Imaging and Detail.


I am curious as to what everyone feels is the best sound they can achieve from there cd players.
Do you prefer a highly detailed sound with exceptional imaging or do you prefere a more warm sound( some would call it muddled) that subdues the detail and give a more overall smooth listening experence but still retains most of the imaging?

I listen to alot of 70's rock.Led Zepplin, AC-DC,Pink Floyd,Allman Brothers,ect....
This music just does not sound right to me on a very detailed system.The music just does not flow for me with all the detail.Why does everyone put such emphises on all this detail?

With smooth jazz it is superb but with the stlye of music I prefere it is crap.
shaunp
Tvad. that is interesting point. i remember when i was younger working a couple summers for a friends at his recording studio, and he would like to take a cassette out to his pickup to "hear what its going to sound like".

Post removed 
I agree with Tvad.As a guitarist/ band guy playing and recording (late 1970s through the mid 1990s)any studio I was ever in mixed through highend monitors then listened through junk basically to see how it would sound to the masses.The band would then take the pre press home for a week and listen to it in all different levels of gear,mostly low end because thats what most had.It had to sound good on low level gear, higher level systems wasnt a concern.
For me, once I got a Holographic soundstage; everything else fell into place.
If Led Zeppelin sounds good on an audiophile system, then it's not an audiophile system in the common definition of an audiophile system.

Might just be my disc set (remastered collection), but Staiway to Heaven on my system will match virtually ANY Audiophile level recording.

From the opening acoustic guitar, it is enthralling to say the least.

However, I agree that MANY 70's recordings may not sound that good (for that matter even recent recordings)