True or False: If a System Can Sound Great with Orchestral Music, Can it Also ROCK?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
I would say it's the opposite, classical music is a lot more nuanced than rock or electronic music you need a lot more resolution for it. If the system is capable of playing classical properly it will have no problem with jazz or rock but the other way around isn't always true.
david
Requirements for rock are a bit different. It does not require as much nuance and the style of bass is not the same as in orchestral. Conal bass, apogee bass, suits rock better. The only horns that I have heard do rock bass well are dual woofer front loaded horns. Rock also needs higher end to be a bit more forgiving on most systems... It can get too harsh too easily. For classical and jazz I have said many more times than 1600 century Jesuits...You need SETs and horns
I find home theatre multichannel playing rock far more exciting and engaging than crazy high end extremely transparent and revealing system. Try Linkin Park with the best system in this forum. It would be like using a Rolls Phantom for track day. Also agree with Bozo...I mean Bonzo that a more forgiving sort of round off highs with more pronounced mid to low down suit rock much better.
i have a separate medium+ level dedicated Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Home Theater which does movies and rock quite convincingly. but it's not close to my 2 channel room at full tilt boggie levels. mostly because multi-channel digital is behind the best analog rock tapes or records in terms of scale and information. you think you are hearing everything in the home theater environment since you are 'surrounded'.....until you hear the analog version.....with all the nuance and magic.
at a certain point the digital just runs out of scale and bandwidth, but not the analog.....if your analog source can hang in there.....and the feedback does not get you.
getting back to the whole orchestral then rock i agree with those who think that big orchestral places higher demands on a system. i think it's because orchestral is an acoustical event more than just a wall of sound. so the way orchestral is recorded will ask the system to keep those parts coherent. where this is a bit different is more modern high energy rock or techno where it's assembled in pieces and so has more coherence than vintage stadium rock might have. so the answer to this question is that some rock does put equal demands as orchestral.
but if the highest scale orchestral is handled, then bring on any and all rock.
big band can actually be equally demanding on a system and staying natural is hard as a system is stressed. but a system that can do big orchestral should also be able to do big band properly.
system headroom is a big part of this whole question. it should have higher capabilities than any musical media will ever require.
at a certain point the digital just runs out of scale and bandwidth, but not the analog.....if your analog source can hang in there.....and the feedback does not get you.
getting back to the whole orchestral then rock i agree with those who think that big orchestral places higher demands on a system. i think it's because orchestral is an acoustical event more than just a wall of sound. so the way orchestral is recorded will ask the system to keep those parts coherent. where this is a bit different is more modern high energy rock or techno where it's assembled in pieces and so has more coherence than vintage stadium rock might have. so the answer to this question is that some rock does put equal demands as orchestral.
but if the highest scale orchestral is handled, then bring on any and all rock.
big band can actually be equally demanding on a system and staying natural is hard as a system is stressed. but a system that can do big orchestral should also be able to do big band properly.
system headroom is a big part of this whole question. it should have higher capabilities than any musical media will ever require.
Last edited:
Great question, Caesar.
I disagree with some posters here. A system that can competently play classical, including large scale orchestral, does NOT necessarily play rock well. The reason is that rock has extraordinary demands on rhythmic drive. If rhythm is slightly less well served in classical this is easily obvious only on the rhythmically most demanding material, on rock a somewhat lesser rhythmic performance can be lethal. Rhythm is at the forefront all the time.
In my view, many high end systems perform badly on rhythm, to the extent that a car radio sounds better in terms of 'headbanging' rhythmic drive. It's embarrassing, really. On the other hand, my current system fortunately leaves any car radio in the dust when it comes to rhythm and timing.
