...because fo Sound Quality....

Great tunes, great performance, but it sounds like it was recorded on some cheapo 4 track in someone's cellar!!!!!! And as for the cover shoot- it looks like they found some Doctor Who sandpit!!!!!!! You wouldn't think Lemmy used to be in Hawkwind, would you?!?!?! (And maybe that was the point....)

Old Fart!!!!

Avoid, however, "Metropolis" by Mike Westbrook on CD, which literally sounds as if it had been taped off a warped old vinyl copy.

e.g. golden era reggae. What would Lee Perry's productions sound like if they didn't have all the crap?

"White Light, White Heat" anyone?

Granted, I will agree that the way to listen to reggae of that era is DEFINITELY NOT ON CD.

They're both good records, but for some reason, I can only enjoy ...and Justice For All when I'm scrubbing the bathroom. The ceramic/porcelain tile acoustics are the only thing that brings out the bass.

Actually crummy recording for any reason whatsoever.
I guess this cant be seen as two different questions.

Which albums should be avoided by hopeless audiophiles that can't stand overly muffled/tinny/hissy/crackly sound?

I guess, in theory, a screwy mix can actually add something fresh or interesting to normally banal music. (Imagine Travis after Lee "Scratch" Perry gets done with them.)
Are there any albums out there where mediocre music was saved by inventive production or exceptionally clear mastering? n, there is some stuff that is recorded all tinny and crappy on purpose, but can stil lsoudn good. The stuff mentioned in the original posts is abviously mastering, since i doubt they meant them to sound bad

I agree. I had read constantly that it was their best album and I borrowed the CD (first generation Columbia pressing) from a huge Stones fan and I didn't like anything on it aside from "Rocks Off". I later bought the vinyl (Atlantic pressing) on a whim, and was in awe of it. Columbia had a terrible reputation when it comes to their early CD transfers (see the Miles Davis catalog), and Exile certainly was par for the course. Perhaps the Virgin reissue was better.

There's plenty more Bob Dylan vinyl reissues, on 180 gm wax, mastered from analogue tapes, and cheaper than Sundazed's. Sure they're in stereo, but just push the mono button on yr stereo.

Really? Sounds pretty dazzling on my stereo, and (I have on good authority) on MD through Mr Dastoor's stereo. Neither of us, it has to be said, own Linn CD players nor (more importantly) have antiseptic rooms. I wonder what it sounds like inside a septic tank?

I don't think the CD player is going to be the deciding factor (compared to your other reference of a car stereo) - more likely the rest of the playback chain/environment. Perhaps your friend has really lean-sounding speakers, or flimsy particleboard walls? I've got a pretty good system, and while I'm sure "Supermodified" doesn't have quite the visceral impact it would in an enclosed and woofered- up space like a car, it certainly doesn't sound flat. The opening to "Golfer vrs Boxer" is a growling bass monster.

I suppose it's possible that the tape he used (and re-used) wore out but that seems a very unlikely explanation for the development of his individual style.

I think that a properly-mastered CD is just as good for roots reggae as old vinyl. It's bad and/or careless mastering which causes problems. And some vintage vinyl was pressed so badly that the music really suffers.

I can't imagine being prissy enough to not listen to a record because of the sound quality.

I don't think I've ever done so because the sound was too "hissy / scratchy / muffled" (and I too like things that sound like they were rec. underwater), but there are records I don't listen to because they sound too compressed, strident, or hurt my ears. But the line between recording techniques and the actual music gets very blurred with electronic music, etc., etc. And I don't think overproduction is really what's being talked about here.

Of course, the hiss on Black Beauty (Miles Davis) gets on my nerves, but that's minor. I collect bootlegs, after all, so I've learned to deal with that sort of thing. (And bootlegs aren't really what we're talking about, either. Though I do have a Coltrane radio broadcast bootleg that's pretty hard to listen to. Heavy distortion + twenty-minute improvisations = tough sledding.) There is an album (by a band that shall remain nameless) which I'd like a lot except for the fact that it's so damn dry. Vocals which should soar end up sounding like they were recorded in an isolation booth. (They probably were, but they shouldn't sound that way!)

Probably lots of non-hiphop records too. I bought Philip Glass's "Powaqqatsi" soundtrack in '88 - that's a single LP and clocks in at 68 minutes. Same track listing as the (73-minute) CD, just with a few sloppy edits. Cheers, Elektra Nonesuch.

I think I have to agree with Sundar, really. Great sound quality is a great thing for sure, but *not* listening to something you like cos of sound quality? - that would require a different breed of ear from mine. Exile is a fine example - I can't believe that the CD quality is a real factor in people's experience of it. What about the Music, maan?

Neil Peart used an electronic kit on "Grace Under Pressure" and they sound just as terrible.

The 80s electronic drum kit may have worked for The Gap Band, but it didn't sound right in these two places.

Emperor Anthems To The Welkin At Dusk: There are tons of badly produced metal albums of course (most of them intentionally though) but this one is striking in the sense that it's Eirik Hundvin's only bad production job. And to think that duplicating the sound of the previous album would've been just fine - but he made it a huge mess. With an annoying, flat guitar tone. And every time the synths kick in, the vocals disappear. Whoever mixed the album clearly had an off day too.