Imaging and Detail.

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.

My speakers are B&W 683's .My pre/pro is Rotel RSP 1069 and amp is Rotel 1075.

I did some experementing tonight and moved my speakers around.I did have my speakers toed in to where they where facing my listening position which was a lot of toe in.I noticed by using less toe in I could actually make the speakers sound warmer.The more I toed them in the more the deatil was extreme and it seemed to make the music less musical if that makes any sense.With just a little toe in I was able to achive a more musical, warm sound with out the extreme detail and now it is much easier on the ears and there is no loss of imaging.The soundstage seems to of gotten bigger also.The trade off is that some of the detail is gone but to me that is not a bad thing.

I do agree that a lot of the 70's rock is not recorded that well.I have some cd's that are just unlistenable.

Stereo5...I am also a fan of all the bands you mentioned.Uruah Heep is one of my favorite bands and I was lucky enough to see them many years ago.I am also a big fan of Mountain.

Uru975...I do love Imaging and clarity but when it comes with the lack of musicality and warmth then I would trade that off for a more muddled and warm sound.

Thanks for all the opinions.

Why does everyone put such emphasis on all this detail?

By “detail,” I take it the OP means resolution, or perhaps accuracy, both of which have been discussed in the posts above. Although I am an audiophile who values both resolution and accuracy, I believe that there is such a thing as too much resolution or too much accuracy. Or, more precisely, I believe that there is such a thing as…

(1) Too much system resolution relative to the resolution of the software.
(2) Too much system accuracy relative to the quality of the recording.

Re: (1). If a system has too much resolution relative to the resolution of the software, then the limits of the software’s resolution can be apparent, sometimes painfully so. A system with less resolution might conceal those same limits, by not being able to resolve them. In that case, the absence of information in the less resolving system is an asset, rather than a liability. In other words, the absence of information can be more tolerable than information about absence.

Re: (2). If a system has too much accuracy relative to the quality of the recording, then the flaws of the recording can be apparent, sometimes painfully so. A system with less accuracy might conceal those same flaws, by distorting them, perhaps euphonically so. In that case, the distortion of information in the less accurate system is an asset, rather than a liability. In other words, the flawed presentation of flawed information can be more tolerable than the accurate presentation of flawed information.

If the majority of the software played back on a system is low resolution or if the majority of the recordings played back on a system are significantly flawed, then it makes sense to me to choose a less resolving or less accurate system. I myself have not deliberately chosen to assemble a system that way, but it seems to me to be perfectly rational, under some conditions.

Having said that, assembling a less resolving or less accurate system may reduce listening satisfaction for high resolution sources or excellent recordings. I guess the moral of the story is that, if you listen predominantly to one type of music, then choose a system that makes that type of music sound great, even if that means less resolution or less accuracy. For those who listen to a broad range of music whose resolution and recording quality varies widely, then the choice is not so simple, and inherently involves more compromises.

I am a big fan of clarity in my audio systems. However to get the best out of my Cds I added a tube buffer (which definitely cuts some clarity) just from the DAC. My phono stuff does not go through the tube buffer (A VAC Standard preamp)
I actually tried a power cable that made the VAC clearer, and took it off, the cord defeated the purpose of the buffer, to 'veil' the upper frequency grunge into a 'pleasing' sound.

My favorite system for 70's rock is the stock system in my Ford Explorer....with the windows down....to quote Ziggy Stardust, "TO BE PLAYED AT MAXIMUM VOLUME"