Isn't it really about quality of recording?

I built both mercilessly revealing and golden glow systems in years past. Golden systems could play only certain recordings, mercilessly revealing system certain others. Choices of recordings played was often imperceptible, it would only be in the long term I'd notice the limited choices made. After having experienced both extremes long term, defects of both eventually become intolerable, at this point I sought  another path.

The problem is not that revealing is inherently merciless, rather revealing CAN be merciless if sound qualities such as timbre and/or harmonic development is lacking or unnatural. I do continue to seek maximum resolution/transparency, but the timbre, harmonic development  capabilities must be top notch as well. I'd evaluate my favorite flavor as being just the tiniest bit warm of neutral, can hear full potential of great recordings, allows vast majority of mediocre recordings to be enjoyable, even low end of mediocre very tolerable, poor should rightly remain in intolerable category.

In my case, SET amps, DHT preamp, high efficiency horn loudspeakers have been the magic elixir. I won't argue subjective pathways others take, all good in my book.

Another aspect of tubes I don't think has been brought up in this thread, is tube equipment usage in recording studios. Some of my favorite sound recordings are from the era of tube recording equipment. This was era of essentially live in studio recording, not all this multi track, recording individual players at separate times and patching together. Some of the old studios were wonderful sounding venues and the natural resonance and harmonic development of tube recording equipment provided wonderful recordings. So many of the best recordings of that era both wonderfully lush, resolving and transparent, have to play some of this stuff every listening session. I often then segue into 60's, 70's era SS recording equipment era, quite a different perspective! And then further segue into digital recording era, yet another perspective. All have unique inherent qualities, yet they still retain difference and hiearchies within those eras.My take is a good system should be able to provide an engaging listen with most recordings from all eras.

@sns

I often hear talk about bad recordings and good recordings, but what are the particular qualities that qualify a recording as bad or good for you?

Here are mine. I expect them to differ for others.

What bothers me most about a recording is bad tonal balance. Screechy violins or vocals. Scratchy vocals. Shrieky vocals. Booming or almost nonexistent bass. There are plenty of examples of such recordings, which is why I always have an EQ in my system.

Next comes lack of overall transparency, but that may be redundant, as it’s often caused by lack of information at the frequency extremes.

Imaging and sounstaging? I enjoy them when they are good, but lack of perfection rarely bothers me.

+2 for bigtwin. +1 for the comment, +1 for the chuckle. 

Since we are rating comments I would like to give a special recognition to rumi for a really nice Industry behind the scenes View.  I would also like to give participation awards for all those who commented herein.  Very much appreciated. And of course a special recognition to ghdprentice who always offers invaluable insights to all kinds of situations. 
 

@jumia 

Thank you. Always my intent.