as part of our jobs, and then we go to stuff that isn’t part of our day-to-day grind. The other part of it is, we get the ultimate hi-fi experience every day: we sit within a symphony orchestra, or band, or string quartet. Why listen to something recorded when we live it? Then there’s the whole busman’s holiday thing…