As system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?

As system quality improves, it becomes increasingly difficult to make lesser quality recordings sound agreeable. However, since this is all about MUSIC, the essence and spirit of the performance can be brought out regardless. Any system must have a SOLID foundation of the three pillars of audio: 1)power 2)acoustics 3)resonance control. Per a phone conversation on this particular subject with Albert Porter a few years ago, he told me that his system could successfully play any recording, but that any change could take him up to a month of tweaking to get it back on this track.

I don't know if they consistently sound worse or not, but as my system improved it became clearer why a certain recordings are "bad".

"As system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?"

Absolutely NOT.

How can a system be viewed upon as 'improving' when it makes ones cd's sound worse? DOH.

(well, maybe if one has bad speakers to start with that need well recorded material to shine, and owners to meekly try and justify a mega buck price tag).

Absolutely, not...after chasing the audio gods for a few years, I settled on Conrad Johnson + Proac combo...haven't heard a bad recording since then

There seems to be quite a difference of opinion so far, ranging from "most definitely yes" to "absolutely not" to "it depends on the recording." I wonder what accounts for the discrepancy. Maybe it's a consequence of different audiophile priorities and the differences in the systems they assemble as a result of those priorities. In the March 2010 TAS, Jonathan Valin said this about audiophile priorities:

...there are three kinds of listeners (though these types tend to overlap): first, those who primarily want recorded instruments and voices to sound like live music - what I can the "absolute sound" type; second, those who want to hear exactly what has been recorded, whether it's lifelike or not - what I call the "fidelity to mastertapes" type; and third, those who could care less about the absolute sound or mastertapes and just want to hear their music sounding thrilling and beautiful - what I call the "as you like it" type.

As I see it, the first kind of audiophile above prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. The second prioritizes ACCURACY to the software. And the third prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it.

How does this bear on the question in the OP? Here's a theory...

For the audiophile who prioritizes ACCURACY to the software, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings tend to sound worse as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more accurate.

For the audiophile who prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings tend to sound better as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more musical.

For the audiophile who prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings sometimes sound better, sometimes sound worse (depending upon the particulars of the recording), as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more transparent.

Jonathan Valin, for example, seems to prioritize musicality and transparency more than accuracy. As a result, he says:

I've never fully understood why a piece of gear has to periodically make records sound "bad" to pass audiophile muster.

Of course, other reviewers and other audiophiles have different priorities, and the systems they assemble reflect those priorities. That is why different systems handle bad recordings differently. And that accounts for the variation in opinion expressed in this thread.

Thoughts?