As system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?

I am increasingly of the opinion that the mark of a good system is that most all recordings of interest at least sound good enough to retain the listeners interest. Most recordings have deficiencies versus the ideal but few sound "bad" to me off late, unless they are defective in some. Defects that can make a recording sound bad are more common with vinyl (usually wear and tear on the grooves with used records more so than inherent manufacturing defects) than CD/digital I find.

If only audiophile quality recordings that you like sound good enough to retain your interest, I think there is a good chance something can be done with the system to rectify that, often without having to undertake an expensive upgrade even.

Mrtennis wrote:

The issue is what is meant by "improves" and what is considered a "good" system…i believe that audio is a subjective hobby so what constitutes "improvement" is a matter of personal taste.

To a large extent, I agree with this. I believe that how you answer the question in the OP tells you something about what you consider an “improvement.” Specifically...

(a) If you answer “definitely yes,” then you can conclude that, to you, “improvement” is largely a matter of increasing ACCURACY to the software. Because making system changes that result in increased accuracy, I believe, makes bad recordings sound worse.

(b) If you answer “definitely no,” then you can conclude that, to you, “improvement” is largely a matter of increasing MUSICALITY as you define it. Because making system changes that result in increased musicality, I believe, makes bad recordings sound better.

(c) If you answer “it depends on the recording,” then you can conclude that, to you, “improvement” is largely a matter of increasing TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. Because making system changes that result in increased transparency, I believe, makes some recordings sound better, others worse, depending upon the particular flaws of the recording.

In this way, the question in the OP is a kind of litmus test for judging what system characteristics you prioritize as an audiophile. For example, Gawdbless wrote:

Absolutely NOT. How can a system be viewed upon as 'improving' when it makes ones cd's sound worse?

I would conclude from this that Gawdbless prioritizes musicality over accuracy, at least when making "improvements" to his system.

It’s worth pointing out that I’m NOT saying that accuracy, musicality, and transparency are, necessarily, mutually exclusive characteristics. But budgets are limited, and no system can do everything, so audiophiles are forced to prioritize which characteristics they value the most, especially when changing components with the hope of hearing "improvements." This, I believe, accounts for many of the differences in the systems they assemble. It also accounts for the different answers to the question in the OP.

That's my theory, anyway.

As the speed of the amp increases, the irritating limitations of the recording decrease accordingly to the point where they're no longer bothersome, just limited.

"no longer bothersome, just limited"

That is a very good way to put it!

Sometimes the opposite!! I found over the yrs that as the quality of my rig improved, recordings that I used to enjoy started sounding worse. Makes sense as the better yr system gets at resolving details from the recording, the more revealing it is of poor recording quality.