My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
Part of that may be that you mostly seem to listen to older music. I don't think it was as much of an issue back then, because if you were good enough to get a record deal and get some money upfront to record an album, you were probably pretty good, and to run a studio you had to be reasonably competent, so the bar for releasing an album was far higher. With the proliferation of musical styles and cheaper availability of home recording technology over the last few decades, the range of quality has widened dramatically. There are lots of people now who have intriguing ideas, but not necessarily the know-how to execute them, and a broader range of notions of how music "should" sound. You can now write, record, and release an album in your bedroom, and naturally this means that barrier to entry for music is lower, and the level of quality is all over the map.
I'm also finding out that I probably care about production details a fair amount more than most people. The timbre and texture of a note is often if not more important than what the note itself is, and this preference has only increased over time as I've gotten better at listening to music, to playing it, and know more about gear and the process of recording. But I still feel I'm in the middle relatively speaking, I go on Discogs, the Steve Hoffman forums, and various recording, engineering, and audiophile sites and see people talking about the vast difference between particular pressings and remasterings, and while sometimes I do notice, I usually don't care that much about the granular level of detail some of them get into.
I'm familiar with the Steve Hoffman forums (a font of information, by the way). I wouldn't make that assumption, though. One, I do listen to a certain amount of newer music, even if it is often newer music from established artists. Two, "production" often today is code word for "brickwalling", but the criticisms of "production" go back to the '80s. I remember hearing criticisms of Iron Maiden's first album; Kiss's Dynasty and Unmasked. There are others.
I think this is more a point of view than anything else. I too (sometimes) enjoy the details. The timber of notes, as you say. But for me, the most important thing is the intent of the artist. FOR ME, there are only really two albums for which the "production" complaint is legit (and it's not really "production", though it is sound) and that's Death Magnetic and Vapor Trails, because the artists have explicitly (or in the case of Metallica, implicitly) admitted "that doesn't sound like we intended it to sound". Oasis is new(er) music, and they've got a lot of complaints about their production, but Noel Gallagher WANTED it that way, PURPOSEFULLY MADE it that way. That's his artistic expression. I can only say whether I like it or not.
There used to be a guy that posted over at Mike Portnoy's site, went by the name of "Glass Dream" who used to make this the crux of almost all his posts. He claimed (and I'm not agreeing or refuting that claim, just stating it) that his ears were exceptionally attuned to music. He claimed to be able to discern the most minute details (even if sometimes the science didn't back him up).
Look, if "production" really is the difference maker for you, I'm not here to tell you otherwise. I do, though, think there's a difference between saying "eh, I don't like it, it makes my ears hurt" and the references you make to "quality". "Quality" to me is "how close did the artist come to their vision", period. I do not feel like I can say whether an artist's work is "quality" or not.
Except for Radiohead. They suck.