Can a great system make a mediocre recording sound good?

I've found that most 'poor' recordings only sound poor because the system/room I was hearing them in was not good enough to translate the acoustics of the space the recording was made in.

Exactly.....

There is still lots to hear in even a mediocre recording and a better system will do a better job of delivering what’s there.  That means a better listening experience and a better listening experience means the mediocre recording just got better. 

Exactly!

I will add  that the mediocre recording get acoustically more "interesting" and now reveal more of the original acoustical cue choices  even if he stay mediocre...We listen to it more easily, we stay with the music in it forgetting the bad recording now...

Therefore a system could be designed that would process poor recordings to sound like good ones.  But the changes made would render the performance different from the original recording.

It is not my experience....

Bad recordings stay bad... But they become listenable and very interesting now...We listen more to the original acoustical cues and we detect more what was bad INTO the recording process...

A good system put you more in touch with the acoustic process used by the recording engineer...

@kevn - good points, but how does that account for the fact that more recordings will tend to sound good to a listener than bad or mediocre, though some will most definitely sound bad or mediocre?

And some people just can't modify their listening environments as much as some people think they should be able to....

What I have found is exemplified by my run in with Jimi Hendrix ‘Are you experienced?’. When I play it on the system I have today (for nostalgia sake) it’s almost unlistenable … harsh, bright, compressed etc …

I am not familiar with this recording...

I listen a youtube copy just now... it is VERY compressed yes but not harsh nor bright on my system....

mine reveal the compression only...I dont like the compression at all...

(69) Are You Experienced? - YouTube

This other version is worst...more compressed...Neverr harsh or bright...

Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced? (Iowa 1968) - Bing video

One of The two worst recording among my near 9000 recording.... oufff...

I never listen rock, pop or commercial music tough...

I feel it unlistenable even if less bad recorded...Sorry...

listening that remind me why?

But it was better to listen Hendrix on the original FIRST of his recording when i had 16 years old... I never forget ... I remember Cream also vividly...The sound impression...

All systems are imperfect. That is they cannot perfectly reproduce the signal fed into them. Therefore the sound that comes out will be judged either ’better’ or ’worse’ at reproducing that signal. The systems that are ’better’ will be improving the sound of the (poor) recording.

You are right here....

Therefore a system could be designed that would process poor recordings to sound like good ones.

But sorry for me you are wrong here completely...

A bad recortding erased by bad choices of the recording engineer too much of   the "acoustic cues" by too much manipulation or too much effects added, the original acoustic lived event is lost in the recording process... This is why we call it a bad recording...

No audio system will change that ever...But a top audio system will make EVIDENT the trade-off choices of the recording engineer and will even reveal what has been add to traffick the sound acoustic of the original lived event...

A bad recording stay bad but MAY become interesting acoustically way more listenable because "interesting" now even if they stay what they are : bad...

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 ... 

There's a reason why the epithet "forgiving" is quite high up there in the audiophile vocabulary.

In a poor recording a system can't reproduce something that is not there. An "accurate" system will play the good and the bad. It is not designed to fix the bad just reproduce what is in the recording.

For me it depends on what makes a mediocre recording mediocre, by the way, I'd judge a large proportion of recordings as mediocre. I've found mediocre recordings that formerly had timbre, sound staging and/or were less resolving have become much more listenable. A highly resolving system with more natural timbre or tonality will uncover information previously unheard, and presents recordings in a more forgiving manner. Recordings with these defects become more involving.

Quashed micro dynamics is one defect that's been heightened by a more resolving system. I find far too many digitally mastered recordings to suffer this malady, I can only take these recording in small doses, consecutive plays of these recordings causes me to lose interest, have to return to known high quality recordings to return to involving listening session.

Poor recordings remain poor, no help can be found for these.

Not this week.

For me it depends on what makes a mediocre recording mediocre, by the way, I’d judge a large proportion of recordings as mediocre. I’ve found mediocre recordings that formerly had timbre, sound staging and/or were less resolving have become much more listenable. A highly resolving system with more natural timbre or tonality will uncover information previously unheard, and presents recordings in a more forgiving manner. Recordings with these defects become more involving.

