True or False: If a System Can Sound Great with Orchestral Music, Can it Also ROCK?

[twitch]

(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

Mike, go back and read the first two paragraphs in your post (#7) and then see my question of bandwidth as it relates to Lp's. Regardless of what you think your 'ears' tell you an analog LP cannot compete for bandwidth with digital. Granted there are plenty of band digital (compressed) offerings out there but the audio recording bandwidth capability is superior.

As for scrolling down, I did, no where did I read 'LP' rather tape, we all know there's a difference ...........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording

 

[Al M.]

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.

Classical concert hall bass is rarely dry.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

My post implied as much, even though admittedly I did not emphasize it.



So you do agree on differences in rhythm and propulsive drive.

with turntables drive approaches can compliment various recordings differently. it's not any broad brush sort of thing, and i'm just dipping my toe into this at this time. but yes, i do. and it can take a good recording and make it other worldly good and suspend disbelief in a special way when the music and drive type align perfectly.

 

[Gregadd]

Orchestral music naturally puts more strain on every aspect of a system.
The ability to play loud without breaking up is required for both.
Rock can be aggressive and harsh. The last thing you want is for the system to exagerate that. OTOH orchestral needs to be loud and soft at the same time involving many instruments
I enjoy orchestral and choral together. We can see that as the ultimate challenge for a system. Accurate imaging is simply impossible with full orchestra.
Rock also needs to play loud, but dynamic range is less critical. All the instruments are loud. That is not to say nuance is completely missing in Rock. With only a comparatively few instruments accurate is achievable.
Orchestral requires wide bandwidth. Orchestral has to be covered from top to bottom.
Rock OTOH has boom and sizzle.
You can just get away with more faults in Rock.
Fortunately lately these genres are polar with divergent fans.
I think you can get by with mid-fi on Rock.
If you want the most from orchestral you will have to put in some work. Especially ially with respect to imaging.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Its usually a part of my aims to try and broaden the genre capability of my speakers.

The Maggie 3.7s could do a lot of things really well but never quite had the right weight in the left hand for concert grand that they should. The 20.7s do... easily. The big maggies have rhythmic drive and a bass that is super engaging. With the right amp they can completely play any music. On opera they are astounding, full scale classical awesome in terms of placing all the players in clearly defined ways and they do acoustic presence beautifully. As I improved them with crossover mods, footers and better stands, better cables and jumpers they just got more and more confident at everything including big band.

The Harbeth 40.2s didn’t even need a single mod to do rock, classical, jazz and even electronic dance. They aren’t sonically as resolving and detailed as either the horns or the maggies but they are effortlessly musical across the board and happily can play everything without any apologies. Though once again they do need the right amp to be driving them with verve.

I assumed when I got the Pap OB horns they might really struggle with some genres but likely completely nail others. So I made it my goal to optimise them as much as I could using the Harbeth 40.2s and the Maggie 20.7s as references... so after a year of refining they now do most everything the maggies can plus then some things the maggies can’t quite do as well. I got the horns OB woofers to dig even deeper by upgrading the crossovers components and making these external, also upgrading the hook up wire to a silver ribbon they now even make proper dance music danceable. For a guy that grew up nightclubbing and on weekend raves that is something of a happy moment.

When I do get around to building the OB subs it will just be for bragging rights with the next gen in the family.

There are some speakers that will simply not be up to the physics of certain music but the three speakers I have can now do it all happily.

 

[JackD201]

Yes but with specific qualifiers. remember that with Rock and other genres that lean on electric guitars and electric bass, what are mic'd are not the instruments themselves but rather their amplifier cabinets. The Piano and Pipe Organ may be the hardest to reproduce but mic'd cabinets are by far in my experience the most demanding in terms of sustained use of power. To be able to "Rock" the system must be able to replicate the spectral slope of the recordings. If you go to a rock concert and sit behind the FOH desk you will be ablee to spy a slope that looks closer to 45 degrees. Yes absurd from an intellectual standpoint but in practice the sound output is actually balanced fairly well.

Many systems that do classical well but can't rock fail for simple reasons. To the casual listener rock sounds screechy and dry. Thee siimple answer is that the system is incapable of proportionately reproducing the midbass. For those that use or have used active electronic crossovers, we knnow that sound well. It is the same sound we get before we are able to dial up and dial in the LF stacks. Once this is done, things such as say distortion pedal effects no longer sound picked apart into hundreds of dissonant threads.

