Quality system, make poor recordings sound better?

This phenomena is something us old-timers have been discussing for decades. This suggests to me that the OP might be a relative newcomer to the hobby. IMO there's 2 schools of thought. The 1st being that a system can be so ruthlessly revealing that it reveals all the shortcomings inherent in the original recordings. The 2nd being that a system has a, for lack of a better word, 'euphonic' sound quality that helps the overall sound of any recording. These are 2 extremes with most systems falling somewhere 'in between'. The debate has raged about accuracy vs. musicality forever and will continue to do so but I think it all comes down to personal taste and the gear one buys based on those preferences. The thought just occurred to me that I learned so much about all this stuff from Harry Pearson during the 80's when I 1st got into this hobby. Thx HP, RIP!

" 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."

I agree. If it can't get the most out of whatever you got, what's the point? Fortunately, it can. If it doesn't, then there is something else going on. The possibilities there are endless. Only a few ways to get things right, many ways to get things wrong.

Alot of studios use ATC scm50 monitors that cost over 20k . So all this talk about studios using inferior equipment is not true . The founder of Stereophile magazine stated the ATC were the closest thing to live sound he heard in his home.

Try listening between 2 and 4 AM, least electrical junk on line most places.

The true test of a good system is that you want to listen for hours on end and "recording quality" is not a deterrent but just part of the artistic presentation.

Also I don;t agree it can't be revealing and musical. It can. Just keep noise and distortion to a minimum. Then what is revealed is only what was intended. YMMV.