John Atkinson, Humbug-in-Chief of "Stereovile", once said that Quad made equipment for music lovers rather than audiophiles. I think that says it all.
Well it says something anyway - that he believes the two are different (I'd argue that they can be - some people are ojne or the other - its not impossible to be both). Did he say it sneeringly as though there were something wrong with being one rather than the other? That would be a bit much
I think the "fatiguing" business of CD is rot - but then, I am a pipe-and-slippers type, with both Quad ESL57s and Rogers LS3/5as!
To be fair Tones your setup IS firmly in the non fatiguing and gentler presentation camp, so you would only be looking at it from that reference point. Its also fair to say that you don't have a taste for modern rock or pop which is where the trouble really starts for CD IMO.
Thus it always was. Classical engineers seek to reproduce the sounds as they'd be heard in a concert hall, and of course the listeners tend to be more discriminating with regard to "whizz bang" as you call it.
That's the interesting thing though isn't it. In theory to get a setup to sound vaguely realistic for orchestral music is one thing, though I can't say I've actually experienced such a thing. I've been to a few classical concerts and they didn't sound much like any stereo system I'd ever heard. But its a real event that you are aiming to reproduce.
Rock and pop for the most part however are pure artifice, concocted in the studio. As such other than the notion that they should sound like the way the Enigineer or band intended (a dubious proposition), there is nothing real to compare it against - no yardstick. Those types of Jazz, Blues or other acoustic non orchestral music, recorded simply and "Live" will have some sort of real yardstick too, like, "does that sound like a real double bass, saxophone or acoustic guitar"?
The notion that a setup ought to be trying to recreate the sound of a live Rock band ... is actually laughably mad, as anyone who has ever been to alive gig should know. Studio Recordings sound nothing like a live gig anyway and the sheer physicality of a rock rhythm section played into a venue full of people through a powerful PA is virtually impossible to replicate ... well maybe not entirely impossible, but I think you would be mad to try.
In the time since I got my first CD player (1985), I have yet to hear this.
It doesn't mean it doesn't or can't happen. I don't spend loads of time listening to CD v LP versions of albums, comparing notes - that would be silly. Albums where I have recently done this (it was in the process of setting up a new pair of speakers), where this springs to mind were Hotel California by the Eagles, What's Goin On? by Marvin Gaye and The dreaded Dark Side of the Moon by the even more dreaded Pink Floyd.
The differences were a feeling of 3 dimensionality that LPs seemed to have that the CDs didn't (or put another way the CDs sounded much more 2d with less front to back) and had a certain sweetness to them that the CDs didn't have. These are all "artificial" studio recordings. In the case of the Floyd it was also less detailed but much fuller sounding with a heavier bottom end. Of the two I'd have said the LP was more satsifying, but others might differ.
It could be differences in the mastering (in fact I'm fairly certain a lot of it is). It could be my LP spinner's better than my CDP. It could be a matter of taste. Whatever ... its irrelevant ... in these cases the LP sounds better to me.
Those that tend to sound the same, tend to be those which were released on vinyl into a post CD world ... which makes me suspect some of this is down to mastering - ie on old records, when they got released to CD, they got "improved". Exceptions to this are those CDs which git slammed in the mastering which seem to cope better on LP - this view is based on a very small sample though.
Those that sound better on CD, also tend to pre CD vinyl releases, generally those which frankly they made a balls up of on release to vinyl (or voiced the orignal for playback on a Dansette or similar). Some Early Motown stuff springs to mind here - though I've been told that may be down to them using a non standard EQ at the time.
They may not be tweakers or audiophiles, but I suspect that the wonderful, antediluvian ritual of record playing gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling, which then commutes itself positively to the listening experience itself. They have also probably heard the "vinyl is always superior" con, and possibly also the "vinyl has all the music and CD only bits of it" con. Let's face it, vinyl is now such a minority thing that the vast majority of ordinary folk ignore it completely. So, something special is drawing customers to you. For your sake, I'm glad 'tis so, and may it continue to be so.
My point was that it wasn't a HiFi thing. Record nuts tend not to give a hoot about High Fidelity. They want it to sound "nice", they want it to sound "good" and yes the whole putting on a record thing is a factor. Notions of reality whichever side of the audiophile coin that you are looking at are a non topic though. Its a human interaction thing, not a HiFi thing.
The "Vinyl is always superior" thing isn't a con, its a point of view - though probably incorrect if only sound quality is taken into consideration - for example I might argue that as a thing to own or collect it IS always superior.
Of course vinyl is a minority thing, but its certainly becoming a bigger minority. I suspect you will find CD is now on the verge of becoming a minority thing. Its where Vinyl was in about 1989. In 1989 you could go into a record shop and get whatever you wanted on vinyl. Other than there also being CD racks, you could ignore them. By 1991 you would be hard pushed to find many high street shops that even stocked it.
The difference is that there is something about vinyl (which is nothing whatsoever to do with sound quality) that means it will still be there. There is something about them that for a lot of people CD never bettered and never replaced. I'm not sure the same thing could be said of CDs over downloads. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in ten years time vinyl is still the same or similar sized a minority pursuit, whereas CDs will be as common to buy as pre recorded tapes are now.
To be frank though Tones I suspect you simply don't understand the mindset of the record buying pop/rock (etc.) music fan (non audiophile). Because you aren't one.