Beware poor sounding media

Very rare when a recording is deemed absolutely unlistenable.  The usual culprit for lesser recordings is micro dynamic compression, clearly heard as recording dependent, since music with great dynamics is reproduced as if real live flesh and blood performers in room. Quashed dynamics brings moret distance from performers, listening to recording rather than performance. Still, I find most of these recordings listenable if I don't ask and/or expect too much from them.

The strangest recordings are those with very different dynamic attributes from one track to another. Just last night listening to Syd Straw, 'War And Peace', harder rocking pieces very compressed, narrow and shallow center image, and then it's like different engineer/producer takes over other tracks, spacious, lifelike. I've heard this same phenomenon on other recordings, makes me wonder what artists/production thinking. Only thing I can imagine is certain tracks mixed precisely for mass market equipment, loudness wars mentality. 

I think Carol King's Tapestry fits the OPs description.  

I've said this before, but the goal of my music system(s) is to make sure it plays 95% of my music in a listenable manor. If you tune your system too tight, you end up with just a few songs that sound good and everything else is junk. 

Hey Richard,

good to see you posting.

I agree, a lousy recording really spoils the listening experience. 

But, I think some of that is due to the higher resolving nature of our systems.

Speaker tech, amp tech, preamp tech, etc. has never been as good as it is now.

Listening to the Rolling Stones shows me that they don't feel sound quality to be high on their list, compared to, say, Steely Dan whose Redbook tracks sound as good as high rez.

Bob

Fidelity is always wonderful and always preferred, but if the artist or producer thinks otherwise I try to roll with it.