Someone here wrote something that really struck me and made me realize that as an audiophile I changed the music I listen to. Well, the music I listen to on my high-end system. The music I most love, alternative/techno, some pop, harder rock, some hip-hop, all generally sound bad on the high-end systems I have owned. So I tend to only listen to Jazz on them.
...
Hmm, well, this makes me wonder. What would a system look like that makes rock sound its best? Have any of you tried to do this?
I'm pleased you found my earlier comment interesting! I understand where you're coming from here.
If you're looking for a good, rewarding (i.e. obsession free) rock system, the thing to understand is that most rock is mixed to sound good in the mastering room, and the speakers in that room are usually not typical modern audiophile speakers. Many studios use monitors with big woofers (8 inches or larger) and soft dome or plastic dome tweeters. These tend to be more bassy, usually with a midbass hump, and more laid-back in the highs than typical modern audiophile speakers which, perhaps mistakenly, usually aim for a ruler flat frequency response. So the closer you get to the "ideal" ruler flat home speaker, the farther away you're getting from the speakers the music was mixed to, and the music tends to sound worse. Again, negative reinforcement.
Another wrinkle is that studio mixes tend to be equalized with levels appropriate for fairly loud listening. I'm not talking about compression here. The human ear has a nonlinear frequency response with respect to volume, and a mix intended to be listened to loudly will tend to sound bad if you live in an apartment and can't listen at high levels.
One of the reasons headphones tend to be enjoyable with more music is because most people listen slightly louder with headphones than with speakers in an average home. Also, virtually all quality headphones have a midbass hump, not unlike that of the typical rock studio monitor. Finally, by their very nature headphones aren't governed by the "ruler flat" design goal. Manufacturers aim for radically different high frequency curves depending on engineering arguments and taste, but the goal is to sound right with a variety of recorded music at specific listening levels (usually 80-90dB).
Anyway, all that's the theory. In my mind, a good, pleasing rock system has big woofers to move a lot of air or a well-powered sub. The tweeters should be forgiving, generally soft-dome not metal-dome types. There were plenty of home speakers like this manufactured in the early 90s, e.g. the PSB Century 500i, but they have fallen out of style. Subwoofers should be medium-Q designs, not "ultra tight" low-Q designs, giving some punch while not going overboard. Amplification should be extremely punchy. None of this "the bass isn't loud or prominent but it's quality, tight bass." Tight bass doesn't have to come at the expense of power. If an amp doesn't sound powerful, athletic, and iron-fisted in the bass, it's just not enjoyable for rock. As much as I love the current crop of digital amps (and I do), this rules out digital amps and single-ended triodes. If you live in an apartment and can't listen at fairly loud levels on a regular basis, get an amp with a loudness control (bass and treble controls sometimes work depending on the curve but are also frequently poor substitutes) or get an equalizer.
A lot of this advice goes against conventional audiophile wisdom, but what use is the conventional wisdom if the music you want to listen to sounds better on an iPod with a pair of inexpensive Koss headphones than a typical $10,000 home rig? Have fun and find something that pleases you, not something that tilts your musical tastes towards Diana Krall and puts you on the treadmill to dissatisfaction.
