Imaging and Detail.

Those recordings should sound best when played loud. They should ROCK because they are classic ROCK recordings. They are not Mozart sonatas. They have sufficient detail and resolution to accomplish what they are quite well. Imaging is not an issue. A good system that can rock loudly will still bring out the best in these recordings. Systems built to optimize for classical or jazz or acoustic music in general as a whole are less likely to be optimized for this kind of music. Getting electronic rock/pop and large scale classical recordings to both sound their beston the same system is no easy feat. I feel like I have only accomplished that really quite recently with the addition of the high power Icepower amps.

On the flip side, I suspect Tvad's audio note system is capable of outperforming mine perhaps in the detail and nuance department with music that can really benefit from that. I would agree that a system that is built to maximize that to the nth degree might not show what it is capable of in the detail department with many of these recordings, but I would not expect them to sound bad.

Does bad mean audibly distorted in some way? To me, perhaps. The system is sounding bad if it creates the distortion. If teh distortion is in teh recording (by design on many of these types of recordings) then reproducing it accurately is good.

BTW, a system that distorts the distortion in recordings that include distortions (like fuzz guitar for example or certain synthesized sounds) may not sound very good. There is nothing worse and perhaps even harder to detect than distorted distortion. You usually do not realize it exists until it is essentially gone. It can be the result of intermodulation distortion or deficiencies in transient reponse most frequently I believe.

As much as I usually love to disagree with Tvad to rattle his chain some, I gotta agree with him here.

If the intent going in is to formulate a highly resolving system, then that system is going to resolve the playback material (s) for what they truly are. Now that stands to reason no matter how you slice it.

We all have choices to what degree we take our systems, and the finest line in audiophilia nervosa is that line which separates both musical involvement and excellent resolution. Say your rig is right there… it probably should be if it isn’t, then better recordings will certainly sound better and those lesser ones will be revealed as such. It’s simple logic. Despite logic, it’s true. Truth doesn’t depend on my acknowledgment of it or my subscription to it… it is what it is despite me.

If the resolution and detail orientation of the system exceeds it’s own abilities to be as commensurate with musical sensibility and engagement, your outfit passed that line away from it’s best positioning for whatever reasons. Initial aims or goals, a lack of synergy, room attributes, etc. The recordings you wish to replay can drive your aims to construct a system which is quite gratifying if you build it with those ideals in mind.

I’ve done both sides of that coin so far. My highly resolving and articulate first effort wound up being entirely discarded, eventually. It played only the most well engineered recordings I could find and feed it. Normally jazz and some classical. I then went directly the opposite way, and sought to have a rig which could play anything enjoyably. Well, that idea slowly was replaced with the original one but with some alterations. Currently my main playback affair does a lot of musical genres well. Very good in fact and now & then, simply outstanding! The caveat always remains however… with lesser playback fare, the sound produced by it is lessened as well. With those less than albums, commonly, it seems dry… bass shy… or outright flat sounding to me… albeit, it is indeed listenable still..

The system traits contain none of the above products. It’s not dry, bass shy, or flat sounding…. It’s merely the recordings… 60’s, 70s, and even some 80s rock. 40s jazz, 50s jazz, much older orig blues recordings, bluegrass from the 50s to 80s. etc. I’ve spoken with more than one studio musician who has confirmed much rock, pop, country and likewise genres from some 30 years ago and beyond were scaled to one speaker car raidios, portable radios, and that’s it! Now and then the studio monitor was nothing more than a 6x9 speaker, sometimes enclosed, sometimes not., Bass lines weren’t adequately addressed, and remember stereo wasn’t around forever either. Older stereo recordings IMHO sound better in mono to me.

So what’s an audio hobbyist to do? Just play whatever you like on what ever you have. Just because I’m using my number one setup doesn’t mean I’ll not play a this or a that… I will actually. I simply denote the fact such & such cut or album just ain’t up to snuff… that’s all. I won’t discard either the recordings or my stereo system.

Lesser resolving rigs aren’t a bad thing at all! They’re quite suitable for poorer software. Think about it… in the late sixties those stereos we had then did not sound bad at all. Black Sabbath, Spirit, CSNY, Donovan, Janis, 10 years After, Sly & The Family Stone, and yes… even Joe Cocker sounded great! On a Craig Powerplay 8 track, and a pair of JBL 6x9 coaxial speakers laying in the rear window of my old Chevy. I’m not going to claim that stereo as an outstanding high end audio system but it was bleeding edge tech in 1971…. But it matched up well with the material then available.

I really dig playing Zepplin, James Gang, Supertramp, Steppenwolf, Dylan, etc. on my PC using an Altec Lansing 2.1 speaker system. Past that they do well with my office unit and bedroom arrangement too. But even with some better than average gear comprising my all tube power train, pretty good speakers, and sub, they leave me dry on my best setup. Routinely.

Most pop and rock simply does not have the audio nut in mind. They do have decibels, and well, less sophisticated ideas in mind too..

It’s not necessarily the rigs fault… it can and should only be revealing quite well the info on the disc or in the track itself. Keeping one foot in the high res & detail camp, and one in the musicality & enjoyment bivwac often means concessions are going to be made somewhere. Noting wrong with that at all. I feel it’s a ‘must’ in fact…. IF you want to replay a broader range of music than just the top tier recordings….. Or simply replay poor recordings on less resolute stereos…. Or pay no attention to the man behind the curtains and just dig the content for what it is, instead of critiquing it..

Thanks for going to the trouble Tvad of listing all the equipment. However I wasn,t trying to question your knowledge,the gear or set up itself you had/have. I should of been more clear by stating my general thinking/opinion that an audiophile system in my humble opinion with a slightly less focus on "detail" than one that does, doesn't make it less of an audiophile system.For the purist your staement is probably more accurate for what audiophiles goals are. Cheers

I will agree that these recordings often sound bad even on some really good setups, but I can't agree that that is necessarily always the case. My current system disproves that.

Before my last upgrade adding the Bel Canto ref100m amps, I might have agreed, but no longer.

I played Bad Company 10 from 6 the other day. It was the first time ever this CD sounded good and not bad to me (I've always regarded it as one of the worst recordings) and I have heard this material on many systems over the years.

Don't give up hope people. Its possible to get this stuff to sound pretty good along with everything else if you like it enough to put in the extra effort needed.

I would never go back to a vintage system for this.

BTW, it sounds acceptable as well to me on my second system using a vintage receiver with more modern music server, DAC, and speakers, but not in th e same league as my main rig.

On the other hand, I think my OHM speakers are a big part of the equation for getting the most out of these recordings. The OHMs have modern drivers but are in essence a vintage design. So maybe Tvad is right!