Vinyl. Is it me? the producer? cartridge? Record?

Not sure I made myself clear, but my top 30 out of 1000 probably have more to do with me liking the record front to back, and also owning a pristine early release copy...not a fake digital counterfeit pressed onto vinyl.

My point is that regardless of my system, the constant would be more my system, and the variable factor would be the recording itself.

Certainly Steely Dan records were recorded with much more care than the majority of punk rock records.

If my system lacked bass, it would lack it on all recordings, not just some of them. Same with harshness or shrill.

Are my Klipsch shrill? Well if they ever would sound that way.. it should be quite apparent on Rush' Fly by Night... with Geddy Lee screeching and Peart's attack on the cymbals...however, nothing could be farther from the truth.
It sounds great.

For example if play Jeff Beck's Blow by Blow, vs Wired, there is a big difference. Wired sounds shrill, Blow by Blow sounds beautiful. Different producer. George Martin did Blow by Blow, and it probably made the difference.

All of Ken Scott's productions sound great.

DSOTM sounds much better than Meddle.

I see my system as exposing the weakness of a recording session... and exposing the greatness of a wonderful one.

I don't think my system is deciding which records to make sound great or not.

Bob Marley's Natty Dread sounds much more open and full and rich on the low end than Rastaman Vibration.

These examples are very clear about which albums were recorded better. Not a doubt..

The question really is.. is my system too good? in that it exposes the weakness of the actual recording?

Are cartridges and tone arms better now than they were 30 of 40 years ago?

Were some of the classic albums mixed more for lower end systems?.... making sure the treble cut through 1970's transitor radios? and or 8 track players?

Laid back.. I agree, Getz and Gilberto sounds great.. nothing more laid back than "Girl from Ipa...

But Rush, Chicago's First, and early Santana records sound fantastic and are anything but laid back.

I do respect a producer's decision on how they mix a record.
Doesn't mean I have to like it. I wish I could hear Steve Hackett's guitar much more up in the mix on the live album "Seconds Out"

I wish Van Halen didn't use so much compression on the drum tracks.

I wish drum machines were never invented!

There are a lot of ways to approach a recording. I spent enough time in recording studios over the years to have a pretty good idea what I am hearing.

My point is that the better your system, the more detail you are going to hear.. at least that is my take on the whole audiophile thing. But of course most people don't look at it that way... anyone into digital music, ipods and so on are buying the big lie as far as I am concerned.

For example, if I am driving down the road listening to the radio, it's not likely I am going to hear much detail in a recording. I hear the song, the melody, the punchy sounding kick and snare hits on a rock record, and the vocal line and solos..etc..

But on my home system, I hear nearly everything. I hear where the mic placement was. I can tell if they used triggers, or gates on the drums, and I can tell if they recorded the tracks in the same or different rooms. I can tell if the vocalist was using a dynamic or a condenser mic.
or if the kit was close or ambiently miked... and how much compression was used on each instrument ... or if they didn't use any.

Not all reference monitors are created equal. I've seen producers compromise a mix by plugging in a boom box to hear how it would sound there because most people don't listen to music on high fidelity systems.

You're going to tend to mix to the speakers you have in front of your ears.

As far as 97 percent of my records.. well, if I ranked them 1 to 1000 favorite to least they would fall into some kind of order. That's not the point here.

The point is records that are mixed thin with a bit more treble bite in them might sound better on boomier speakers that don't have horn drivers. But if detail and tight response is of interest to you.. I can't imagine not having a pair of horns on each stack.

I tend to believe that any kind of horn instruments sound best played back through quality horn drivers. I also believe that rock bassists who used Fender cabinets with a pair of 15 inch woofers is going to sound best played back through 15 inch cones. While the short throw subs deliver low frequencies, they don't deliver reality.

My feeling is that my system is simply more revealing than most of the studio monitors that these recordings were mixed on. Anything Ken Scott did sounds fantastic. He probably mixed records on similar monitors as did many other producers.
There is a tendency to want to brighten up a recording with a bit of EQ if you are mixing on a set of speakers that don't have horn drivers. It may be as simple as that.

In my humble opinion, I think horn driven speakers are going to offer more accuracy in the higher frequencies than cones are ever going to. Just the physics of it. Horns go nicely with horns.

It would sure be nice to know what kind of speakers were used to mix each individual record. If the problem was really in my system, I think it would show up on all recordings. I have 40 albums that sound perfect. I would not change a thing. But if I put on Highway 61 Revisited, it does sound a bit shrill. I should probably just play that on a different system.

I think any ear fatigue I get comes from the higher frequencies, not from the low end within reason.