 

Quashed micro dynamics is one defect that’s been heightened by a more resolving system. I find far too many digitally mastered recordings to suffer this malady, I can only take these recording in small doses, consecutive plays of these recordings causes me to lose interest, have to return to known high quality recordings to return to involving listening session.

 

Poor recordings remain poor, no help can be found for these.

Great post and i concur with each words....

IMHO, the answer to this question depends on what you think sounds good. If you are a purist, who strives for a neutral system that reproduces honestly the source material, then a lousy recording will sound lousy. Lousy recordings can be compressed dynamics, mediocre soundstage , poor frequency response, etc…no neutral system will change any of these things. However, some systems, either knowingly or innocently to the  owner may modify some of these things, perhaps subjectively to the better , to the owners delight. As always, the hobby is about the owners pleasure, so different stokes for different folks…

I listen to all of my music on hand (vinyl collection).  There are definitely some better sounding records than others.  There are incredible sounding records, too.  And there are a few that are just terrible sounding.  I still listen to all of it.  However, those lesser sounding records just sound better to my ears when the volume is adjusted accordingly.  That is to say, for lesser quality recordings I listen with the volume lower than I do for the high-quality recordings.  It seems to work better for my ears and allows me to have a more enjoyable listening session.

My system is quite good and is revealing, and my room is fairly well treated.  I get from the records what they have to offer.  Again, I adjust the volume accordingly and enjoy my record collection in its entirety.

Definitely yes, but better recording always will sound better. :)

I have a big investment in my front end. But the most significant improvement came when I added another $10K to my $3K cartridge. (Analog only system-Lyra Atlas SL) Granted, the rest of my system was up to the level of the Lyra.

It pulled so much more information out of the groves that almost every LP now, at least, sounded interesting and listenable. Now, only the rate exceptional LP sounded “bad”.

IME, there is no question that the better the system, the better the sound.

However, I also believe that a system must be at a certain level to reap these rewards.

@heretobuy 

very good choise playing some young Ry Cooder. Not bad, not mediocre, just very fine recordings and music. Classics.

@clearthinker

Therefore a system could be designed that would process poor recordings to sound like good ones. But the changes made would render the performance different from the original recording.

Isn’t this also what modern TVs do?

Re-interpretate and reimagine the signal being fed into them?

When you look at some of the new OLED screens, they are indeed impressive, but you would have call them realistic.

Hyper-realistic, maybe.

@sns

Poor recordings remain poor, no help can be found for these.

Agreed.

Perhaps the best thing to do with those is ( the vast majority) is to downscale the playback equipment to something with reduced bandwidth, scale and resolution, a bit like using soft focus photography, where they may appear benign and acceptable.

Aren’t these low bandwidth, low resolution recordings always likely to sound better on equipment such as boomboxes, car stereos, jukeboxes and smartphones rather than high resolution, high bandwidth equipment that they were never designed for?

In fact, just how many producers (Joe Meeek, Jerry Wexler, Phil Spector, George Martin, Brian Wilson, Mickie Most, Brian Eno, Quincy Jones, Rick Rubin etc) even considered audiophiles in mind when they were recording?

I’d argue that when it comes to audio resolution is clearly a two edged sword, and that is precisely why some of us attach far more importance to the faithful reproduction of timbre.

All recordings benefit from this but not all systems can deliver.

The trouble with this "it's not the system it's the room" argument is that the good recordings and the mediocre recordings are both being played in the same room. Moreover, it is the same room as my upgraded-from system. I fail to see what difference the room would make in comparing one recording to another in the same room. Judging from what some people spend on gear I'm sure some of them could afford different rooms to listen to different records, but that is not a lead I am in. A better system makes all recordings sound better than they were, but they all finish in the same order as before in terms of recording quality.

The Ry Cooder record is indeed a good choice, but I made it back in the 1970s when I bought it. Speaking of good choices, one thing I learned now that I have heard just about all of the original versions of the songs he covered, that whatever you think of him as a musician, he sure knew how to pick them. Something very interesting could be written about folk singers as music critics, based on their choice of material. 

