Quality system, make poor recordings sound better?

With respect to the first question, my experience mirrors that of the OP, and John (Jmcgrogan2), and Minorl. I have a not inconsiderable number of poor recordings that I would prefer to listen to via YouTube on my $90 computer speakers rather than on my main system. But as my system has evolved, the great recordings continue to sound ever more realistic and more pleasing.

Regarding the second question, John and Russ (Rcprince) make excellent points. In my own case, though, I have not noticed a great deal of sonic variation from day to day or time to time. Perhaps it is not entirely coincidental that there is no industry and very little commercial development in my area, and presumably the quality of my AC is therefore relatively good and relatively constant.

Regards,
-- Al

One further point about variations in the sonic performance of a system from day to day or time to time, specifically relating to electrostatic speakers if the OP or anyone reading this may be using them. Variations in humidity can profoundly affect the sonics of electrostatic speakers, especially if they include or are used in conjunction with dynamic woofers or subwoofers. See the post by Georgelofi dated 6-17-14 in this thread.

Regards,
-- Al

11-06-14: Maplegrovemusic
can someone who feels as the op provide us with a recording you think is poor . i would like to play it through my system

Although most of my listening is to classical music, I'll cite some examples from among popular recordings that happen to be from the 1960's, from artists I particularly like. All of these recordings are available on CD:

1)The Blues Project, "The Blues Project Anthology" (2 disc set on the Polydor Chronicles label). Particularly the first nine tracks on disc 2, which originally comprised their "Projections" album.

2)The Seekers, "All Bound for Morningtown; their EMI Recordings 1964-1968" (4 disc set on EMI).

3)Matt Monro, "This is Matt Monro" (2 disc set on EMI "Music for Pleasure"). I'm referring particularly to the instrumental accompaniment, not to the reproduction of his voice.

I'll add that I would resist any temptation to blame the 1960's technology for the disappointing sonics of these recordings. As evidence of that, the Chesky remastering of the 1962 recording of Dvorak's "New World" Symphony, performed by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Jascha Horenstein (Chesky CD31) is easily among the very best recordings I have ever heard, and shows what the technology of that time was capable of.

Regards,
-- Al

I composed the following before seeing Minorl's post just above, with which I agree entirely:

Gentlemen, keep in mind that a key goal in the engineering of most recordings is presumably to make them sound as appealing as possible to as many potential purchasers as possible, when played on the equipment that is used by as many of those potential purchasers as possible. That can be expected to include people listening in cars, on radios, on portable equipment providing mp3 playback through cheap headphones, and on low fi home equipment.

Toward that end, recordings, especially those involving orchestras, are generally captured with an excessive number of microphones, and are then excessively processed in elaborate electronic consoles, the processing involving mixing, equalization, dynamic compression, dynamic range limiting, etc. With the people doing all of this often being possessed of musical sensitivity and basic competence that is questionable at best. A'gon member Learsfool, who is a professional classical musician and has had more direct exposure than most of us put together to the ins and outs of orchestral recording as it is commonly practiced, has attested to and justifiably ranted about all of this in a number of past threads here.

It's not about quality control. It's about intent, approach, philosophy, and in some cases competence.

Regards,
-- Al