Rock and Roll Snobbery


Can anyone explain why otherwise high end, musical systems might "not be good for rock and roll?" Or why a system that sounds fine for pop and rock might not do justice to classical and jazz? It seems to me that a great system should sound good with all types of music and that a good for classical system might be deficient in bass which is not exactly state of the art.
charlestrainc33c
I dunno Ben, I've bought some rock/pop CD's that sound pretty bad on my system like 3 doors down - I gave it to my daughter for her car. Also some of my fav artists like Clapton, the August CD is terrible sounding. I bought 3 CD's yesterday, Cowboy Junkies "All Whites off Earth Now", it is recorded live and sounds incredible. Then I put on Neil Young's latest Road Rock - live with friends and relatives and had to take it off after 45 seconds of hell. Then I put on Stone Roses Second coming and it sounded just slightly better than hell. Some band's CD's consistently sound far superior like Cowboy Junkies, Widespread Panic, Mellencamp, Joan Osborne, Sarah Mcg., Sheryl Crow just to name a few off the top of my head. The Junkies for example can make guitar distortion sound great!
Ben - I would agree that there is a lot of rock/pop released that sounds excellent. Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite as universal as you do - there are still plenty of CDs, particularly past but some present, that I find it difficult to listen to based on the quality of recording. However, there are so many good to excellent recordings that I have no problem filling my airwaves. I agree, as well, that recent releases are for the most part very good to excellent - I haven't bought much that has been mastered since, say, 1997 that isn't very good. Tool, Counting Crows, The Tragically Hip, the remasters of many classic rock bands, Dream Theater, all the Rhino anthologies, etc. etc. etc. Lots of great stuff out there.
Hey Ben...unfortunately, over-compression is unbelievably common thse days. The artists don't really (usually) have much say in the matter. The lables want their releases to be as loud as possible to make them "stand out" from other releases (and to make matters worse, most radio stations also overcompress). I've read many articles where all of the main mastering engineers say that it's gotten out of hand. THey realize that they're technically degrading the sound, but they won't get any business if they don't make it sound as "loud" as the labels prefer. It doesn't necessarily make a recording sound "bad" (not if it's engineered well), but it will make it sound flat and they quickly become fatiguing to listen to.
I'm with Sean. More than one system is the easiest and least compromised way to go. (Don't know if I can swing five systems, though.) If you are into the holographic/detail/transparency thang, your system is likely to be developed to maximize the potential of speakers that do this extremely well (i.e. Quads, CLS's, etc). I've recently reached the conclusion that building a second system around speakers that actually move air and have great LF extension is easier, ultimately less costly and infinitely less frustrating than trying to add LF to speakers that weren't designed to go there in the first place (and adding subs always subtracts from the magic that was designed into these speakers). If you think that you have a "great system" that works on all kinds of music, enjoy. There are systems that get both ends of the spectrum "mostly right" and are very enjoyable. But once you decide that you want to be more specific and get certain types of music all-the-way-there, it is always at the expense of something else. The kicker is.. to what degree? That's the fun -- and sometimes really frustrating -- aspect of this endeavor.
Mmmm-I went back and listened to the only CD I had that is mentioned above,the 2nd Stone Roses album and yup it is way overcooked(haven't listened to it in years it's from '94). It strikes me and this is just an observation that it may be distinctly a problem with Artists aiming at the American market..i.e lots of radio play..certainly the Stone Roses album on Geffen was a failed attempt to break the States(almost 4 years in the making)..I guess I tend not to buy some of the artists that are mentioned above..but I can appreciate it is a problem..it maybe proves my point that it is still down to those who are aiming for big commercial gain over artistic appeal (I'm going to get in trouble on this probably..)..take artists like Radiohead ,Madonna,(no.1 albums?)it can be done--- good modern recordings....I still find some of the recordings held-up by Audiogon members as excellent,Lucianda Williams, Cowboy Junkies et al as nothing more than ok and maybe a tad sterile but we all like different things I guess...personally prefer Eva Cassidy of that ilk and I still think that even now that a good modern recording ultimately sounds better than that of even a couple of years ago......... Regards, Ben