The ultimate example of the difference digital mastering can make is a comparison of the first, second and third generations of the Complete Robert Johnson, the last of which is an absolute revelation. I think they might have had the original metal parts for that one. The ultimate test would be if someone had a pristine set of original 78s to compare it with, possibly to be found next to the Arc of the Covenant in that big warehouse at the end of the Indiana Jones movie.

I'm perfectly willing to turn the volume down if it'll make the music I want to hear more listenable.  By the same token, if I don't particularly care for the music but I'm compelled to listen because it's been recorded so insanely well, I'll turn it up and pretend I just don't hear my wife's "Turn that down!" shrieks.

@larsman - im not sure that I fully understand your question, but let me give it a shot - what I mean is that it is very easy to determine what a good recording is, because it will sound good, even on lesser sound/room systems. On the other hand, it is very difficult to determine if a recording is actually poor, because every level up the chain of resolving sound/room systems will bring ever smaller changes that will reveal ever more information regarding the subtle acoustics of the recording venue, ie, making the particular track sound more realistic, in bringing you to the place where the recording happened. For many of us, ‘good’ resides purely in the accuracy of instrument or voice reproduction as timbre and tone, timing, and what we like to refer to as the lowest amount of signal distortion. I have found that a better way of putting it has to include ‘….the accuracy of instrument and voice reproduction in the specific venue of the actual recording’ for the simple fact that almost every recording venue subtly (or unsubtly) changes the sound signatures of voice and instrumentation. A good example of unsubtle change can be found in Yukie Nagai’s last movement of Beethoven’s moonlight sonata, where better systems are able to parse the echo of the recording venue in transforming the somewhat ‘clouded’ sound that masks the venue on poor sound/room systems. A considerably more difficult recording to translate is Delia Fischer’s ‘choro de pai’, a small ensemble track that had the recording equipment placed such that the depth of field and separation of the instruments can only be heard on very very well power supplied and resolving sound/room systems. I am of the belief that the only truly bad recordings are the ones that have undergone so much post-production sound engineering so as to present parodies of the instruments, and of voices. A good example of this can be found in billy joel’s ‘New York state of mind’, but even so, it is still listenable with a better system. However, I have found that the bulk of what many refer to as ‘poor’ recordings are actually those among the likes of the Nagai and Fischer examples I gave - the Fischer example, especially, is one track I do not believe I have heard in all its nuance of recorded acoustic accuracy of venue, because of the greater depth of field, air, and separation I hear in it, with every greater sound/room system I have been lucky to hear it played back on.

My list of ‘poor’ recordings became eroded so much over time, I began to realise that in the world of unoverly sound engineered albums, there are actually very few recordings I should dismiss as bad, for the reason my sound/room system may not (yet) be good enough to playback the subtlest cues of reverberation, decay and atmospheric quality that we call realism. It is for this reason that I said a truly poor recording is very difficult to identify.

in friendship, kevin.

You are confused here...

FIRST : Acoustic control of a room improve ANY system to the roof...

Lower cost one and higher cost one...

SECOND : no room acoustic will transform an audio system of less good design in a better design...

THIRD : the distance between a relatively good basic audio system and a higher costly one is not what most people think ... WHY ? Because they had NEVER listen to a basic good system in a controlled room... To improve the system in their head the only way is to throw money on a top high-end design...Yes the top high end design will be better BUT NOT BY THE HUGE MARGIN PEOPLE HOPE FOR...

FOUR: the goal is to improve the way any recording can give the best : it is acoustic the best way IF WE HAD ALREADY SETTLE OURSELF ON A CHOSEN AUDIO SYSTEM RELAQTIVELY TO OUR WALLET ...

We dont discuss in the sky here theoretically and dont put simplistic argument like a 50,000 bucks amplifier will make a greater positive difference than my 2,000 bucks Sansui AU 7700 in the SAME ROOM ( paid 50 bicks yes i am lucky) For sure the more costly amplifier will do a better job in the same room ...

The main point is we must invest few bucks in acoustic generally if you are not sure we CAN give 50,000 bucks for an upgrade...And even if we can pay for a costly gear and that is my point, the acoustic control PROBABLY will be a greater choice and improvement if the amplifier we already have is very good...

Is it not simple?

