Isn't it really about quality of recording?

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.

Just today, Sonny Rollins  -  Saxophone Colossus.  Analogue Productions and QRP pressing, reissue.  Outstanding sonic quality, from a 1957 recording session.  If only all of the 60s and 70s classic rock sounded this good.  Some are great, but most are not.  Fortunately, there is enough well recorded/mastered/plated/pressed music to really enjoy my high-fidelity system for what it has to offer.  But still, I enjoy the music that is not so great in SQ, for the music that it is.  My system allows it to sound relatively good.  I just adjust the volume accordingly (i.e., a bit lower).  

It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording. It's good to concetrate on the music and not the "sound."  We keep improving our systems so that when we do get a good recording, it ia a genuine treat!

Keep Smiling!