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.
Rock? money down the drain?
I have seen posts where people describe their systems and ask for upgrade advise and their systems cost $5000 and up and their primary music is rock. here is a question for everyone. is it worth spending $10,000 on a rock system or do think there is a cut off point where all rock systems sound the same?