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

I agree that you have not reached a point where your system has the right synergy. Just don't feel that you must buy ultra-expensive components and magic accessories to reach your goal.

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 would say if only 3 percent of your records "knock your socks off" then whatever your system is putting out, it bears little relation to what the folks were hearing when they made those records. I have found that as my setup skills and system have improved over time, it has made all my records sound better, not worse.

If you have entered a wormhole where you believe your system is now revealing the weaknesses of 97 percent of your records, then you best re-evaluate where you are at. This usually happens to folks running MC carts that dissect music like it was a lab-rat, not someone who runs a Goldring MM, so I'm not sure how you got to where you are. I do hope you can find your way out, though.

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.

Whow i didnt know that.Thanks.