Example videos:

Btw, does anyone know if you can hide stuff behind spoiler tags or make YT videos smaller on here? It drives me nuts how much real estate videos take up on certain threads on this forum.

Universal Totem Orchestra - Mathematical Mother 

I find not least the drums to be all too light, and yes, it definitely has diminished my enjoyment of this album so far, 

even I like much the music.

I'll mention the original 1965 stereo mix of Rubber Soul where the left/right pan is often extreme. In loudspeakers it is probably OK, but with headphones it is not very pleasant to listen to. Normally I don't like it when old albums are remixed, but in this case I understand why it was done. The 1987 mix is much more pleasant. Otherwise I prefer the mono version.

There is also David Bowie's 1969 album where the sound is very muddy, the balance between instruments is poor, and the production is messy. The exception is "Space Oddity" which is beautifully produced.

I have to say, I don't find the sound of the Soft Machine that bad actually. The production is a bit amateurish (some equalizing to add more treble would be welcome, because there is a LOT of bass), but on the other hand I quite like that it isn't so streamlined. It gives it some charm and some edge. This is part of what I also like about Can's albums btw.

I'm going to go with Rush Vapor Trails. One of the absolute worse. I can't, for the life of me, understand why RUSH would allow such a travesty with their name on it to be released. It was sooooo bad they ended up remixing the whole thing, not as a marketing gimmick, but because it was one huge steaming pile of turd.

The remix was a relief to hear.

Hi,

I would check the English import ... since many of the American versions were copies, and the last album that this happened to, was DSOTM (that I have seen -- I still have the import of this album!!!), where the English version was much cleaner. I found this out by accident btw, when the first Sgt Pepper's album I got happened to be the import, and the American version was not very good, and the sound effects and many bits were downplayed a lot. So, we know that Capitol, in America did not get the masters to get the albums done or released in America, or possibly made the call that the sound effects were not what radio wanted! ... AFAIK.

Sorry, I'm rambling. I have bigger problems with clean, modern production in general than any Floyd 68/69... or even Nursery Cryme really.  For Floyd I've never even thought about any sound issues, but my remaster with the Genesis-album admittedly latter blows my original pressing out of the water.

I don't know which version you heard but Nick Davies' remix improved the sound quality a lot.

It really was very bad indeed, wasn't it? But tbh, the remix didn't come as a great relief, it just re-affirmed in my mind that the album was in fact crap...

Crap?! That's harsh IMO, the remix improves on the original, makes the songs a bit more listenable. 

Well, there's the unexceptional 'One Little Victory', followed by 12 tracks which all sound the same to me.. seriously, I don't think I have another album where at any single point, I have absolutely no idea what I'm listening to, neither frankly do I care much... and this comes from a fan of 40 years...

The record I have IS the original UK release. I don't live in America, and I have never actually listened to the Capitol albums (I prefer not to). It is not that the sound isn't clean enough, but that the stereo pan is too primitive, and some of the songs almost hurt.

I often have a big issue with records that sound too clean, and the beginning of digital recording is a good example of that. The sound becomes uninteresting, and there is often a lack of dynamics.

I think especially some of the "old boys" rock albums from the 1990's suffer from that. A good example would be Dire Straits: On Every Street - an album I otherwise like, but the sound is just too boring. Or Voodoo Lounge by the Rolling Stones. Some of the amazing "ugliness" of their classic era records disappears out of the window.

I don't disagree with this at all. I was speaking strictly from a production perspective. The relief was to my ears, not my musical expectations.

I'm a big fan of C.V. Jørgensen, but his first album from 1974 sounds really awful (despite some interesting musical and lyrical ideas). Bad sound mixing, muddy vocals (it is difficult to hear what he is singing) + too many instrumental errors.

For comparison, here's a song from his second album. Sounds much better:

I've made comments about bands/music that is not recorded "live" in studio and how some of that magic is simply missing......Those comments were dismissed by others. That is unfortunate that people cannot hear what is missing in music that is recorded separately and then emailed back and forth and pieced together....To me this is one of the downsides of the whole digital thing.

Most of what we eventually hear is all due to bad production and mastering, and especially in mixing an album. Albums from the 60s that suffered from lack of bass, that could have been done on purpose, some bass was cut due to the consumer equipment in use at the time, cartridges and tonearms that could not track these frequencies without severe mistracking, skipping or arms jumping out of the groove. This was the case for original BlueNote jazz records that Rudy Van Gelder recorded, cartridges could not track his recording so he would cut the bass back when cutting records.

We don't have that issue with today's analog gear.

I'd say it depends on what type of music you are making. The "live magic" may be missing in studio recordings with overdubs, but then the "studio magic" may sometimes be missing in live performances as well. Trying to record, say, classical music by overdubbing will probably cause miserable results, and the same goes for a lot of jazz. But then there is music where studio experimentation and sound production is a big part of the overall expression.