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 8 responses by tvad

Shaunp, many of the recordings you listen to just sound terrible on audiophile systems, with Led Zeppelins albums being near the top of the list.

It's not the fault of the system.

If you want to listen to 70s rock recordings, you're better off with a less resolving vintage stereo system, IMO.
08-08-10: Mapman
If the vinyl and setup is good, that can also. If it doesn't, then something is wrong.
No. I don't agree with the statement that something is wrong. In fact, something is right. The system is revealing what's on the recording (if that's the system goal).

Many, many 70s recordings are bright, tizzy and downright annoying; EQ'd to car radios and portable radios. Led Zeppelin in particular...and I really like Led Zeppelin.

If Led Zeppelin sounds good on an audiophile system, then it's not an audiophile system in the common definition of an audiophile system.
I don't know what gear you had or have to make that conclusion or generalization.
Has2be (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

Audio Note AN-E Spe HE (Audio Note AN-E stands)
Audio Note Conquest Silver monoblocks
George Wright Signature AU-15 monoblocks (15wpc Class A, 2A3 Push-Pull)
SMc Audio VRE-1 preamplifier
Esoteric UX-3 Pi universal digital player
Modwright Transporter wirelessly connected to MacBook Pro
Gabriel Gold Revelation II XLR ICs
Analysis Plus Solo Crystal Oval XLR ICs
Oyaide PA-02 balanced ICs
Morrow Audio SP4 speaker cable
BMI Hammerhead MK IV power cord (digital source)
BMI Hammerhead MK III power cord (preamp)
Oyaide Tunami GPX power cords (amplifiers)
Tekline Reference power cord
Alan Maher Designs Reference Power Center
Several Alan Maher Design PE wall filters
Two 20A isolated ground dedicated circuits
Environmental Potentials EP-2050 whole-house AC filter/surge suppressor
Salamander Synergy Cabinet w/ sorbothane treated shelf supports
Neuance shelf for digital source
Grand Prix Audio Apex footers (preamp and power supply)
Synergistic Research MiG footers (Esoteric and Transporter)
Stillpoints footers (amplifiers)
Timbernation 2” Maple amplifier platforms with 2” heavy brass cones under the platforms

Led Zeppelin I, Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin III, Led Zeppelin IV, Physical Graffiti all are fairly etched recordings, IMO.

The OP mentioned AC/DC. "Back in Black" is an exceptionally well recorded album, as of course are almost all Pink Floyd LPs.

IMO.

The recordings I mentioned have sounded etched on every system I have owned, including a system built around Von Schweikert VR4 Gen III HSE (handling up to 1000 watts) driven by a Moscode 401HR. That system rocked to the point of shaking the windows in our house. I do miss that visceral impact, but everything's a trade-off.

My present system is not optimized for any particular music. In fact, I primarily listen to rock and progressive jazz. At CES and RMAF, Audio Note systems are often demonstrated with rock music played at high volume, including Radiohead.
Having heard OHM speakers in my system a few years ago (and decades ago in their heyday), I would say they are forgiving in upper mid and high frequencies, so it doesn't surprise me that 70s recordings that I consider etched would sound fine or even good on the OHM speakers.
The recording is the recording.

70s rock recordings were commonly mixed and EQ'd to fit the response curves of AM & FM car and portable radios of the time. This is where the songs received the initial airplay that sold albums. Often this meant that the highs and mids were boosted to come across better on the small car and portable radios.

This was taught in one of the early recording classes I took at S.U. when I was studying broadcasting.

So, if the recording sounds good on a system, then it's likely this system has a frequency response that somewhat mirrors the peaks and dips typical in the radios of the time.

I don't think this correlates to one system being better than another, but it does correlate to a system that happens to better match the EQ'ing on those recordings.
... he would like to take a cassette out to his pickup to "hear what its going to sound like".

Oakleys (Answers | This Thread)
Exactly right. In college, we'd mix on small Auratone speakers that were designed to mimic car stereo speakers, even though the studio was equipped with top-of-the-line JBL studio monitors.

Later, when I was supervising edit sessions at a television network, we occasionally played the mix through Auratone speakers to hear how it'd sound at home on one's TV.