Imaging and Detail.

"If Led Zeppelin sounds good on an audiophile system, then it's not an audiophile system in the common definition of an audiophile system."

"Good" is subjective.

LZ sounds good on my system these days.

Has not always been the case though. It has not sounded good to me at times in the past.

A recording does not have to be absolute top notch in all regards to sound good to me. LZ and many 70s classic rock recordings are not SOTA by any stretch yet they all mostly sound good in my current setup.

Good to me means that I can hear what's there clearly and there is nothing bad or blurred going on that hides whatever is in the recording. I've heard them all enough times over the years on enough different good systems to have a good idea of when these recordings are clicking or not. They are clicking with bells on these days including many worse than Zeppelin that never clicked totally before, like Bad Company and some classic 7 Moody Blues for example

Of course what clicks for one may not for another. ITs the nature of the beast.

When you can hear things that you normally do not clearly and the recording can be played loud without offending, that's "clicking" to me.

No doubt for me that these can sound as good or better on a newer system compared to a vintage one. I would not forego a newer system for fear that classic rock will not sound as good as it did on the gear around when these recordings were made.

"If Led Zeppelin sounds good on an audiophile system, then it's not an audiophile system in the common definition of an audiophile system."..................................... A cool breeze and two old geezers on the porch, talking with Tvad. Just pulling your leg Tvad, not kicking your cane out or anything. I have all my original copies of Zeppelin and all are in excellant shape and the only two I would agree with your evaluation of is Physical Graffiti and Presence the mid and later 70,s ones. But then I don,t know what gear you had or have to make that conclusion or generalization. I do understand what your actually saying in regard to revealing and the goal. At least the mid to late 70.s recordings were poor for the large part( bad engineers on the soundboard and pressed on sub par vynil ). ...Cheers

My speakers are B&W 683's .My pre/pro is Rotel RSP 1069 and amp is Rotel 1075.

I did some experementing tonight and moved my speakers around.I did have my speakers toed in to where they where facing my listening position which was a lot of toe in.I noticed by using less toe in I could actually make the speakers sound warmer.The more I toed them in the more the deatil was extreme and it seemed to make the music less musical if that makes any sense.With just a little toe in I was able to achive a more musical, warm sound with out the extreme detail and now it is much easier on the ears and there is no loss of imaging.The soundstage seems to of gotten bigger also.The trade off is that some of the detail is gone but to me that is not a bad thing.

I do agree that a lot of the 70's rock is not recorded that well.I have some cd's that are just unlistenable.

Stereo5...I am also a fan of all the bands you mentioned.Uruah Heep is one of my favorite bands and I was lucky enough to see them many years ago.I am also a big fan of Mountain.

Uru975...I do love Imaging and clarity but when it comes with the lack of musicality and warmth then I would trade that off for a more muddled and warm sound.

Thanks for all the opinions.