'Unlistenable' early digital recordings?


Obviously, today’s engineering of digital masters is far superior than the early years. Some say that many CD’s from the early years are ’unlistenable’. I used to agree. But, over the past couple of years, I’ve spent considerable effort to clean up the power to each of my digital components. Now, early CD’s are quite listenable. They might not be ’audiophile quality’ but the music comes across just fine. No more digital nasties. No more glare or etch in the HF. No more excessive boominess in the LF. I’m definitely a clean power convert. So much so, that I recommend cleaning up the power before upgrading to a new DAC. What’s your experience?

steakster
lowrider57 - completely agree.  I’m a classical music fan and have many DG recordings of otherwise great music and orchestras that are unlistenable. And, I don’t think it’s my DACs or lack of clean power.  It’s DG’s crappy recordings. I have a particular “demonstration” recording of Mahler’s 5th on DG. It’s so bad, it hurts to listen to it.  Unfortunately, it took me a while to learn to stay away from a label - so I have more than a few of them.  Thank goodness for high quality streaming - I now have access to a huge library and can usually find at least a decent recording of a decent orchestra or ensemble of a piece I want to listen to.  
Hey, coinkidink! The early CDs were unlistenable and so are the later ones! You owe me a Coke. 
@mgrif104 
As I stated earlier, they can keep trying to remaster these bad recordings as Karajan did. But you can't polish a turd.

Have you compared one of these terrible Cds vs. the same recording on Tidal or Qobuz?
I've heard these recordings on FM classical music and they sound thin and edgy.

Post removed 
The early CD issues are what I look to buy. More organic presentation, better imaging. I agree they don't have deep bass extension, especially compared to the same release on vinyl.

It was certain record labels that had issues producing good CDs in the 80s.