I have, and it's worth it. As with every kind of music not all recordings are the best.
30 responses Add your response
Rock is a category that streches wide and deep. Many consider Steely Dan, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, Al Stewart, Peter Gabriel, Blue Rodeo, etc. rock. I listen to all of this and more, including headbanging stuff when the mood strikes me. A good rig makes quite a difference in enjoying the music, whether it be rock, jazz, blues, classical, or anything else you may enjoy. Rock may not be your preferred gendre of music, but that doesn't mean there isn't subtle nuances that make a difference to those of us that do enjoy various flavours of rock. A chacune sons gouts...
The ability to reproduce deep, controlled bass at high volumes is one of the most difficult and expensive challenges for a state of the art audio system. A genuinely great "rock" system is far better than any 5 wpc, single ended triode, Shakti stone and Shun Mook covered, voodoo wimp system. Culturally and intellectually pretentious "audiophiles" will try to tell you otherwise, but that's what happens to one's IQ when you listen to Pachebel's Canon too many times.
Thank you CwLondon -- I like your post. I just had an experience with a dealer that I tried to play "rock" on a single ended system... I was trying to broaded my experiences.. When I told him the system sounded like crap - he told me that it wasn't intended to play my type of music. Dogs and sailors stay off the grass....
Jazz and Rock simply do not lift me to the extent that classical music does. There's more of the edge of centuries in classical music. There's more blood, more style. It's just up and out and gone. Jazz just jerks around. Rock music is more sound and pretense than an actual and venturesome entrance into the grand gamble.
Both - I think you reach the "knee in the curve" of price vs. performance earlier with rock music than other genres, but that knee is still past $10K (retail) for a single source two-channel system that is used primarily for rock. Two excellent points earlier though - first is that rock is a broad categorization, so the answer might be at least subtlely different if you've got a strict definition. Second, rock has a lot of low end which is essential to it's fullest reproduction and is costly to facilitate.
If we're going to show this type of narrow vision prejudice;Let's have an election/you'll have to sell your stuff/if you don't have the winning components.If your system looses,you can have a recount. Joy is where you find it; let each of us find our own.Actually I think 8watts is "overkill"--just kiddin'.May the farce be wit'cha.
I upgraded my entire system about a year ago. I carefully chose my main system to be able to reproduce Mahler, Bruckner, Wagener and Stravinsky at realistic concert hall peak spl. I also listen to a lot of Heavy Metal. Both my before and after systems were way over $10K. The improvement was significant and noticable on my favorite metal recordings. The system (virtually flat to about 24Hz) also sounds great on "Art Techno" music which usually has significant power in the lowest bass register. Value for money, as always, is a highly personal thing
My friend has a state of the art system, and every type of music sounds awesome, and when he plays rock, it really rocks. Nothing like hearing a great rock recording through powerful tube amps (VAC), and great speakers, (Eidelons). If you've got the cash, there is no doubt in my mind about it being "worth it"!
How can you spend $80 on a bottle of white wine everyone knows there is no improvement after $50, but red wine is worth at least twice a bottle of white, right???? It's all about what ever your into whether it be classical, jazz, rock, country or whatever flips your switch. There is know way you can set a price for law-of-diminishing-return type systems, after all the 'average' american spends less on a stereo then we do on interconnects.
If you ever try one sip of Chateau D'Yquem (at around $ 250 a bottle), you know you have just tasted something extraordinary. Of course a very good bottle can be found for $20, if you know what you are doing. That does not make the $250 bottle worth one cent less. It takes quite a bit more money to get to the best, but for those who can appreciate the difference, there is no doubt it is worth it. Same for a "Rock" system. Dekay, Cwlondon, Jeff, Tireguy, PLs1, and Nilthepill, all made good points here. Well done!! Nil is correct, my friend has two "state of the art" dream systems, and every type of music he plays sounds better on his system than anything else I have heard!
No unique system sounds the same regardless of the source. It doesn't matter whether it be rock, jazz, classical or whatever. A carefully matched system can be assembled to be more taylored to rock music. It's got to play loud, be quick & lots of dynamics. Simply put...it's got to Rock. To answer yourn question..."Will you notice the difference in a $10,000 & a $5000 rock system"? If the components are properly matched with the right synergy...you bet!!!
