So how can a great system solve less than great recordings

jumia;

"It seems no matter how good a system is, the quality of recording quality takes priority".  

"Good" according to whom???? 

You can assume that the more resolving your system, the more it will reveal the differences between recordings and highlight both the good and the bad. 

You are the one who is going to be listening to your system and only you know which music is most important to you. There's little point in assembling a system that sounds sublime for genres you don't care about but is disappointing when it comes to what you really love. 

For example, I've found that DACs vary enormously in this regard.Some are so resolving that all sense of the "forest" is lost because each "tree" is artificially hyped. . .never mind each tree--  more like every vein on every  leaf!  A lot of people seem to really like this effect. I'm not one of them. Maybe you do, but if not, there are other ways to go. That's the double-edged sword of this  obsession... er, I meant, "hobby"-- there's a lot of gear to choose from. 

There are also trends in recording. In the 80's, it was "cool" to make drums sound like trash cans being pounded inside a cement bunker. 
Good luck making those sound good. Or maybe you like that... if so, I don't mean to insult you-- this was merely the first example that popped into my head. The fact is, whatever your tastes, you are bound to encounter CDs that do not please your ears, for one reason or another. Finally, "remastering" is not necessarily an improvement. Check out the Steve Hoffman Forums for discussion on the relative merits of different versions of any given CD. 

jumia

Of course not. . . 

.  . . but an EQ might make enough of a difference to move something from the "unlistenable" to the "listenable" category. 

Should this matter to you?

If there's music you really love that's only available in a format with relatively poor SQ, it might. 

I've found the under $200 Schiit Loki useful in this regard. 

cd318

"Sometimes, on certain albums, it’s just bewildering how they came to make such appalling mastering choices in the studio".
 
Yes, indeed. .  . and "remasters" are all over the map in terms of "improvement" in SQ! 

Discs that are truly "appalling" don't stay in the collection.

Having said that, some of my old favorites, such as "Exile On Main Street", "Layla" and "Europe '72" are never going to sound stellar but because I simply cannot do without this music, I've found the versions that sound the least offensive to me and utilize the Loki to make them listenable. 

I've never tried Audacity. Twisting the four knobs on the Loki is about as technical as I care to get!  

@riaa_award_collectors_on_facebook

re: "It would pay to do your "homework" as to what recordings sound best for each title you want in your collection".

Very good idea-- not so easy to put into practice!

I've given up on S. Hoffman forums as one never knows what sort of system participants have or what they consider to be good sound. 

I followed some recommendations based on their "shoot-outs" and was disappointed. 

Really, the only truly reliable source of "recommendation" is one's own ears, listening to one's own system. 

@ghdprentice: 

"I have always been very careful to navigate my evolving system towards greater fidelity but to stay slightly back from ultra detailed / revealing. One step to far and many recordings sound bad... there are at least two kinds of bad... lack of dynamics and noisy harsh. I am very turned off by noisy / harsh. I want to listen to the music not the system... I want an emotional connection with the music, not to be sure I clearly hear the 2nd violinist move his foot"

+1