The trouble with this "it’s not the system it’s the room" argument is that the good recordings and the mediocre recordings are both being played in the same room. Moreover, it is the same room as my upgraded-from system. I fail to see what difference the room would make in comparing one recording to another in the same room.

@kevn - Holy cow - thanks for that big writeup and explanation! I was just a bit confused about how something can still sound good when other factors would indicate that it shouldn't, and often doesn't. 

But I might add that I also do a lot of listening on headphones, where those environmental factors do not come into consideration, and you can certainly tell quite easily whether it's a ratty sounding source or not....

I owned 8 headphones, and i modified with success all of them...

But my speakers/room beat them anyway... Why?

Because headphones ALSO own a "room"... The shell reflect absorb and diffuse sound like a room did...

Headphones also vibrates like the gear vibrate , suffer from too high electrical noise level floor like the gear and they had problem of their own with soundstaging, bass and dynamic... The ratio between crosstalk and crossfeed cannot be solved in the same way than speakers...But in the two cases it is a problem to solve...

It is the reason why after many years i give speakers another try...But this time i experimented with acoustic,vibration control and created my devices to lessen electrical noise...

Then headphones are very good solution because it is simpler solution ... But not a perfect solution for all....

But I might add that I also do a lot of listening on headphones, where those environmental factors do not come into consideration, and you can certainly tell quite easily whether it’s a ratty sounding source or not....

@larsman - thanks for that, but it was my pleasure : ) - and the acoustic venue I was referring to was not the listening venue, but the original venue the recording took place in - and this will have effect played back on headphones or speakers - more so on speakers/sound/room system for the greatest impact on perceived sound field perhaps, but the same issues of greater realism still apply to headphones : )

in friendship - kevin

I have found that a better way of putting it has to include ‘….the accuracy of instrument and voice reproduction in the specific venue of the actual recording’ for the simple fact that almost every recording venue subtly (or unsubtly) changes the sound signatures of voice and instrumentation.

Very important observation thanks

I am of the belief that the only truly bad recordings are the ones that have undergone so much post-production sound engineering so as to present parodies of the instruments, and of voices.

verry well explained thanks...

My list of ‘poor’ recordings became eroded so much over time, I began to realise that in the world of unoverly sound engineered albums, there are actually very few recordings I should dismiss as bad, for the reason my sound/room system may not (yet) be good enough to playback the subtlest cues of reverberation, decay and atmospheric quality that we call realism. It is for this reason that I said a truly poor recording is very difficult to identify.

You explained way better than me the fact that better the system is and better the speakers room is controlled alleged "bad" recordings become "interesting" yes and the numbers of alleged "bad " recordings decrease because our GEAR/room improve and manifest ALL acoustic recorded cues in the acoustic language of our room ...

This confirm what i speak about already:

There is no perfect reproduction in recording engineering, but A TRANSLATION of some acoustic original perspective and trade-off choices by the recording engineer INTO another acoustic context : the speakers/room/ears relation...

Resolving power of gear is not synonymus of better sound either because all other acoustic cues matter also not only frequencies resolution ....

Thanks for this marvellous post...

Thank you for your kind words, mahgister : ) 

I had try to explain that for longtime but i could not be clear like you are WITH PRECISE RECORDING EXEMPLES...

And your experience confirm mine, than i am not "nut" nor alone...

Or perhaps we are two "nuts" for the price of one here?

😁😊

My speakers are better than headphones because, among other things, headphones don't have a subwoofer.

wine and thc brownies are so much effective than an expensive hifi to make suck-ey recordings sound really awesome... (or so i have heard...) 🤣😂😅😆

I recently tested A) a ca 3500 usd active small speaker system at a holiday house for some weeks, compared to B) my main system at home with amps and floorstanding speakers, costing a lot more. B sounds much better. But I knew this from before, so on this holiday I brought my "secret weapon", speaker stands, to the A system.

The old rule about speaker positioning was dramatically confirmed, more than I had expected. I could micro-adjust the speakers and stands, on a concrete floor (ideal). The A system now turned from "lower mid-level at best" to "fairly good". Good recordings now sounded quite good, and mediocre recordings sounded a bit better - easier to get into, understand - than before.