A crisp high end seems to really bring properly recorded records to a new level and really allows them to shine.

But I do suspect high EQ was added into a lot of recordings..

I agree with Jimmy Page that if you record things properly you don't ever need to add EQ. I've seen a lot of boards in recording studios mixing records with those EQ's rolled clockwise on the high end during a mixdown for any number of reasons.

I don't hear that at all with Zeppelin, Steely Dan, or Jazz records like MF Horn 1, 2, 3... or Miles albums from the late 60's early 70's.

I don't hear it on DSOTM or Crime of the Century, but I do hear it on a lot of other records.

I have a Low Fi system downstairs with a $50 Shure Cartridge that makes these thinner recordings sound much more rounded and easier on the ears over time, but if I put on a properly recorded album it sounds nowhere near as good as my better set up upstairs.... not even close.

I know the Goldring has a reputation for being a bit screechy.. but I feel it is actually a very honest cartridge because it does bring out the shine in the better recordings.

I've heard peoples systems that have that really low boomy tubey sound that rounds everything out and gives it this smokey bar jukebox vibe, and I can dig that for what it is.. but I really prefer more detail in my listening.. not just like a smooth scotch and Cuban.

Good points...

I would love to just have a stack or different cartridges to swap out within seconds and listen to a variety of recordings doing so. A Goldring, a Grado, a Shure, and so on.. would be great to be able to do that with speakers as well.

As far as speakers, I simply have yet to hear a pair that reproduces horn instruments as well as speakers with horn drivers. Right now I am listening to Gerry Mulligan "Age of Steam" on the low fi rig. It's ok... but a universe apart from what it sounds like upstairs.

I'm running a Fisher 100 tube amp with the built in pre amp and a pair of Klipsch KG 5.2 which I like a lot. I also prefer the passive 12 woofer sound as I believe I am getting more honest detail compared to a power driven woofer. The deck is nothing fancy, just a Technics SL 210
with a Stanton. It's just a fill in record player while my Music Hall is in the shop. Good records sound average, bad records sound average. Really doesn't tell me much of anything.

They did have different engineers (Wired)

Wired sounds a bit more trebley. Not quite a rich as wired.
I have a couple copies of both.

Being a musician and one who has spent a fair amount of time behind a mixing console also, my ears might be a bit more sensitive than most.

I spent a lot of time trying to get things to sound unnatural during the 90's exploring the possibilities of studio outboard gear, and what that could add to the music that was tracked. I'm finding myself now retreating from those ideals and enjoy simpler cleaner recordings, and performances. When you add effects, or even EQ in post production, it changes the sonic landscape often to the point of things simply not sounding realistic. While most seem to like that.. I really don't anymore. I like to feel like the musicians are in the same room at the same time playing music that is truly interactive. I know this is something a lot of listeners are not going to be aware of, but if I hear dry vocals with a bunch or reverb on the drums or a flat sounding kit with a sax solo that sounds like it was recorded in a brick alley at 3 am... I find that quite uncomfortable.

In today's music, it's pretty much standard fair to drop all the tracks into a computer program like Pro Tools and then just fix everything, move all the drum hits to the nearest 8th or 16th note, and use pitch shifters to fix all the flaws in a solo or vocal performance. But it really doesn't sound right. Too homogenized for my tastes. I think it's killing the music and the industry in the long term.

The thing the young musicians are not getting is the creativity that comes from massive amounts of practice time.

Artists used to have to grind it out, and really get prepared for a session, and in that grind would come nuances and articulations that are simply not happening anymore due to modern studio practice. There is way too much "That's good enough" "we'll fix the rest" .. "Ok, let's move on to the next track". I'm just not hearing the lightening being bottled like it used to... especially with the instrumentalists.

The good players now sound too good, too unnatural it can become silly, like most of the contemporary jazz records. There is no realness, no heart in it anymore. Too much over production and manipulation.

Now getting back to recordings... the digital recordings are just that. Digital. I don't care what your arguments are or how many sampling "Ks" you boast, it will always come up short of a proper magnetic tape session. Then the playback issues... CD format, even Blueray disc, it just is what it is. Convenience over quality.

No doubt, a lot of these jazz guys can play. We saw Jean Luc Ponty recenty in Oakland and it was a real clinic. But the records are really over produced. To me it's like the difference between a photograph and a great painting.

A little grit, grain and texture can make all the difference.

But even live albums are messed with digitally in the studio. The producers just don't stop there. If they have the tools to fix something, they will use them...and that is the problem. They really don't get the idea that sometimes less is more.

My ear is trained enough that I can still hear the punch in and outs.