Quality system, make poor recordings sound better?

I believe to me that is the holy grail . The high order harmonics he spoke of .
How does one go about eliminating the stress from those frequencies . For me it
was proper amps on my electrostatic speaker , along with using a passive pre . I
had thought it was the recordings i listened to that was the problem . Now all
seem to be in the same league with each other . Newer popular recordings sound
pretty darn good (compressed and all) just need to slightly turn the volume
down V.S. hifi recordings .

"I use bad recordings as a yeardstick to tell me how I am doing. IME, a system can 'editorialize' and can often react poorly to poor recordings, and also recordings with lots of energy."

I agree with this.

Like I said, keep noise and distortion, high order harmonic and otherwise, to a minimum, and it all works out.

Based on some of the above answers I have concluded that some people don't know when to leave well enough alone, I am such a person. I have tweaked my system to be more revealing and extended. Using high resolution silver interconnects connected to high definition gear, add a few aftermarket power cords coupled with horn loaded speakers and I think one has got a recipe for disaster at least when it comes to poor recordings. Even the concert-hall pianist that lived with me for a short period of time pointed out it all sounded very good but there was too much high frequency information coming through for her liking and suggested I turn the treble down. I told her I don't have tone controls but I have made a few changes since then to warm the system up.

Sometime back I do know that it was recommended from a audiophile buddy that I try Krell. I called Krell and they said we love to sell you a Krell amp but with your speakers it would be the kiss of death. So as Maplegrovemusic mentioned it is all about well thought out tweaks that will enhance your current system and make it more listenable at least with poor recordings.

If you have a largish and diverse music collection it ultimately comes down to being a balancing act. You don't want soft and pleasant, but you also don't want electron microscope grade resolution. Over time you'll learn what works best for you.

To the extent that some of the problems with poorer recordings are frequency response based, a big plus for HD based digital playback is the availability of transparent, highly flexible and easy to use EQ solutions.

Bruce Springsteen's "Nebraska" and PJ Harvey's "4 Track Demos" are wonderful performances. Both were recorded with inexpensive mics using cassette recorders and they really don't sound very good. Rather than highlight the problems with these records I want a system that captures the energy and soulfulness of the performers.

A system can be "better" in terms of extension and resolution, but not distortion, and that can make a large number of recordings sound bad.

But my goal is to improve through lower distortion wherever the case, as tough as it is to do. And I mean the important distortions, ringing in analog front ends, intermodulation on speakers, ringing tweeters on speakers, etc. And by doing this I find I get much more detail, more insight into the performance, yet much more listening ease at the same time. And I find that a larger number of recordings sound better, not just a few.

Offsetting colorations, the old "yin and yang" theory, does not get you there as each coloration is a distortion. When you decide to live with colored (in a more than average sense) components you are just stacking up more distortion, so while you might get a semblance of "neutral tonality", it will be loaded with distortion, and not easy or fulfilling to listen to.

There is no such thing as a neutral, balanced system that is "so accurate it is hard to listen to on most records". That is a system that is the opposite, it has veered from neutrality.