Afterwards, coming home, I listened to the B system. It does sound much better. Mediocre recordings sound better and many of the bad ones sound less bad. The B system excels in "in-room" energy, with more reverberant sound than the A system. Also it uses expensive tube amping rather than low cost solid state (so it is an unfair comparison, yet interesting).

One major difference is that B has a richer timbre, so it is easier to hear what goes on, simultaneously, at different frequencies. I can listen more deeply into different voices and instruments. The B system is maybe a bit "warm" or "euphonic", but the amps are OTL, known to be quite analytical (within the tube camp). So B sounds almost as "sharp" as the pinpoint A system, only in a different way.

I have not tested exactly, but roughly, I would guess that if 50 percent of my LPs sounds OK on the A system (precisely positioned on stands, only 30 percent without!), 70-80 percent sounds OK on the B system.

So it seems that many poor or non-optimal recordings can be "saved" by better timbre. Better timbre makes it easier to listen for the good stuff, away from the faults (even if these are also often more pronounced in a good system). It makes music more coherent and cohesive. Thereby also, solid state and digital hard sound can be counteracted, if not fully corrected.

At the same time, my experiment indicates that you don’t need costly speakers to improve the sound. Much can be done with the speakers available. My guess is that many here at Audiogon would re-discover their LP collections (or streaming), if they worked more with the speaker positioning and other acoustic control. If you position (and maybe damp) your speakers right, you will get a richer and wider timbre. This is an overlooked dimension I think. Forget about exact flat frequency,  timing, PRAT etc, - instead, go for the timbre. Not sure about this - but maybe a way forward.

A great system makes good recordings, sound amazing. Listening to anything not meeting that standard, will be played once and put back in its case. never to be heard again. Once you hear what you think is perfect, how can you listen to anything less. So yes to good systems making good recordings sound great. And bad recordings sounding ok at best 

@o_holter

"At the same time, my experiment indicates that you don’t need costly speakers to improve the sound. Much can be done with the speakers available. My guess is that many here at Audiogon would re-discover their LP collections (or streaming), if they worked more with the speaker positioning and other acoustic control. If you position (and maybe damp) your speakers right, you will get a richer and wider timbre. This is an overlooked dimension I think. Forget about exact flat frequency, timing, PRAT etc, - instead, go for the timbre. Not sure about this - but maybe a way forward."

------

Yes, I’d also say positioning really matters. My Tannoys sounded heavy and muddy when placed on the floor. I was so disappointed that I began to doubt my sanity in buying a 1970s speaker.

After a few days, mainly to avoid the prospect of selling them on, I tried placing them on some IKEA benches that served as stands and this helped the soundstage enormously.

The last mod was to put some sorbothane under the feet and this was another jump forward in sound.

Suddenly the bass began to play notes!

So I’d say it matters, in fact with some designs it’s more or less critical.

When it comes to good timbre though things are not so clear as I've heard some quite expensive speakers sound "bleached out" and at the other end I've heard good timbre coming from some TVs and iPads etc.

[The last speakers I heard that had good timbre were the Kudos Titans].

Hello lcs01.You can tell by the many responses - Great Question! By "a great system" I think you mean a system that reveals ALL of what the recording engineers give us. This is a dangerous as seeing a new girl friend without her makeup and supportive clothng. I have some recordings made "in the field" under less than ideal circumstances. It's the only way I can hear this music, so I can ignore the "sound" and enjoy the rhythm, instruments, and voices. A good system tells the truth and the truth is not always pretty. A friend of mine brought over some of his favorite music and was horrified to hear how it sounded on my system! It's not his favorite music anymore. But he could have kept it and just listened to it at home - it's how we feel about what we hear that matters. Some people talk about "forgiving" speakers. Maybe "everything" is not what they want to hear. Some folks want to hear the sneeze in the back row of the audience X number of minutes and seconds of a particular recording; or a dropped mute by a clumsy trumpet player. I just want to hear the music.

I'd never want a system that could only sound great with the best recordings. To that end I've always voiced my systems to sound GOOD with mediocre recordings since this is where the vast majority of music resides. As I and others have mentioned, get the timbre, tonality right and  mediocre recordings can be involving, great recording simply follow along and become even more involving.