Ultimately, we go down to where we always do, or should aim for anyway: balance of elements.

So does this mean one must go big to be able to do both? Just as in the case of scale, no, not necessarily. What is critical is that given one's choice of playback equipment, the transition from upper midrange to upper and mid-bass be fairly linear. If you are using bookshelves and a sub or two it would require catching the right crossover point and slopes. With a large rig it would require the right amounts of damping and control of ringing.

At the end of the day, every system has a performance envelope and if we are smart, we will work within that envelope so as to avoid all strain and stresses that make the listening experience feel artificial.

In my experience, if you want a system to be able to play all genres competently, you need the resolution and nuance and you need muscle to SUSTAINABLY and EFFORTLESSLY to back it up. Rock is made to be played loud. Don't expect it to sound right at low to mid SPLs. That's not how the tracks were recorded. If you want to simulate the spectral balance at lower levels, get EQ. Its only as dirty a word as the person using it. CUT DON'T BOOST!

 

[Gregadd]

"Spectral slope." I am always learning from Jack

 

[Kingsrule]

Classical concert hall bass is rarely dry.

I find the exact opposite.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I do, very much so, even if you don't. Regardless of the fact that classical is my main interest.

Acknowledged. My toss-off was intentionally light-hearted.

Exactly. A good stereo plays both equally well.

And this is why.

Define "good stereo".

Good point. My reference is that a "good stereo" should be entirely transparent to the program content and, therefore, plays all genres equally well. Whether one does or can achieve such transparency (in all parameters) is another matter.

 

[Gregadd]

Acknowledged. My toss-off was intentionally light-hearted.

And this is why.

Good point. My reference is that a "good stereo" should be entirely transparent to the program content and, therefore, plays all genres equally well. Whether one does or can achieve such transparency (in all parameters) is another matter.

..and so our journey in search of the promised land began.

For me the only speakers that can do justice to both genres - the big Klipschorn and the Avantgrde Duo.

 

[Elliot G.]

My system and speakers have been assembled and designed to play MUSIC. It does not matter what type of music it is. A small acoustic group, Supertramp, Santana, Brothers Osborne or an Orchestra playing Beethoven, an Opera or live electric Jazz it is all music. There are no such things as rock speakers or classical speakers since if they can only play one then in my mind they are colored or just bad speakers. How can a speaker tell what you are playing ? Why should it matter? It is there to convert the electrical signal to mechanical energy. My musical taste are wide reaching and I want no excuses when I listen. When my mentor HP assembled a system and we listened it was to everything. He loved classical and large scale classical but we also taught him to ROCK.
IMHO the rest are are just excuses and compromise. Which speaker you prefer is another question since there are many factors is making a buying decision but if it can't do both then I PASS!

 

[Al M.]

I find the exact opposite.

Depends on what you define as 'dry'. If you mean precision and lack of midbass boom I agree with you, for most cases.

Yet I usually find that concert hall bass has a full sound.

 

[Gregadd]

HP had access to the best.For the rest of of us it is a compromise.For example I heard Rock on Infinity IRS. Quite.an experience.

 

[bonzo75]

Take an example of Tannoy 15 inch gold vs Tannoy 12 inch HPD 315a. The former is one of the best systems I heard on rock - I have rarely felt the need to listen to entire LZ LPs on visits. We heard rock and jazz on it for almost 8 hours without any fatigue. Guitar unbroken through a 15 inch juicy driver with zero harshness yet not apprearing to be rolled off, and the Lockwood cabinet offering the right midbass hump to make rock sound excellent. IT wasn't right for a cello or piano though.

The HPD on the other hand is more linear and get harsh on rock but linearity is better on classical. Additionally this runs on powerful SETs which add nuance required for classical, but this nuance does zero for rock, while rock seems better on the Golds with a Luxman integrated. Those nuanced tonal colors are not as required.

 

[Zero000]

I think the Tune Audio Avaton — with its woofer towers — also played rock well.

I've got to disagree with that, Ron. It also fails with electronic music of the Kraftwerk ilk. IMHO they just cannot come up with the dynamics required in terms of transient response and bass weight.

But it is very good with some jazz, female vocal, spacey simple mixes etc. Right up there in fact. But only with those huge Trafomatic amps. The ones they used this year weren't even vaguely in the same league.

