Badly recorded albums needing upgrading

Layla AOLS...never thought it was so bad relative to its time, but you want a great band that was really ill-treated by their label, try Jefferson Airplane.  The first release that sounded good was the "Worst of" compilation, where the remasters had some life to them.  Sleeper classic with excellent big open sound...Traffic's "Low Spark", especially the title track.  Let's give kudos to WB/Reprise, whose SQ for Joni, The Dead, Little Feat, Ry Cooder, Zappa, Van Morrison, Arlo Guthrie, and Randy Newman were excellent.  Listen to Jimi Hendrix' posthumous release, "Rainbow Bridge" and check out the low end and dynamics on "Pali Gap" and " Hey Baby".  My original 1971 pressing still sounds outstanding on highly resolving modern speakers!
It all started to go to h**l with the New Wave.  T-Heads and Blondie were good, but Elvis Costello???  Compressed to death.  As for Punk, Grunge, Thrash...whaddaya expect?  I am a crusty old coot after all!

By the way...MA recordings are fantastic.  My fave is "The Old Country"
by Howard Levy, Miroslav Tadic & Marl Nauseef.  The track "Kucano Oro" is a breathtaking performance and a reference recording.

I accept that recording quality varies by the release. If the music is wonderful and compelling, poor sound reproduction won't keep me from listening. I really get a kick out of how well some recordings made in the 50's and even 40's sound great. I've accepted that some artists i.e. U2 and Springsteen don't present as good recordings but the music is just terrific to me. To each their own. If someone wants to spend substantial money on a system and only utilize it for "audiophile" recordings then so be it.

Unfortunately finding good issue pressings (vinyl or CD) is not a straightforward business - like much else in audio.

As others have said I'd agree that vinyl pressings generally went downhill after the mid 80s and also current vinyl issues often exhibit way too many clicks and pops.

Even worse, whilst dynamic range is always desirable, it's not everything. Care in sympathetic mastering and cutting is also required.

As the OP wisely said, don't get nutty about it or go crazy with it. Sometimes it's enough to just avoid the worst pressings.

The perfect ones simply may not exist.

Wow.
Ozzy wrote:

The OP is one of those audiophiles that listen to the sound of their system rather than the music.
Sure, we wish all recordings were top notch and also would like there to be no stinkers in our collections.

The first seems rather needlessly judgemental, and the 2nd pretty much sums up why.  I mean, this place exists because we do strive for better sounding music, right?  And -- like HD lenses revealing flaws, this is simply an unfortunate fact -- a highly resolving system is more likely to accentuate some of the problems. In fact compressed eq'd music is often reverse engineered to sound good on crummy systems. Others are just over produced, alas.
The other unfortunate fact is that the most popular music is often the worst recorded - shrill, compressed, 32 tracks mixed down in pro-tools, etc.
The two largest contributors to sound are also largely out of our control - 1-the recording/mixing and 2-our rooms.  Yes, the latter can be addressed but its often either impractical or financially unrealistic. or maybe unacceptable to other members of the household.  So the room soften remains a "gravity issue".
I think the OP raises great questions and issues:

1. let's listen to good music, not just good sounding music. Too often its not the case.
2. If better alternatives exist, let's learn about them.  In the digital domain pressings matter little, so its really about re-masterings. And good for us, lots of artists realize this and have gone back, many times with excellent results.

Do some "hgih end" do more than reveal what's on the record, and in fact make them worse?  No doubt: anything with a rising top end will contribute to shrill sound, and there are MANY such cartridges.  Why? because on some recordings they "enhance" (ahem) the sound.  Its fascinating to hear about how un-flat pro microphones are -- with artists selecting a mic for "presence" or "sizzle" or "snap".  Which, if the arist already has hearing loss, is one of the many sources of bad recordings to begin with :-) or is it :-(  ?
G

Audioguy. I'll add MA recordings and Acoustic Sounds to a growing  list of sources for well recorded music.Maybe I'll even give Mobile Fidelity a second chance. I still get aggravated by their original "high (actually low) quality" Dark Side of the Moon pressing , which I still have from decades ago. I wasn't aware that the quality of vinyl records fell off so precipitously in the late seventies and eighties into the nineties. Thanks for that info.

