Imaging and Detail.

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.

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.