Hotel California sounds good on the radio.

I suspect those recordings were recorded and mixed for home systems because back in that day most cars only had AM radio. The idea of recording for radio really came about in the 80s with the Advent of commuting and FM radio widespread.

I couldn't stand it the first time and I don't get it, still.

As I said, I was not commenting on the music. My post is about the quality of the recording. I like the music on my old Rolling Stones records. They sound like crap on my audiophile system. It has been explained to me it is because they are "mixed for radio". So why does well recorded music sound as good or better on the radio then the poor sounding ones "mixed for radio"

@jsbail

So why does well recorded music sound as good or better on the radio then the poor sounding ones "mixed for radio"

Radio audio processing basically magnifies audio, as it is compressed, EQ’d and limited. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression garbage in, garbage out. The same can be said for audio processing on radio. Feed the radio station audio processor some well recorded audio (I personally *do* think most Eagles music qualifies), and most times it will sound very good to excellent once played out over the air (OTA). Depending on your idea of what "better" sounds like (many music enthusiasts prefer re-mastered recordings to the original recordings), radio (audio processing) can make recordings sometimes sound better, and sometimes worse. Most 60’s and 70’s 45’s were definitely mixed for Top 40 AM radio, and jukebox playing.

Mixed for radio would be for a small 2" transistor radio or 3" car speaker. They focused more on the mids as speakers that size wouldn't produce useful bass anyway and would also make a record skip on old turntables.

I like hearing a great recording but also enjoy my old records too though I find most of the remastered LPs sound better to me due to the restored bottom and top end.