Vinyl. Is it me? the producer? cartridge? Record?

I would say if only 3 percent of your records "knock your socks off" then whatever your system is putting out, it bears little relation to what the folks were hearing when they made those records. I have found that as my setup skills and system have improved over time, it has made all my records sound better, not worse.

If you have entered a wormhole where you believe your system is now revealing the weaknesses of 97 percent of your records, then you best re-evaluate where you are at. This usually happens to folks running MC carts that dissect music like it was a lab-rat, not someone who runs a Goldring MM, so I'm not sure how you got to where you are. I do hope you can find your way out, though.

I do respect a producer's decision on how they mix a record.
Doesn't mean I have to like it. I wish I could hear Steve Hackett's guitar much more up in the mix on the live album "Seconds Out"

I wish Van Halen didn't use so much compression on the drum tracks.

I wish drum machines were never invented!

There are a lot of ways to approach a recording. I spent enough time in recording studios over the years to have a pretty good idea what I am hearing.

My point is that the better your system, the more detail you are going to hear.. at least that is my take on the whole audiophile thing. But of course most people don't look at it that way... anyone into digital music, ipods and so on are buying the big lie as far as I am concerned.

For example, if I am driving down the road listening to the radio, it's not likely I am going to hear much detail in a recording. I hear the song, the melody, the punchy sounding kick and snare hits on a rock record, and the vocal line and solos..etc..

But on my home system, I hear nearly everything. I hear where the mic placement was. I can tell if they used triggers, or gates on the drums, and I can tell if they recorded the tracks in the same or different rooms. I can tell if the vocalist was using a dynamic or a condenser mic.
or if the kit was close or ambiently miked... and how much compression was used on each instrument ... or if they didn't use any.

Not all reference monitors are created equal. I've seen producers compromise a mix by plugging in a boom box to hear how it would sound there because most people don't listen to music on high fidelity systems.

You're going to tend to mix to the speakers you have in front of your ears.

As far as 97 percent of my records.. well, if I ranked them 1 to 1000 favorite to least they would fall into some kind of order. That's not the point here.

The point is records that are mixed thin with a bit more treble bite in them might sound better on boomier speakers that don't have horn drivers. But if detail and tight response is of interest to you.. I can't imagine not having a pair of horns on each stack.

I tend to believe that any kind of horn instruments sound best played back through quality horn drivers. I also believe that rock bassists who used Fender cabinets with a pair of 15 inch woofers is going to sound best played back through 15 inch cones. While the short throw subs deliver low frequencies, they don't deliver reality.

Whow i didnt know that.Thanks.

Just one short year ago, I was having the exact same problems with my system that you speak of, Astralography. I too was listening to a lot of Steely Dan and various jazz records because it was the only stuff I could stand to listen to. In my case, the solution came down to speaker placement (Magnepans) and my preamp. The later addition of a subwoofer added another dimension, but was not the primary leap forward.

I had been through several different preamps (McIntosh, Rotel, Van Alstine, etc.) but then on a whim, I bought a used Luxman CX-100. For whatever reason, it just has a unique synergy with my Musical Design D-140. The phono section seems to be a perfect match with my Denon DL-160, and even CD's now have a musicality that they lacked before.

Don't get me wrong; there are still pressings that sound horrible, but I have totally reversed the ratio of good to bad sounding recordings, and I now enjoy most of what I listen to.

It may take only small changes in your system, but I do believe it's possible at all price levels to do so.

The best part is that I can now listen to music and enjoy it without picking everything apart. As a musician, I thought I would never be able to do that.

I think any ear fatigue I get comes from the higher frequencies, not from the low end within reason.

A crisp high end seems to really bring properly recorded records to a new level and really allows them to shine.

But I do suspect high EQ was added into a lot of recordings..

I agree with Jimmy Page that if you record things properly you don't ever need to add EQ. I've seen a lot of boards in recording studios mixing records with those EQ's rolled clockwise on the high end during a mixdown for any number of reasons.

I don't hear that at all with Zeppelin, Steely Dan, or Jazz records like MF Horn 1, 2, 3... or Miles albums from the late 60's early 70's.

I don't hear it on DSOTM or Crime of the Century, but I do hear it on a lot of other records.

I have a Low Fi system downstairs with a $50 Shure Cartridge that makes these thinner recordings sound much more rounded and easier on the ears over time, but if I put on a properly recorded album it sounds nowhere near as good as my better set up upstairs.... not even close.

I know the Goldring has a reputation for being a bit screechy.. but I feel it is actually a very honest cartridge because it does bring out the shine in the better recordings.

I've heard peoples systems that have that really low boomy tubey sound that rounds everything out and gives it this smokey bar jukebox vibe, and I can dig that for what it is.. but I really prefer more detail in my listening.. not just like a smooth scotch and Cuban.