Quality system, make poor recordings sound better?


I notice that as I move up the audio chain, poor CD recordings sound worse and the good ones sound superb, should this be the case? Also I on any given day my system sounds different even with the same CDs. Any thoughts on this as well?
phd
A good system should clearly highlight the differences in recording quality, but it shouldn't make a significant number of record sound so bad as not to be listenable. It would be kind of a foolish hobby to end up with an expensive system that makes the majority of your record collection sound bad.

Throughout the day your body is in a constant state of flux and it effects your ability to hear.

Radio Shack mixers in "good" studios? Please.
I could see live venue recordings having sound quality all across the board . Not controlled environments to mic up and room acoustics playing a big part . IE Classical and jazz recordings
Please reread my response regarding radio shack equipment. I was making a point (clearly I thought) regarding quality of sound recording equipment so that you could see an extreme example of how it would be virtually impossible for anyone with a decent system to not hear the poor recording quality of cheap recoding equipment, vs the same performance recorded with top of the line equipment. Also, many recording artists didn't and still don't have much of a say as to what was recorded, how it is recorded and distributed. So, to say they wouldn't let the poor recording be distributed is missing the point of "they were not in charge and didn't decide". Also, another point is that the playback equipment and speakers in some recording/playback booths were not close to the stuff audiophiles have in their homes, and many times they simply didn't hear the poor recording quality. Also, please remember that I was referring to really poor recording equipment of the early 80s. If you go back an re-read some articles regarding the types of digital recording media used in those times, you would see clearly that they were described as terrible. That is what I am talking about regarding poor recording equipment. Also, go read some audio/music magazines that describe recording equipment in use today and from the 60's and you will see much mention of the quality of the various mikes, from absolutely terrible to masterful. It depends on the experience and knowledge of the master recording engineer. All are not the same. So, yes, you will hear poor recording in your playback equipment's sound. Some equipment mask and some really show it. For example (sorry for the long post), My previous pre-amp was the excellent Audio Research SP 11, which before I upgraded, I compared directly with an Audio Research REF 3 pre-amp. Didn't change anything but the pre-amps. Some recordings using the SP 11 sounded pretty good, but when listening through the REF 3 the same recording sounded really bad. You could really hear the poor recording quality through the REF 3 that was slightly masked with the SP11. but the excellent recordings sounded great on both. I was surprised. And as it turned out, it was typically with older cd's that I heard this. sorry for the long post, but I really thought I was clear in my extreme example regarding radio shack quality equipment vs top of the line. I never said recording engineers actually did this, I was making an example that would be easy to understand.

enjoy
No, to the basic question. In fact, poor recordings can become unlistenable in a really definitive system. However, I have heard some older tube based systems that seemed to be kind to just about anything that came their way. All the more reason to have multiple systems if one can afford the luxury of space and expense.