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.