Born to Run: Why the Poor Sound Quality?


I have always been disappointed with the sound quality of Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run. Even the CBS 1/2 Speed Master pressing is underwhelming. Is there a good explanation for this? As I recall, Jon Landau produced the album, and he is certainly no slouch, but the recording seems inferior.

It's really a shame that there doesn't seem to be a decent pressing of this classic album
jeffreybowman2k
The Boss was given a huge budget...this was the beginning of milk.and honey days for fm aor rock...and it took over a year to record btr...the title track racking 6 months...so there was no cost cutting measures by Columbia...this was an all or nothing gamble...and it worked...I find it hard to believe the Sonics were purely accidental...they weren't...it was a deliberate process...with mixed results...a mere two years later...hotel vs and rumours would be the quantum, state of the art, late 70s analog sound many relish...including myself
Bob Clearmountain did a superb engineering job on Born in the USA. He always does.
The remastered CD that came with the Born to Run anniversary box-set is actually very good. Yes, the wall-of-sound production was deliberate on BTR. And many may not like it (I didn't used to). When I heard this remastered disc on my admittedly very high-end system, I was surprised how good it sounded.
There isn't a Springsteen recording that's listenable over anything but an in car CD player or FM. That's really a shame becuase the music is awesome, I just can't get through the terrible sonics to enjoy it. Shame on everyone associated with the process.
There isn't a Springsteen recording that's listenable over anything but an in car CD player or FM.
Is this statement audiophile hyperbole or should we take it as plain English? If it's the latter, then something is wrong with your system, you or possibly both, and on paper your system looks awesome.