Why do mass marketed CD's sound so crappy?


I posted awhile ago here asking opinions regarding the poor sound quality of Coldplay's "A Rush of Blood to the Head" CD. Now I want to ask the same question of U2's latest (which is great, btw). I also find Sheryl Crow's CD's to sound underwhelming and dissapointing. Besides that fact that I love her music. What gives? Are the artists clueless? Don't they hear what their releases sound like? Are the record companies deliberately turning out crappy sounding CD's to please the masses that listen primarily on Ipods and walkman's? Man, it makes it real tough to enjoy music I really love to listen to when it sounds so damn bad.

The first track on U2's newest, "Vertigo" really rocks out, but it sounds boomy and muddled. I wanted to turn this up real loud, but it just sounded awful. I'm bummed.
hammergjh
By mass marketed do you mean popular, huge sales? I buy quite a few cd's, and think the majority sound at least ok. Of course I favor the more obscure, or lower selling artists like Mark Knopfler, Richard Thompson, or old jazz like Miles or Coltrane. I also have liked most of the re-mastered stuff from the 60's/70's like "Who's Next", "Tommy", Santana, Tull, ACDC, and the Doors. The worst sounding definitely are most of the artists in the current top 40. This doesn't matter to me too much as I hate most of that music anyway. I have heard some in this forum say that "Honkin for Bobo", by Aerosmith is terrible sounding. I agree it is harsh, raw sounding but sounds like almost live R n R to me which is good. The same with Clapton's "From the Cradle", or "Mr. Johnson."

Anyway, to me it sounds good if it comes closer to the live experience, live rock is raw and harsh, not warm. I do always hope for the best sound possible but that is opinion, everyone has one. Just my two cents.
I received a few emails commenting on the "great accuracy" of many "studio" type monitors. While some of these monitors "may" measure well, they do so under very specific conditions. That is, they are like ANY other speaker. As such, their placement, room acoustics, spl levels, nearfield reflections, listening distance, etc... all effect their performance and what those doing the mixing tend to hear. Once again, what they hear is what determines how the disc sounds to us. Sean
>

PS... even many of the engineers that are doing the recording / mixing, etc... are complaining about the demands that the record companies are putting on them in terms of sound quality. They want HIGH average listening levels, which means more smearing, less dynamic range and a loss of low level resolution. Isn't that what you're hearing with most modern recordings?
Could I have a few examples of rock music that is considered well recorded, not terribly compressed? Thanks
Sean is right with what he is saying. Eldartford I have been involved in recording as a musician for more years than I want to admit (my early days saw me study sound engineering breifly) and unfortunatley compression/limiting is what was used (or should I say even abused) I think in nearly everything I can remember being involved in. High average listening levels are what is desired/demanded.

p.s Noel Gallagher (Oasis)will listen to the mix on his old (and I mean old) portable player before approving final mixdown.