Do you listen mainly to Audiophile CDs and records?

@rvpiano exactly. Which is why I run a second tonearm and cartridge in my system set up specifically for mono. The sound quality of fifties mono classical is astounding and is some of the best I have. I also revel in listening to Casals for example in Japanese pressings bringing out the best from the 20s and 30s

The same is also true of pop recordings, I have a soft spot for the Chordettes for example. 

I don’t think many would count these as audiophile but they knock the socks off many of the clean but souless modern classical recordings

I listen to what I like, not with regard to recording quality. That said, I don't understand why artists like Chris Isaak and Tracy Chapman can get great sound every time, and other artists either can't or don't try.

Rvpiano 11-4-2017
I listen mainly to classical music, and the quality of sound varies greatly from disc to disc.
I was wondering if that’s the case with rock, pop and the like.
Do you tend to listen mainly mostly audiophile media?

... Do you avoid listening to music you like, or love because it doesn’t sound good?

I too listen mainly to classical music, which probably comprises around 90% of my listening. But I also enjoy rock, pop, folk, Broadway, and other genres, within the other 10% or so.

And yes, I find that among all genres recording quality varies greatly from disc to disc. I would say also that while my listening tends to gravitate toward better sounding recordings, and they comprise a somewhat disproportionately high percentage of my collection, I don’t particularly avoid listening to poor quality recordings if I enjoy the music.

Regarding the perennial question of whether a higher quality system makes poor recordings more objectionable or less objectionable than when listened to on a lesser quality system, or even via computer speakers or in a car, I find that it can go either way depending on the particular recording. But more often than not I would have to say that a system that is more resolving of fine detail will make a poor recording less objectionable than a lesser system. For example, on an overly bright orchestral recording the sound of massed strings will often tend to be much more listenable when it is resolved into an approximation of the sound of massed strings, albeit with some added brightness, rather than being reproduced as a homogenized blob of sound.

And it depends to a great extent on the nature of the flaws in the recording. As a general rule of thumb, heavy multi-mic’ing and/or a lot of electronic post-processing of a classical (or other) recording will result in sonics that I find to be more objectionable than a simply mic’d (or even monophonic) recording from the pre-hifi days. For example, Toscanini’s 1940 performance of Brahms’ First is one of my favorite recordings of probably my favorite symphony, as played on my main system via a CD I burned it to, despite its very primitive sonics.

Regards,
-- Al

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/forgiving-resolving/12570/

The blog, "Forgiving or resolving" by Paul McGowan (PS Audio) at the above link might be of interest. It definitely relates to the OP’s question.

From it, comes the quote below:
"If you want your system to provide extraordinary performance levels you need one that’s highly resolving: capturing the best and the worst of every recording. The more forgiving your system, the more you’re trading extraordinary for middle of the road."

I get the point being made and happily disqualify myself from Audiophile-dom as defined by those terms. The system exists to facilitate the enjoyment of music. Reasonable compromises that provide a good measure of resolution yet still allow a wide range of recording quality to be enjoyed seem worth pursuing.

For classical I like Telarc, Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion and Mercury Livinvg Presence.

Like all forms of music jazz, pop or rock, the performer is key - I like Benjamin Zander, Lorin Maazel and Sir Chris Hogwood in particular.