Imaging and Detail.

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.

Most of these recordings are far from perfect. In the words of the great poet Frank Zappa, they "are what they is".

I consider myself quite fortunate that almost every recording I play sounds good to me these days and the great recordings sound great, regardless of genre. I think my audio goals have finally been achieved again for the first time in years since I moved into my current home.

Tvad. that is interesting point. i remember when i was younger working a couple summers for a friends at his recording studio, and he would like to take a cassette out to his pickup to "hear what its going to sound like".