As system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?

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?

The difference in opinions is because the professional is able to compensate the idiosyncracies of his equipment. I can get my system to successfully play any recording of any music genre, regarding of its quality because...

"High end is who you are, not what you buy."

With psychic power and primal intensity,

this discussion has not included a statement of definition of poor recordings.

i attempted to suggest at least a connotation of a bad recording, and given such a definition, it is then necessary to define what improvement menas.

if one assumes that "improves" means, less errors in frequency response, then it follows that a recording with errors in frequency response will become more evident.

for some this situation is indicative of a better stereo system, but clearly the flaws in a recording could be fatiguing.

Moving from a warm system to a neutral and highly resolving setup can make recordings seem to sound thin and strident in some cases. I always measure system improvements by whether good recordings sound better.

One theory: As your system improved, you simply became more aware of what those recordings actually sounded like, and with time "acclimated" to their sound.

To disprove this theory you could define specifically what made the recordings sound bad, and confirm that those elements were alleviated by system enhancements. As another test, you could listen to recordings you thought sounded bad earlier in the upgrade cycle, but have not listened to for some time (and some upgrades): do they sound bad in the way they did before (indicates acclimation is the cause of your changing perception), or have they improved (indicates something other than acclimation)?

A second theory: Part of what you hear (and this is always true) is your system, and your system's interaction with certain recordings was unpleasant. But, as you became more familiar with the sound of your system, you were able to separate it from the recording, and the recording no longer stood out the way it initially did. (Or, possibly, later upgrades mitigated the unpleasant interaction.)

To determine if it is a system interaction issue, you could try the recordings on one or more completely different systems and see if the recordings still sound bad, and in the same way.

There is, of course, the possibility that the overall effect is a combination of these two phenomena.

I agree with Mrtennis, however, that it is important to define in what way a recording is "bad." For instance, I can think of four experiences I've had with bad recordings:

1. A recorded voice distorted because of poorly chosen recording levels, a bad microphone, or whatever. I didn't hear it with a lo-fi system, but it became apparent with upgrades. Nothing I've ever done has made it better, however.

2. Recordings that simply have a rough, "raw" sound. Again, it became more apparent with upgrades, but I realized that that was what the music really sounded like, and I adapted and learned to appreciate it.

3. Low-resolution recordings. Initially, upgrades (which improved the system's resolution) made these recordings sound rough, low-res, and ugly. Later upgrades (which improved musicality), made them prettier, and improved apparent resolution.

4. In my experience, better components (and especially better chosen components) handle shrillness better, so recordings with that characteristic will tend to sound better as your system evolves toward your personal tonal preferences.

I guess what I'm saying is that in addition to more than one type of listener, there is more than one type of bad recording. And the specific way in which a recording is bad may affect how we experience it later in time and later in the upgrade cycle.