How much is about the recording

Tomcarr and tooblue, for comparison, would you mind providing a few examples of recordings you have that fall into each of your A, B, C, and D categories. Don’t know what you listen to, but if you could pick a few examples of recordings that are fairly commonplace, and many of us might be likely to have, that might be helpful. For myself that would be among other things ’50’s-70’s jazz (Charlie Parker through to Weather Report) and rock ’n roll from the 60’s-70’s (Bill Haley and the Comets through to the Sex Pistols). Thanks,

Mike

I have a mixture of new, used and vintage equipment in my entry-level system. My listening space is the exact opposite of what an acoustically appropriate listening room should be. I am also approaching 70 with some hearing loss in my right ear. And despite all of these audio limitations, a well engineered and produced recording will stand out and be a joy to listen to. I find this slightly more obvious on analog recordings, but good digital recordings are obvious even streaming via Blue Tooth. 

I doubt anyone on this thread, or site, has a shite system, so yes, it all about the recording.  Why do some recording have a soundstage that goes out way past the speakers, and other are compressed to the point of almost sounding like mono recordings? Or ones that have everything coming directly from the speakers and the center is empty?  Great recordings are fantastic, and it's a slippery slope from that point on down.  As the adage goes, you can't polish a turd.  

@bigtwin  +1

I’m pretty happy with my kit, so it’s all about the music.  Now, for example,  I can  listen to Mozart, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and notice the difference’s between various recordings.