My own tastes are more to the metal side of rock. Bands on constant rotation include Tool, A perfect circle, ACDC, Metallica, smashing pumpkins, Alice in Chains, Ghost and the foo’s. I have also been known to go much heavier, deftones, sliplknot etc.
Tool’s sound quality being particularly good (IMHO).
The music is really demanding but I’m not sure a full range massive floorstander is a requirement, my stand mount focal do quite well.
As I like rock, and other quite different styles like classical, for me the speakers have to be good with all, not good for one. The big PMCs do them all well!
I suspect the larger ATCs (100 up) probably do as well, though I haven’t heard them.
I once had some speakers that were clones of the Altec Voice of the Theatre: some 4ft x 2.5 ft x2 ft for main cabinets, with 15” Altec driver. It was bass reflex for bottom octave or two, front horn loaded for upper bass to lower mid (~80-500), and on top of it sat a compression horn for upper mid- treble and an array of supertweeters. In a pub or club they sounded like a live band playing. At 105dB/W at 1m my 50wpc hifi amp I used with it able to produce sustained levels over 120dB. I tried them at home once, and they were so disappointing, even on rock. They needed a lot more space, and needed to be driven hard - which in a domestic living room would have meant wearing ear defenders, quite apart from the fact that it was a terraced house!
Rock covers a wide range music and quality of recording. Speakers probably make as big a difference as anything to how rock sounds. I find that older music like Whitesnake and Free or the likes of Linkin Park, sound better on my main system that does space and scale well. More rocky/driven music sounds better on my relatively dry, punchy sounding Missions in the office. Both systems have a subwoofer. Sometimes I prefer rock on the Missions with it, sometimes without.
This will sound sacrilegious, but I think possibly the best I have heard Guns and Roses was playing a CD in a Bose-equipped Mazda RX8. For all their faults, Bose systems do upper bass punch well, which is what I think is needed for driving rock. In some ways similar to a PA system. During my Uni days I used to set up a 20k watt PA system - I used to EQ it to sound more spacious and smooth, but for rock it tended to sound at its best with an aggressive EQ, especially when the room filled with people.
This is true for most of the later day original Stones albums too.
Don’t know if you would classify Fleetwood Mac as rock but remastered Rumours and Tusk sound excellent. As do modern disks like Adele and Amy Winehouse. In my mind it has to do with quality approach to recording, producing, mastering etc. not with genre necessarily.
I remember the first two Michael Schenker Group (the only ones I bought) sounding very muddy on my Dual CS505, Luxman amp, Kev Coda II system in the 80s.
Just cleaned, and played them for the first time since about 1986, on the back of playing new UFO Strangers in the Night remaster on vinyl.
They sound amazing, maybe a little bass heavy, on the current system. Great separation and a well organised sound stage. Mrs D is less than impressed, and gone off in the huff to do her kitchen disco.
I agree. Many if not most rock records were never intended to sound great on a “straight wire” high end audio equipment with no EQ or tone controls. The sound engineers expected listeners to boost the bass and and press the “loudness” button, and they equalized their recordings with that in mind.
From time to time I listen to rock on my vintage (1976) all-Pioneer system and I’m not ashamed to use the tone controls if I feel the recording needs it. I lose on definition and accuracy, but it rocks!
However, I never to classical or jazz albums that way - they play great on the main system.
Claude
I often wonder if it’s to do with the transition from analogue to digital, something got lost in the process being digitalised?
With rock it needs digging around to find gems, there are certainly albums out there sound so raw and only hit the spots when cranked up. Some metal bands today are just too tidy(yes I’m old), however rock bands with studio albums is probably another subject, I like Jimi Hendrix but I only like his live recordings.
Some gems from the old/not so old days:
U2 War
Led Zeppelin: Physical graffiti
Red Hot Chili Peppers: One hot minute
Extreme: waiting for the punch line
Queens of the Stone Age: song for the deaf
AC/DC:Back in black
Radiohead: In rainbows/a moon shape pool
Queen Adreena:Taxidermy
Fleetwood Mac:Tango in the night & Mirage
Kings of Leon; Because of the times
Rolling Stones: I really like their production, made me appreciate every member in the band.
REM:Out of Time &automatic for the people, just CD quality on Qobuz is quite amazing.
Elbow: the take off and landing of everything
Tindersticks: I like all of their albums. All well written and recorded.
Since Rock (and Metal) is my favorite genre, maybe I can list some albums that sounds great IMO:
I agree with the notion that rock doesn’t sound as good as some other genres. The new Springsteen being one of the more dissapointing ones. Problem for me is that it gives me listening fatigue. Is this something you all share with me. Sound is too harsh
Twisted Sister are great. I have the full catalogue.
Have you given their Still Hungry reduex of Stay Hungry a blast? Same tracks played in the same way in same order but mastered differently. They were unhappy with the polished studio sheen on Stay Hungry and rather than remaster it, went back to the studio to rerecord it over again with simpler rougher mastering.
Actually no. But I will check it out. The MoFi version is amazing btw
‘Black and Blue’ is still their best sounding album imho.
G
Does the Vinyl sound better than the CD. Just wondering as it was mastered for CD.
Ive noticed with My Uniti Star and Kef R3 speakers, albums like and you will know us by the trail of deads Madonna. The drums are incredible and there is detail and clarity, however the vocals seemed to be low in the mix. Saying that any Modern pop like Robyn, Charlie XCX sound incredible.
In that case (Stay Hungry) it’s superior on vinyl.
Yes, that’s what I find. It tends to be harsh, especially in the vocals. Some of the rock I just can’t play loud for that reason.
My favourites (on SN2/PMC22/ turntable)
New Model Army -last few albums
Red Hot - Stadium
some Nick Cave’s albums
I listened to The Cult self titled album last time (most underrated Cult’s record) from vinyl - and i’m really surprised - one of the best soundig rock production to me.
Early rock, say early to mid 60’s was still being recorded very simply. Lots of tube gear and of course all analog. Early Beatles and Stones, Doors, Simon and Garfunkel sound great, analog and tubes. Late 60’s stuff yes and no. Early transistor / solid state was pretty bad… it got better by the late 70’s. Then we got digital in the 80’s and it just plain Sucked. It took 20 years to get good. That’s why so much early stuffs been getting remastered or just retransfered. As and example listen to an early CD of Aqualung, vs a new version, especially a Steve Wilson version. Huge difference.
That’s me.
Still got the original goose bumps from Heartbreak Hotel.
Appetite For Destruction is pretty well mastered too.
I’ve introduced a Qutest into my system recently and never heard the album sound so good, lots of layering I’ve never noticed before.
Metallica and RATM’s self-titled albums are two other good ones, but granted not ‘rock’.
