What songs/albums/artists actually sound worse when played through audiophile systems?

If it’s mixed poorly it will sound bad on any system. In the late seventies I went all the way down the audiophile rabbit hole. I had a great system to play crappy classic rock ( Steely Dan and a few others were exceptions). 

I'll join posters like petg60 and say that none of them sound any worse.  Yeah, Rolling Stones records can sound pretty mediocre but did they ever sound much better than mediocre?  As it says on the back covers of a couple Stones albums, Produced by Andrew Loog Oldham for Impact Sound!  Yeah, impact...  Not fidelity...

Interesting assortment of responses.  I wasn't expecting this to be another controversial audiophile thread, but here we are (and my original wording didn't help much)...

Part of what I have observed in my own system is that some recordings sound incredible (I can actually appreciate jazz and classical in a way I never did before!), but some of the music I used to love the most (older loud classic rock stuff that hasn't been remastered, for instance, or newer lo-fi stuff like Ariel Pink) is just not sounding as good.  I don't mean to say that it actually sounds WORSE than if I were playing it through my crappy car stereo in terms of detail and imaging. 

I think what I am saying is it is just striking how relatively poor it sounds in relation to really well-recorded/mastered music.  On my crappier systems, it would actually be more enjoyable to listen to mediocre records than well-recorded jazz/classical, because it was harder to appreciate without good detail, timbre, and imaging.  Now, just the opposite.

I don't think I'd want to alter my system in a way to change this, because it make the great recordings more mediocre (introducing more distortion and coloration as suggested by teo_audio.  

The time coherence stuff is super interesting to think about too.  Not sure how it would affect some recordings more than others, though.  Any ideas about that?

The time coherence stuff is super interesting to think about too. Not sure how it would affect some recordings more than others, though. Any ideas about that?

It has been a few years since I performed a lot of comparisons in my system between having my DEQX HDP-5’s function which improves a speaker’s time coherence turned on vs. turned off. (My speakers are Daedalus Ulysses, btw). But as far as I can recall mediocre recordings of complex material, such as the example I cited earlier of orchestral recordings having overly bright massed string sound, particularly tended to benefit.

The degree of improvement provided by that function was less predictable with other types of material, and I wasn’t able to identify any particular type of recording (e.g., poorly recorded/well recorded; simply mic’d/heavily multi-mic’d; classical chamber music/pop/rock/jazz; vocal/instrumental; etc.) which was especially likely or unlikely to benefit.

In any event, though, it was rare for a recording to sound worse with that function engaged than with it disengaged. And most recordings sounded noticeably better with it than without it.

Regards,
-- Al

Perhaps a poor choice of words to say good speakers/system make bad recordings sound worse. Of course they don’t but when your good recordings start sounding better and your bad ones pale in comparison the difference is enough to make me get rid of bad ones. Yes the system as a whole has a lot to do with it but the OP made mention of the quality problem AFTER he added the Forte 3 so I assume the speaker is what he was directing his comment too.

  As to a list of bad recordings you ask about OP none come to mind but I do get rid of many over time. The same album can be different and what you download or get from a friend may have been tinkered with so a list is not much use when your source can vary so much.  Joe Satriani for one seems to generally be OK and Telmark recordings generally are good.