Agreed. Over the years I've been interested that many superb musicians whom I know seem nearly completely indifferent to the "quality" of the audio equipment they use to listen to music. They can be quite happy listening to music on some sort of boom box, rather than some $$thousand system. My impression has been that these musicians are listening to "the music"—transcending the limitations of the gear. In fairness, most of the folks I commune with are classical, jazz, or blues musicians primarily, and I suppose that one would get a very different impression hanging with electronic, prog, ambient or modern r&b/hip-hop musicians. I suspect the border lies at the point where the art of the recording itself becomes every bit as important as the art of the on-the-spot performance of the artist. Still, I agree that my mid-range system makes for more gratifying listening (even of solo Bach piano) than does, say, my Bose Wave radio in the kitchen.
Well, if I'm listening to recordings of Bix Beiderbecke from the 1920s, or similar such material, I'm already working with the limitations of the technology. I'm a lot more interested in the content of the music, and the instrumental tone the musicians are making (to the extent you can really discern these) than the tone of the reproduction equipment.
I have a friend who collects Victrolas and he tells me that sound quality is much improved when playing a record on the equipment it was intended for - mechanically recorded records on the early gramphones; electrically recorded 78s on Victrolas - which although themselves mechanical reproducing instruments, were intended to reproduce electrically-recorded discs; "Hi-Fi" recordings on electrical "Hi-Fi" sets, and so on. In other words, a mechanically recorded 78 on the high dollar modern stereo may not sound as good as on a gramophone. I have not yet taken him up on his offer of a listening and comparing party.