 

[kach22i]

with turntables drive approaches can compliment various recordings differently. it's not any broad brush sort of thing, and i'm just dipping my toe into this at this time. but yes, i do. and it can take a good recording and make it other worldly good and suspend disbelief in a special way when the music and drive type align perfectly.

Direct drive TT's do rock well but not much else, at least with the older affordable Technics.

The opening question reminds me of an old thread I once did.

Can Martin Logans rock?

The answer was YES!

 

[Simon Moon]

Any system that I would consider 'good', would be able to play rock, classical and jazz equally well. Or close to it. I listen to almost equal amounts of jazz, classical and rock.

But then, the type of rock I listen to, tends to fall into one of the various prog subgenres, and most of these recordings, are done with more care, with more attention paid to: dynamics, detail, etc.

I couldn't care less if my system can reproduce and mainstream rock.

 

[Al M.]

Any system that I would consider 'good', would be able to play rock, classical and jazz equally well. Or close to it. I listen to almost equal amounts of jazz, classical and rock.

But then, the type of rock I listen to, tends to fall into one of the various prog subgenres, and most of these recordings, are done with more care, with more attention paid to: dynamics, detail, etc.

I couldn't care less if my system can reproduce and mainstream rock.

Agreed on performance requirements.

Yet prog rock, even though it is more complex than mainstream rock, often still has that essential rhythmic drive. So a system that can do prog rock well should be also competent in mainstream rock. Associated with that, it should also be able to sound 'dirty'.

The top level Reflector monitors of Reference 3A, which I have (aided by JL Audio subs), are far more refined, sophisticated and articulate on classical and jazz than the MM DeCapo BE monitors from the same company, which were my previous speakers. Among others, string quartet sound is simply no comparison between the speakers. Yet at the same time, electric guitar can, when required, sound on the Reflectors much more dirty and/or menacing than on the lesser monitors.

(Rhythm & timing also has taken a step forward, even though on the previous speakers it had already been very good.)

 

[the sound of Tao]

Agreed on performance requirements.

Yet prog rock, even though it is more complex than mainstream rock, often still has that essential rhythmic drive. So a system that can do prog rock well should be also competent in mainstream rock. Associated with that, it should also be able to sound 'dirty'.

The top level Reflector monitors of Reference 3A, which I have (aided by JL Audio subs), are far more refined, sophisticated and articulate on classical and jazz than the MM DeCapo BE monitors from the same company, which were my previous speakers. Among others, string quartet sound is simply no comparison between the speakers. Yet at the same time, electric guitar can, when required, sound on the Reflectors much more dirty and/or menacing than on the lesser monitors.

(Rhythm & timing also has taken a step forward, even though on the previous speakers it had already been very good.)

Al, very much agreed speakers set up the parameters of the potentials and the constraints of getting music genres right but then these are either fulfilled or fall often on the choice in the the spirit and context of the amplification and the source in so many ways and finessed or not in the details of system infrastructure and ofcourse the room. I’d imagine it’s all the work that you put in to the whole or your system that is responsible for its success across the musical genres. A pair of poorly aspected reflectors might not be as universal just as Harbeth 40.2s with an overly polite system is asking for a good serving of can’t get no satisfaction.

I should add to my earlier comments on my setups was predicated that I only really listen to reasonably well recorded rock. Even The Cure and The Smiths did some great music with also great produced albums. I struggle with some of the work of the 70’s in the way many producers just went to town on effects and mixed it down for the car radio. I do love Donny Hathaway but sometimes surviving the mixes with this period is tough and I usually switch across to the horns and the SET for a bit of bearable soul with some 70’s RnB. The Maggie 20.7s can be super cruel on a dodgy mix...just sayin.

 

[kach22i]

Regarding loudspeakers, and feel to expand or disagree with me on this; in general studio monitors (ie B&W 801D's) may rock the heck out of you in the near-field listing position, but are going to pale in comparison to an electrostatic locked into the sweet-spot when capturing the air and ambiance of a opera hall.

Solid state can provide an unending rhythmic drive, but tubes will fill you with the joy of angels singing.

And as I mentioned already regarding turntables, direct drive provides a solid base for power rock, but belt drive has that tone tapping sparkle with a lightness of air about it.

It's exceeding difficult for one system to wear so many hats at once and with equal democracy.

And this is why we herald so highly those few combinations of system components that thread this elusive conceptual needle even handily.