Isn't it really about quality of recording?

There’s a lot of truth to the OP’s post. As my system got better I began to hear wider variations among recordings. This is true both with digital and vinyl. With vinyl the variation is greater. Too much vinyl gets issued in crappy shape whether it be from source, mixing, plating, pressing, you name it. When I relied upon CD’s the sound variation was noticeable but now with Qobuz it is more pronounced. I have no way to prove it but it seems Qobuz is affected by variations during the day and week in internet service. Music ripped from CD to my Aurender W20 never varies day to day but the identical album streamed on Qobuz does (or seems to). But all that said, can a great recording make a compromised or mediocre system sound greater than or as good as a so-so recording on a great system? Doubtful. 

Someone mentioned Flim and BB’s "Tricycle". Now that is a blast from the past. If you Wiki the band you will see that "Tricycle" was one of the first all-digital recordings-the second by the band with the first being more of a digital demo-and that Flim and the BB’s were studio musicians with a side-project bar band. Their albums started with an effort to show off the dynamic range of CD’s. From that point forward for 30 years we audiophiles who ditched vinyl thought DDD was superior thanks largely to "Tricycle". Now for the 15-20 years we same enthusiasts that came back to vinyl are looking for AAA. Strange (some would mis-use the word "ironic"). My dad would have been in his mid-50’s when CD players became affordable. He mothballed his Thorens TD124, gave all of his records to Goodwill, and went with CD’s (only). At the same time he ditched his tubed Scott preamp and amp and bought a Marantz receiver. One of his first acquisitions- Flim and the BB’s "Tricycle". It all ended well. I got his TD124.

As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.

Which is why at audio shows-despite the complaints by reviewers-the same old recordings get played. Nils' "Keith Don't Go" (mocked as "Keef, Don't Go"), SRV's "Tobacco Road, Dianna Krall, Patricia Barber, Dead Can Dance's "Into the Labyrinth", etc. Twenty years ago it was "Hotel California" along with stuff off of Aja and Brothers in Arms. And many others. 

@rumi,  This is exactly why I draw a line regarding how much I'm willing to spend on my system.  I think it is worth purchasing equipment that is one or two levels higher than the typical studio.  No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables.  Your speaker cables aren't likely to be the weak link in the process.

If it makes you happy to take this approach, then that is all that counts but when you go to a live show the musicians are using cheap cables and most often moderately priced mics and monitors and most venues have mediocre sound systems and yet magic can happen desptte all of that. Likewise in the studio. I have some vwry good recordings from indy bands recorded in a home studio. In fact, the days of elaborate studios among the likes of Abby Road or Muscle Shoals is long gone. But despite the prevalence of home studios (some of which ARE relatively elaborate) some very fine recordings miraculously get made. And an awful lot of crappy ones.