It has not always been this way. Early digital was not great on rhythm, and reviewers like Ken Kessler rightfully observed at the time that "digital can't rock". My first digital rig that really could rock was my fifth one, with the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2. Before that I rarely played rock on my system, only jazz was passable. But even the Berkeley DAC is vastly bettered in rhythmic performance by my current Schiit Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC. That DAC is a rhythmic animal, and one of the best rhythmic performers that I have ever heard, regardless if analog or digital (it also beats some high priced digital gear in that respect). The rhythmic prowess is not limited to pure visceral drive, it extends to subtleties. Of course, there are also differences in rhythmic performance of turntables, and there have been discussions about this on WBF as well.
But it's not just the source. Other components play a role, including speaker support. Switching to the high quality Sound Anchors Signature stands for my monitors made a significant difference, and in my room the rhythmic performance of my subwoofers would suffer without the support of ASC SubTraps. Also, without the corner tube traps proper rhythm & timing gets lost in my room, so dramatically diminished is it. Obviously, bass performance of amplification components is important as well.
Resolution, nuance and power reserves on other material are NOT a guarantee of great rhythm and performance on rock. They are, to some extent, different things.
I disagree with some posters here. A system that can competently play classical, including large scale orchestral, does NOT necessarily play rock well. The reason is that rock has extraordinary demands on rhythmic drive. If rhythm is slightly less well served in classical this is easily obvious only on the rhythmically most demanding material, on rock a somewhat lesser rhythmic performance can be lethal. Rhythm is at the forefront all the time.
In my view, many high end systems perform badly on rhythm, to the extent that a car radio sounds better in terms of 'headbanging' rhythmic drive. It's embarrassing, really. On the other hand, my current system fortunately leaves any car radio in the dust when it comes to rhythm and timing.
It has not always been this way. Early digital was not great on rhythm, and reviewers like Ken Kessler rightfully observed at the time that "digital can't rock". My first digital rig that really could rock was my fifth one, with the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2. Before that I rarely played rock on my system, only jazz was passable. But even the Berkeley DAC is vastly bettered in rhythmic performance by my current Schiit Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC. That DAC is a rhythmic animal, and one of the best rhythmic performers that I have ever heard, regardless if analog or digital (it also beats some high priced digital gear in that respect). The rhythmic prowess is not limited to pure visceral drive, it extends to subtleties. Of course, there are also differences in rhythmic performance of turntables, and there have been discussions about this on WBF as well.
But it's not just the source. Other components play a role, including speaker support. Switching to the high quality Sound Anchors Signature stands for my monitors made a significant difference, and in my room the rhythmic performance of my subwoofers would suffer without the support of ASC SubTraps. Also, without the corner tube traps proper rhythm & timing gets lost in my room, so dramatically diminished is it. Obviously, bass performance of amplification components is important as well.
Resolution, nuance and power reserves on other material are NOT a guarantee of great rhythm and performance on rock. They are, to some extent, different things.
(1)what my ears hear. i compare the best of digital to my analog every day.
(2) scroll toward the bottom of the first page.....
https://www.stereophile.com/content/hdcd-keith-johnson-pflash-pflaumer-michael-ritter
I do, very much so, even if you don't. Regardless of the fact that classical is my main interest.
there are orchestral recordings that demand strong rhythmic performance, agree that it's not as frequently significant as it is with Rock. but when that is demanded, the need is profound and it's a separator for system's aspiring for full orchestral capability.
there are orchestral recordings where my CS Port belt drive is best with it's ultra refinement, space and detail, but others where the NVS dd or the Saskia idler are much more appropriate with the bolder, and more energetic and propulsive capabilities to optimize the musical content.
it comes down to your expectations for large orchestral.
Last edited:
People who have heard my system have said it does jazz, rock and classical well. However, I have Kal's sensibility.
Some classical buffs like dry bass in order to hear as much instrumental detail through the cloud of sound as possible. Jazz and rock might like wetter bass through the lower midrange.
Define "good stereo". Many high end systems do NOT play both equally well.
My post implied as much, even though admittedly I did not emphasize it.
So you do agree on differences in rhythm and propulsive drive.
Similar threads
