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
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.
I will agree that these recordings often sound bad even on some really good setups, but I can't agree that that is necessarily always the case. My current system disproves that.

Before my last upgrade adding the Bel Canto ref100m amps, I might have agreed, but no longer.

I played Bad Company 10 from 6 the other day. It was the first time ever this CD sounded good and not bad to me (I've always regarded it as one of the worst recordings) and I have heard this material on many systems over the years.

Don't give up hope people. Its possible to get this stuff to sound pretty good along with everything else if you like it enough to put in the extra effort needed.

I would never go back to a vintage system for this.

BTW, it sounds acceptable as well to me on my second system using a vintage receiver with more modern music server, DAC, and speakers, but not in th e same league as my main rig.

On the other hand, I think my OHM speakers are a big part of the equation for getting the most out of these recordings. The OHMs have modern drivers but are in essence a vintage design. So maybe Tvad is right!
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.
If forgiving equates to non-fatiguing, I would agree.

OHM walsh speakers are more etched these days with the newer drivers though than their vintage ancestors. There may be more etched systems out there but I have not heard any that are more so these days than mine without also becoming fatiguing at the same time. Who is to blame then, the recording or the system or both? If a recording sounds right on one system and not on another, I would tend to blame the system, but its a hard call to make definitively because there are so many different factors that come into play from one rig to another and even one version of a recording to another. After all, recordings do not make any sound until you play them on something.
...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.

Mapman – I agree that the compounding of distortions can easily result in terrible sound, particularly if the distortions in question are “dysphonic,” like intermodulation distortion. In my post, when I said that, under some conditions, the distortion of information can be an asset, rather than a liability, I had in mind what might be considered euphonic distortions, such as certain kinds of harmonic distortion or non-flat frequency response. Perhaps a better word than ‘distortion’ would be ‘inaccuracy,’ since the word ‘distortion’ conjures up associations of lousy sound. With that in mind, when I said that...

the flawed presentation of flawed information can be more tolerable than the accurate presentation of flawed information

...the words “flawed presentation” could be substituted with “euphonically inaccurate presentation.” And while I'm clarifying what I meant, I should mention that the words “flawed information” in the quote above were not intended to refer to the kinds of guitar or synthesizer effects you mentioned (which are of course deliberate “distortions” created by the artists) but rather things like compressed dynamic range, objectionable equalization, etched high frequencies, and so on.