Imaging and Detail.

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"

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.