RCA Victor records' quality

@drbond 1+

Early rock and blues where not taken seriously and given short shrift in the quality department. Kids bought mostly 45s. Classical and some jazz were given much more attention in terms of quality. The early stereo mixes of rock recordings could be comical if it was not so sad. Stuff like all the instruments on the right and vocals on the left were not uncommon. The production of rock and blues records was not taken as seriously either. My Dad's classical RCA Red Labels were pristine but The early Jefferson Airplane RCAs were terrible in all regards. In time recording of modern music improved but the quality of popular music pressings did not. They were never as good as the European classical records or older RCAs. In the mean while American Classical deteriorated. London pressings were never as good as Decca, same company. 

thank you guys @drbond @mijostyn , I noticed significant differences between the same albums from different labels but never such a unique and annoying sound as RCA Victor. Instruments just sound like throwing forks together. I somehow thought old and major label meant decent quality as they didn't yet know how to screw it up

you might try cleaning them......RCA's sound good, even excellent to me....Mancini's Peter Gun, Bob and Ray Throw a Stereo Spectacular, etc.

Try Roulette or Deutsche Gramaphone, if you want shrill.

You say the LPs are in great shape.  I assume you mean they look good on the surface.  I've purchased many LPs that are 50+ years old and looked like they had never been played.  Only to find they sounded terrible,  Even after Ultra Sonic cleaning.  I think somtimes they are just worn out, even though they look great to the naked eye.  It's a gamble with any LP that old.  IMHO.