Can a great system make a mediocre recording sound good?

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...