Mitchagain, I'll have to dig out my old Blind Faith album today and see if its another recording disaster. Haven't played that in eons. Must be a first pressing since it was purchased right after it was released. Update: Playing it right now. It's definitely not an audiophile quality recording, everything sounds a bit muffled especially Stevie ?Winwoods vocals, but at least it's not in the unplayable, unlistenable Layla league.

The Richard Barone material you quoted was quite interesting too. The anecdote about Lou Reed brought to mind another current thread about about imaging where one of his recordings, "Street Hassle" maybe,  was recommended as a good example of well done imaging. I happened to have the recording mentioned   and was able to listen to how well it was done. 

The_treble_with_tribles, and tomcy6, I'll have to become more familiar with that site, and check out albums before making a disappointing purchase of ones that fall into lower dynamic range categories of 5,6 and 7. I need to start paying more attention to dynamic range as a significant part of the sound quality picture. Carver had designed some technology to address this issue on my old Phase Linear 4000 preamp. It was called a "peak unlimiter". I always left it in the "on" position. I wonder if that technology was any good or if it has simply disappeared for no reason.

Interesting too about dynamic range figures not being absolutely comparable between LP's and CD's. I'm definitely learning some new things here. Thanks

Plaw,  thanks for the recommends on the SACDs. I havn't much in the way of later Dylan and post Layla Clapton, although it would be interesting to compare my LP copy of Avalon with the SACD version.

Oregonpapa, you're absolutely spot on about the mono recordings. The Masterworks Ellington Masterpieces CD mentioned earlier is  mono and recorded superbly. I was afraid I'd bought a dud when I saw it was a mono recording, before playing it that is.

Glad to hear you recommend all those jazz labels you listed. I've many older jazz LP's on many of them and feel more comfortable getting more of the same knowing  they maintain high recording standards. That's good news for sure.

William 1957, I've had good luck with some of the multi-album sets so far, but I've researched each one beforehand. there a numerous ones to avoid thoufgh as you point out. That's one reason I started this thread, to winnow out the culprits on these sets. You mention some labels are not transparent. Would you mind saying which ones you are disappointed with in this regard to save me the work of having to find this info out the hard way.  

Thank you for the label recommendations. I've added them to my list, which is coming along quite nicely. Thank you for your well thought out and interesting post. I've read it twice now. You're right, there are a lot of variables to work out, but that seems to be the name of the game that keeps Audiogon going. It's great fun though when you do find a recording
that moves you, is well recorded, and you the gear to play it to it's best advantage. It doesn't have to be the case to enjoy good music , but it's hard to beat when it all falls into place. Appreciate your thoughtful response.

Crustycoots, I've all the records you mentioned, except the last and will take a listen to each as I revisit my collection on my new equipment. I'll especially check out the Hendrix Rainbow Bridge as we both have the 1971 pressing. Appreciate the recommendation on MA recordings that Audioguy likes too. 

Tuberist, I agree with you the music comes first, then the quality of the recording with the exception of real dogs like Layla which make the music unlistenable on good equipment. No reason not to get the best recordings you can reasonably afford, if it doesn't impinge overmuch on your overall number of purchases. I've so many recordings I'd like to acquire before I amble off into the great beyond, so I'm trying to find a reasonable balance.

In a lot of cases I'm finding the poorly made recordings cost the exact same as far better ones, especially in jazz reissues. So far the balance is the greatest albums have to be at least listenable In a good system, and the rest have to be both affordable and not second rate reissues or remasters. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Another thing to consider is, if you've spent a small fortune on equipment, it's kind of a waste to not have source material that brings out the best in your investment. 

Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. And an aside to Jafant: If you're turning into a thrasher or metal-head, it's not too late. There's still hope.  

Mike