I can see why a lot of you guys like pop and rock music, modern "jazz" etc over classical. It is compressed, so you can adjust the volume to a tighter range, and adjust it to match the background noise and acoustic tolerance of your room. Less acoustic treatment, and less accurate amps are needed to get enjoyment when the music has a tighter dynamic range.
Tonight I listened to last years' grammy winning Sugarland CD, an awesome record. Punchy, raw, pure, intense, redneck lyrics and great vocal interpretation, I got a lot of chills. Then I switched to Tchaikovski violin piano duo on audiophile label. Now I could the fridge, kids, echo, etc. In the headphones the classical duet blows away the Sugarland for deep musical hypnosis and satisfaction. Because the rock is compressed, it can be played louder average volume, so it blocks out the noise and acoustic problems, until I turn it up too loud, but even then it peaks more gently than an uncompressed flute.
Uncompressed classical music has such large dynamic swings you have to ride the VC to be able to hear the softs and to keep it from overloading the room with the louds. Amps and speakers also have a tougher job to retain consistent sound at louder and softer levels. Acoustic distortion % increases exponentially with the volume level. A quiet controlled reflection room would have less problem than a plain room. Few audiophiles treat their rooms. Is that why they like compressed music? I have to admit, I have been listening to lot more rock lately ever since Carl played some Clutch for me.
It works better in my room, and most of it that's not top40 I have never heard, so it's a new horizon to explore.
Classical also requires absolute tonal reproduction cuz the instrument sounds either right or wrong. Easy to find fault in a violin on a cheap SS amp and aluminum dome tweeter, and easy to hear small differences when the system changes. Rock deliberately tweaks the sound of guitar and voices to make the recording sound "better" or "unique," so if playback is a little off you never know it cuz there's no absolute reference. There is no
correct electric guitar sound. Good is good enough - whatever.
Classical recording tries to capture the art like a photo while a rock recording is the art like a painting. These are the extremes of a continuum into which all recorded music fits - be it closer to one end or the other. Even purist classical has hall reverb and electronic coloring, too much rosin or bad mic selection, or heavenly reverb of a choir or organ. And rock records usually do sound like real people singing with real guitars so it is not total tonal chaos. But I think some bands aim for chaos.... Like these new pop records with voices controlled by the synth?
What do you think about the differences between rock versus classical recordings?