Mostly, I want my system to be musical, certainly I seek maximum resolution but not at the price of musical, I do believe these are not mutually exclusive goals.

a great system is a system that plays the music the owner likes to listen to beautifully... where different recordings have different qualities, it is up to the owner to construct the system to handle the range of variation ... numerous ways to meet this challenge... here is one...

A great system makes good recordings, sound amazing. Listening to anything not meeting that standard, will be played once and put back in its case. never to be heard again. 

Why is that? The Greatest performances can be on poor recordings. 

It’s true that a better system can make even the most poorly recorded, mixed, pressed album sound better, but it’s still not going to sound really good, only better.

JD

petg30 - I agree - we are going wrong, if we dont listen to great performances.

cd318 - thank you - i would emphasise my point a bit more. We had cheap but adjustable stands. In another system I use solid heavy stands for the small speakers, but these cannot be adjusted. The experiment with the A system showed that positioning, including height, toe-in, distance etc, means A LOT. And with a cheap height-adjustable stand, not so heavy, you can fine-tune the speaker position, before evt investing in a more expensive stand.

Headphone part of discussion; sadly I never really became friends with my Stax electrostat phones. Or with subdued Sennheisers or too analytical AKGs etc. For now, I've settled on Audioquest Nightowl and Nighthawk phones. These are very comfortable and forgiving, but offer a lot of musical information too.

its funny 

there was a thread not long ago about what is an audiophile vs a music lover...

think the answer is right here

I like the question.  My bias would be to answer "No" but as my system gets better and I pull CDs off the shelf that I do not have fond memories of I hfind they are more listenable

Systems that scrape every last detail off of whatever media you have tend to overemphasize higher frequency detail… which ends up being unnaturally harsh and details are highlighted. These systems either just make bad recordings sound bad but also distract from good recordings. This is one of the many balancing acts in building and upgrading your system. A bit more emphasis on musicality and a bit less on detail scraping and you have a system that makes nearly everything sound great. It took me decades to get there, but finally arrived. See my UserID for my system.

Find someone with some omnidirectional speakers e.g. ohm, or open baffles or wide dispersion box speakers take a listen and decide for yourself.  You will get a different experience than the typical box speaker.

A more correct statement by the salesman would have been:  "a really high end system can make most mediocre recordings more enjoyable to listen to."

While we can't expect a great system to file down all the "warts" in a bad recording, we can expect that if there are latent redeeming qualities in those recordings a better system will extract them and toss them out in the listening room for all to hear.  (Yes, room acoustics matter, too).

We are involved in performance modifications, and always perform before/after listening tests with our customers.  We put together a reference CD that includes well recorded music -- AND, intentionally, a sampling of poor recordings.  Improvements in sound quality produce a more organic, fluid sound with more authority, and less harshness, strain, and edginess.  All these improvements are "friendly" to a bad recording, not acting as microscope revealing every flaw, in my opinion, provided there IS something more to the recording that we're not hearing on a lesser system.  In our experience, the bad recordings sound much more musical, and less repellent after our performance upgrades.

Another overlooked element is the physical media itself.  My experience with the Audio Desk CD cutter along with Ultrabit treatments has been eye, and ear, opening.  I understand the term "analog-sounding" is overused, but results on my favorite recordings were astounding.  On the subject of bad recordings, my wife ordered a compilation on CD that was downright unlistenable (to me).  I thought I'd have nothing to lose by trying the "full CD treatment" on one of the discs.  Much to my surprise, the CD had greatly reduced, harshness, improved dynamic range, and more balance.  I can actually sit in the room with her and listen to them now. Without prompt from me, she mentioned that the CDs sound much better than  before. 

As waytoomuchstuff sez... Find a balance. Seek friendly improvements. After all, didn't you fork over all that cash to better enjoy the music?

With an accurate system, you have to get to your head into "context" to enjoy them.  Many recordings of particular era are limited by technology and share a family sound- say English recordings of the 70s and early 80s or US recordings of the 60s/70s or 80s.  Motown records are a great example of a shared sound.  There are some notable exceptions of the era, records that sound very raw. and unprocessed.  Satana's first album comes to mind on a good system!