It's not easy to get good playback from a 90+ track rock recording. I think it's a lot easier putting together a good classical rig than one for rock that I listen to. Classical is more forgiving with system coloration than rock is, at least to my ears. My old B&Ws do very well with classical but they sound muddy with rock, the $4500 Ruark speakers I once auditioned sounded great with classical. With densely layered, heavily distorted guitar, the drivers sounded like they were make out of sponge. Same with the Aerius i's I listened to. As I walked away from those, the saleman told me, "They really open up when the treble is turned up." Whatever. Dismayed, the salesmen in both instances got a puzzled look on thier face and checked the connections. (All amps were SS.) And the same thing happened with the cdm7se. All were too muddy. I bought a pair of hales for my $5k system. I also went to the room with the Trans eights with a Wadia player and huge levinson monoblocks. I dunno, 35k+ total? The sound of that system with my rock cds melted my brain like no 5k or 10k sytem i've ever heard. But I definately agree that it depends on the specific quality of the recording. It's just that there's a lot of good rock out there that is very well recorded/produced.
Excuuuuse me, I thought we were supposed to be listening to classical music. I didn't get the memo about rock music being "viable" on our systems. I agree with cwlondon above, that's a great post. I have found some great sounding rock CD's as follows (although you may not believe that that some qualify as "rock": Rush- Moving pictures Van Morrison - Moondance Iron Maiden- The Number of the Beast. (no, its not satanic) Iron Maiden- Piece of Mind (same) Tool- Undertow Tool- Anima Metallica- Justice for All. Hole - Live Through This Hole- Celiberity skin. Soul Coughing- (any) Dire Straits- Love Over Gold. Candlebox- Candlebox (1st album only!) Godsmack That's just my personal opinion of good sounding rocking tunes. Enjoy!
Why are some of you stuck in a certain group of music? Some people don't listen to S. Twain because she's classified as country. Twenty years ago she would have been called pop or rock. My self, I prefer good old rock, but I even enjoy a couple of Merrel Haggard or Burt Bacharach tunes. Ilike the classical stuff too. Also, Metallica has some seriously talented guys in their band. Open your minds a little bit people!
Didn't miss the title . . . may have digressed alittle though. What I was getting at was; that certain people expressed thier views as if they like one type of music only. I'm saying there is good and bad in each catagory. Enjoy them all regardless of lables. What ever you like, a good system makes it sound better.
Flip - couldn't agree more. I enjoy going to the All-Music Guide website (www.allmusic.com) and traversing their extensive "genre" trees - it makes your head spin there are so many. I'm glad there isn't a test! I'd go one step further and say that not only is there good and bad in each category, but that certain situations bring out the best in an otherwise average song. A decent system is a must - a good system makes everything better.
Tell me Eldragon, how does jazz jerk around? This should be good. Are you one of those classical snobs that play classical piano and think reading classical manuscripts some 2, 3, 400 years old is superior to jazz music? Or have you even spent enough time listening to jazz to acquire an honest evaluation of certain players or the music in general?
I beg to differ. Jazz doesn't jerk. It DOES sooth the soul, and speaks volumes about the improvizational and technical ability of the individual creating it. Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, they all improvised...and probably would have loved jazz had it been available in their time.
Make your choices based upon your own preferences, but don't dis' JAZZ. You obviously don't understand JAZZ, for if you did you'd know it does not jerk around as you call it! Try reading or playing an Art Tatum transcription if you think all JAZZ does is jerk around...Some comments made by some of you people do nothing but profess your ignorance. Enjoy!
Some additional thoughts on my part based on a few experiments this week. Many high end systems that are owned by people that listen primarily to classical or Jazz cannot put out sufficient power in the 40- 80 Hz octave range to have that feeling of really rocking (at least 95 db spl). Some of this is that many, high end owners do not spend enough money in room treatment or DSP to smooth out the room response in this critical octave. I've measured the in room response of several well constructed high end systems and many audiophiles would be shocked if they saw how uneven their bass response really is. Many rock speakers get around this by overwhelming the room with fat bass until it is really the room walls resonating that is giving the listener desired megawhomp. I find this poor bass response unacceptable on classical music and it is for classical music that I built my system, but this poor in room bass response isn't apparent to many audiophiles. I played some rock for some friends over the weekend. My system uses both the Sigtech DSP and ASC room treatment to give me a very flat power response down to 25Hz. I played Metallica, Judas Priest, Eagles and Rage Against the Machine. Using the Z-Systems DSP I rolled off or notched frequencies in the 80 Hz and below bass. At average volumes of 98 db SPL it was suprisingly easy to lose the feeling of really rocking. Even bypassing the Sigtech but with more ASC room treatment than most audiophile use, much of the feeling of rocking was lost. My conclusions are that the visceral impact of rock (at least for Metal) depends on bass power, Whether that bass power is clean or dirty matters less than its absence. Many high end systems that focus on imaging or detail can't really produce that much more acoustic power at those frequencies than many mid fi systems. If this experiment is at all generalizable moving, from a mid-fi system to a high end system will not provide the visceral impact that is critical to rock. I might add is that these capabilities are even more critical to Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner, Strauss, Bartok and Stravinsky. If you are to have anything remotely approaching the concert hall experience these composers require a flat power response to 30Hz.