Why Miles Davis late alboms are not well recorded?

I wonder what Miles David would answer. I suggest sound quality was important for him (in 70s he owned Acoustic Research AR 5 speakers, one of the most naturally sounded ones then). I enjoy the quality of his early 60s and even some late 50s recording, which, to me, are recorded better than late 60s, 70s and the following dates. An exception is his (live) recording with Quincy Jones live at Montreux 1993 - a good sound quality but not so interesting content. His 80s albums sound sharp and electric, indeed pity (surprisingly1981 Man with the Horn sounds better (except Mike Sterns solo on the first track is really badly recorded) than the later 84 Decoy (the worst recorded one perhaps) and 86 Tutu (at that time, already good digital recordings were made), and 1989 Aura is digitally recorded, and again, with a poor quality). I don't think that late 60s and early 70s fusion style could somehow impose worse recording quality.

A somewhat similar picture is I think with John Scofied albums - from late 90s his albums do no sound well (except perhaps a few latest ones).

Similarly in some rock groups. For instance,  the first ELPs albums (Tarcus and Triligy) I think are better recorded than later ones (why a following Brian Salad Surgery sounds worse?), Led  Zeppelin 1-4 for me sound better than the following ones.

There is so much discussion about relatively minor equipment aspects that affect sound quality. To me, having a
descent sound system,  the major trouble comes from how recordings are made.