Isn't it really about quality of recording?

A friend and fellow recording engineer once said "Digital lets you hear the engineering mistakes much better than analog".

I've heard magnificent Hot 7 remasters and crappy new work on several what to me are pretty good systems.

Always remember: GIGO.

I asked a dealer this question a long time ago when looking for an amplifier. I said, "You know,we spend all this money on our systems but what about source material?" He just looked at me and shrugged. What gets me is the vast difference in recording quality from various artists. As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.

As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.

Which is why at audio shows-despite the complaints by reviewers-the same old recordings get played. Nils' "Keith Don't Go" (mocked as "Keef, Don't Go"), SRV's "Tobacco Road, Dianna Krall, Patricia Barber, Dead Can Dance's "Into the Labyrinth", etc. Twenty years ago it was "Hotel California" along with stuff off of Aja and Brothers in Arms. And many others. 

Some old favorite recordings that always sounded fine on my old system really do sound terrible on my much improved new system. I’ve mentioned it before, but when the deficits in the recordings of the original vinyl pressings of Layla and Let It Bleed were revealed on my new system they both were almost unlistenable, Layla being the worst of the two. Other recordings were a revelation on the new system.

So agreeing with jumia, there is a lot of the sound you’re hearing that’s embedded in the quality of the recording you’re listening to. That’s both for better or worse, once the nature of the recording is more accurately revealed. Nothing you can do about it, other than looking for better source material. Replacing the two recordings mentioned above with remastered SACD’s helped some.

Thinking all your recordings will sound better on an expensive improved system is wishful thinking. The bulk of your recordings should sound better though. Some of those old 1950’s jazz recordings in particular have been pleasant surprises.

My opinion, there are two aspects of "a recording".  Probably more.  The Technical and the Performance.

There is a YouTube video claiming "the best 'recording' of Chopin...."  Horowitz's performance was impeccable.  The recording was horrible.  A Casio electric piano with its 3" speakers comes to mind. 

A poorly performed piece will never pass.  No matter how well recorded.

Yes, the Technical very important.  But don't forget the Artist's performance.  I may forgive a poor recorded piece for an exceptional Performance.  Lol, but there is a limit to how much I will forgive.