Rock and Roll Snobbery

Onhwy61: good post! there are some rock/pop groups that do care about sound and produce their cd's/lp's accordingly. 2 that come readily to mind are phish and rusted root. as others have pointed out in other threads: c&w tends to be well-recorded, too, as do some notable blues artists. BTW, i always take some good rock cd's to ces. if the folks displaying don't let me play 'em, i leave.

onhwy61 is correct. It is the way they are recorded and produced (pot smoking punks). Usually to make up for poor musicianship and vocals and the media for which they are heard (JVC,Pioneer lofi electronics). I love RnR and have found the live recordings to be listenable and alot of Pop music. Bands like John Cougar, Sarah Macglaulin, Paula Cole, Madonna, Joni Mitchell, Burton Cummings etc are all produced and recorded well and very listenable. Its not that you can't listen to the music it just sounds like compressed mush. I was a huge Rush fan and was terrible dissappointed when I heard them on my system. But in my car, Rush still kicks. Trust me, a high end system will open the door for you to enjoy all music, just some more that others and for different reasons.

I have five systems in my house. Some will "jam", some won't. They range in sensitivity levels from 82 db's to 104 db's at 1 watt. Power levels go from 30 wpc to well over 1000+ wpc. Any of these systems can play ANY type of music that you throw at them but some will do better on specific styles than others. Each system was built with slightly different goals in mind. I did this on purpose as this only adds to my listening flexibility. There are some discs that i will only listen to on specific systems because of the "magic" that the combination seems to generate. Quite honestly, rock and roll, pop and some blues recordings are not nearly as enjoyable on a "good" system as they are on a "mid-fi" system. The system can be TOO revealing and actually detract from what you are expecting / wanting to hear. Besides that, the added bass "bloom" and slight hi frequency rise common to many "mid-fi" systems actually helps most rock recordings. There is more of a foundation or "beat" with the increased bottom end and the guitars have that extra "edge" or "bite" to put them over the edge. The added distortion by-products of the "lesser" audio gear tend to blend with the distortion that was present when the band was really playing BUT lost via the recording process. That's the reason why most "rock" recordings sounds better loud than quiet. The equipment is actually being pushed harder and coming closer to simulating the overdrive that was present in the studio or stage. After all, let's face it: Rock, pop and blues are all based on electronic instruments and amplification, i.e. guitars, bass, synthesizers, vocal effects, etc... Losing the sound of the electronics would be like removing the flavor from chocolate. Sure, it still looks the same. It just wouldn't taste the same. Sean >

I don't really know what you guys are talking about, my system handles rock just fine using ML Aerius i. Just not loud thats all.

I've given away discs in the past that just sounded horrible on my system, unlistenable (Who's Next on CD, unreal how bad it sounded). My system is revealing, Martin Logan Quest Z speakers that rock just fine; for the most part rock is easy to listen to although I do tend to listen to rock louder than I would classical or blues. I do find myself listening more frequently to music that's better recorded (e.g. Steve Winwood, Frank Zappa etc) but I chalk that up to good taste and common sense more than anything. To summarize, I sure wouldn't want to find myself with a rig that really only played one gendre of music well, that would get boring fast.