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

Showing 7 responses by mapman

Detail and warmth are not mutually exclusive. Its not a contest. I like systems with both best. In fact I like systems that do it all best, but others can still be listenable.
"If you want to listen to 70s rock recordings, you're better off with a less resolving vintage stereo system, IMO."

Hmm, can't agree with that logic.

I listen to a lot of that stuff on cd, remastered and otherwise, and it is most enjoyable, the best sounding ever on my current setup. If the vinyl and setup is good, that can also. If it doesn't, then something is wrong.

Coincidentally, I noted on my system page just the other day that having heard PF's WYWH on many systems over the years, my standard issue CD now sounds as good or better as I have ever heard it and I heave heard it on many systems vintage and otherwise over the years, so it serves as a good reference for me.
"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.
Most of these recordings are far from perfect. In the words of the great poet Frank Zappa, they "are what they is".

I consider myself quite fortunate that almost every recording I play sounds good to me these days and the great recordings sound great, regardless of genre. I think my audio goals have finally been achieved again for the first time in years since I moved into my current home.
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.
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!
If forgiving equates to non-fatiguing, I would agree.

OHM walsh speakers are more etched these days with the newer drivers though than their vintage ancestors. There may be more etched systems out there but I have not heard any that are more so these days than mine without also becoming fatiguing at the same time. Who is to blame then, the recording or the system or both? If a recording sounds right on one system and not on another, I would tend to blame the system, but its a hard call to make definitively because there are so many different factors that come into play from one rig to another and even one version of a recording to another. After all, recordings do not make any sound until you play them on something.