Can a great system make a mediocre recording sound good?

When I got into this as a teen, 50+ years ago, I was exploring the Chess Real Folk Blues catalog.  Howling Wolf was a favorite...not for the "sound" but for the musical intensity.  I listened on Sennheiser HD414s then...very peaky and edgy on those records.  Then I got a pair of Stax SR-5s.  Now there was actually "air" in the monaural Chess studio sound, with a roundness of tone and absence of distortion that made the listening much more involving.  Listening to the higher fidelity recordings of the day from the Dead, Tull, Pentangle, etc. all sounded better too, but the rough stuff benefited as well.

Mixed in here is the subjects of what you choose as test music, and what kind of music is critical to choosing a system. The wrong choices and you take your system in places where one kind of music and recordings get better at the expense of all others.

My big mistake was grabbing some electronic music CDs that I really liked. I kept optimizing the ethereal nature (lots of natural treble and ultrasonics (think planar speakers). But most music sounded worse. 
 

Finally, about twenty five years ago I started listening to live acoustic music as frequently as possible… to calibrate my ear. Then the symphony a couple times a month. I then chose acoustic music for auditioning. My ear got trained as to what to listen for and the auditioning then drove very different choices in equipment… making most music sound better at every upgrade.. now if there is a chance for music to sound good… my system will give it. However electronic music sounds natural… not overly ethereal… which I liked… but the result is 98% or the music l listen to sounds simply incredible.

A poor recording will always remain as such. What you get with a better balanced system is that even a poor recording would have a meaning. No it will not sound good but it would be easier to follow.

Thanks very much!

You explained it better than me...

I never spoke english only read it and i read only science or philosophy, it is why my expression is "square"....

The better your system is, especially imaging, the more it will reveal the great, good, bad, ugly.

The more you experience excellent imaging, the more you are aware of problems.

Yes it is true also in my experience...

But it is true not only with imaging,but with all other acoustic characteristic...

For example if your system give you a good listener envelopment, in some well recorded album you will be AMONG the musician on the scene...They may be around you... It will not be the case in heavily compressed music... It will be horrible... But what is hoorible on a bad audio system, stay bad on a good audio system but can become "interesting" because it take a new acoustic  meaning ... You "see" more...

I find it to be opposite. My really good system makes bad recordings almost unlistenable, It will make average recordings some better some average.

Our perspective are not exactly the same, but it is related also to the genre of music we listen to...

Most of my bad recordings in jazz or classical are more listenable in my system even if they stay bad...

But pop or rock may be exception.... The jimi Hendrix two albums i refer above are unlistenable because of compression...the mix in studio is horrible work...I hate too much mixed in studio music... I prefer natural instruments in natural acoustic room with minimal mix ...