'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?

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.

I hadn’t occurred to me to listen to those recordings streamed via Tidal. (I don’t have qobuz yet).  I may try that but I’m guessing they’re just as bad streamed.  

On the other hand, I have some EMI, Phillips and other labels from the 80s that are very good.  You’d have thought the mastering engineers at DG would have had more pride in their work or that the conductors would have demanded better.  They were producing records for some of the top orchestras of the time.  

There’s an interesting DG recording of Camille Saint Saens 3rd Symphony (organ) where the sonics aren’t too bad, but they recorded the organ separately from the orchestra and piano.  I can imagine how difficult it is to do at the same time.  But, on that recording (great performance btw), there are times the organ and symphony are out of sync. It’s the performance that keeps drawing me back to it.  Perhaps familiarity.  But, I sure wish the recording were up to the performance.  Anybody else have a favorite of this work? 
Post removed