Can a great system make a mediocre recording sound good?

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.