So how can a great system solve less than great recordings

I don’t have qobuz nor have I heard it but no reason why it shouldn’t.

Poorer older quality cooms from a qobuz stream.  
Is older stuff handled well by qobuz?

who knew?

Perhaps those who have heard well produced  digitally remastered versions of those otherwise obtuse early mono releases on phono. 😉

Old recordings are a goldmine of great music and interesting sound that those who were weaned on music from The Beatles era and newer often tend to completely overlook.   That was the golden age of hifi when it was all new and people cared about good sound and therefore so did the recording industry.  

an easy example that illustrates how a great system can find the musical truth is what happens with early mono pressings. you might have a few laying around that someone gave you. you play them with your stereo cartridge and they might sound like crap. who could ever want to listen to this?

but find a great mono cartridge, or better yet a great mono cartridge with a 1.0mil stylus, and all the noise and harshness you hear with your stereo cartridge gets bypassed and you can mainline the dynamic magic of early mono. and the early mono recordings are some of the best recordings EVER MADE.

who knew?

you might have a few of these sitting around, waiting for the effort to be made to be uncovered?

i think what great systems can do is to unravel and reveal the musical truth of more complicated dynamically challenging recordings that seem opaque, or harsh, or confused on lesser systems. this can be with any media type.

but great systems cannot overcome poor recording processes or poorly mastered media.....or poor performance.

garbage in = garbage out.

but how can you know when it's the fault of the media, recording, or performance.....or your system? that only comes from lots of investment of time and effort. not a quick and easy thing.

i have a number of recordings that were referred to me (as special and worth investigating) but i could not understand or relate to them until my system evolved to the point where i could hear what was happening musically. i suspect it was also me that had to evolve to appreciate the musical intent.

so viewing any music as less than great might be more about us as listeners, than the recording. but system development has it’s role too.

the best systems can reliably separate the wheat from the chaff. which is a main reason for improving your system, for more music to matter to you. widen your reach and depth of your experience.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I too ask this question. If the recording quality sucks, 6 figure equipment won't improve it I'm afraid. 

OP, you mentioned "album" but didn't clearly state whether your poorer recordings are on vinyl, CD, or streaming (unless I missed it).

I believe there are threads here related to finding better versions when streaming, as a means of avoiding the poorer recordings/productions/CD transfers.

next i will buyout comcast

Nice! Let us know when you do!

I stumbled upon some interesting info recently, related to record producer Rick Rubin, criticized for recording (producing?) techniques. See "Production Style" near the end of his wikipedia page. What a shame to waste a good recording opportunity on poor-outcome recording/production methods.

So i will hopefully improve things by getting a network player from lumen with an internal dac and much nicer cables.  Maybe a good thing. And then will get a new stereo tube preamp, leaning toward audio research.  

next i will buyout comcast and install brand new wiring to my house. 

As usual, millercarbon takes the cake! I often look at the threads to read his replies :)
Well, the question was quite ambiguous, as something very different was implied by the title of the post and the explanation (main text body of the question).
I'l try to reply to both.So, a good recording is always a good recording regardless of age. Reissues / remasters can give wider access - ie provide more copies so you can buy, as there is only so many (so few) originals in circulation. My experience with half speed remasters, 180g special pressings etc - they NEVER even came close to the originals. I compared about 5 special reissues to the originals I have in my collection, and in every single case the original pressing won by a huge margin. That being said, having the special remaster is a million times better than not having anything. Yet, all a reissue can do, is to have the least possible loss vs the original early pressings.
As to the title of the question: how can a great system resolve less than great recordings? Well, will less than great results.

However, a great recording does not equal modern recording. In the 50s there were plenty of great recordings. Yet, a good number of ultra-high end systems today cannot do justice on them, as they are most often voiced to match only a very specific kind of recording procedure. (Overspecialization, it's the most common feature of our age in every area.)
Maybe you were wondering what kind of system can read out the most of a recording, even if that was not the most perfect recording ever....

Always look on the bright side of life. Recordings are works of art. Each one is different. Why not take pleasure in discovering as much as possible about each one?  That’s what music lovers do. 

For me, the saddest part was when I realized that "older recordings" in the OP meant 70's and 80's. My first scan had me thinking that 70's and 80's were fine, but "older" recordings not so much. I guess "older" is relative.

A great system will only show the flaws of bad recordings more but that is only a problem if all you listen to are inferior recordings the search for great sound in a system is findings the great recordings to play on it and enjoy them and there are a lot of great records out there.

Before I get chewed out for my cable comment, I will acknowledge that many people avoid some of the higher-resolving brands due to this issue, or are careful how they pair electronics and speakers where one or more components are highly resolving. If this doesn't work to the degree desired, then making adjustments with cables is one way to go. I don't see this as a tone control; more of a fidelity control (musical/resolving balance).

Without having to change components, cables are often used to balance the highly-resolving-system vs. poor-recording dilemma.

Although many people are using cables to realize the full potential of their equipment, they are often used to find a balance. Hopefully this simple statement won't start a cable-war dialog; not intending that!

Artemus_5

Actually, it is not condescending but right. Yes its about making the music sound better. But, The music sounds best when it is brought forth in the purest of signal from the source material. This was the goal of high fidelity., to be faithful to the music as recorded. That means not adding or subtracting anything to/from it. Adding things to make it sound better, IE tone controls, is often a band aid to fix something in the signal.

Thank you. And well said.

FWIW, I have found that as my system gets better, my music also sound better. Of course there are some which don’t sound as good as others.

Indeed. One thing that really stands out is the way every single record I have sounds so much better now than I ever imagined.

There are several records I always thought were pretty good, but too laid back, reserved, pallid. All three Linda Ronstadt/Nelson Riddle for example, it was like her voice was fine but the orchestra was very background and all the solo sax or whatever was barely there. Now it is just incredible, the orchestra is big and present and detailed, and the sax leaps out in full glory. At the other extreme, Nilsson Schmilsson used to feel a bit edgy and hyped. Now it is just crazy liquid detailed smooth and natural.

One would think anything that "fixed" the reserved Ronstadt would be too much and wreck the Nilsson, but that is not the case. Not at all.

It is one of the more puzzling things, how every recording now is not just different than the others, it is more like it is in its own world. So very different it is hard to believe. I have quite honestly never heard anything like this anywhere else. This I think comes from being genuinely revealing of what is hiding deep down, and not adding anything in the process.

I have a pretty good idea why this is. Frank I am sure has a pretty good idea too. And Krissy, of course. Thank you, my dear. It has nothing to do with being condescending. It is more like, please come swimming, the water’s fine, and oh by the way here is how to not get any up your nose.

Agreed @russ69.Nothing wrong with a high fidelity system that is also a bit forgiving of less than stellar recordings. The best recordings will still sound fabulous and the Stones albums will be listenable, fun,and satisfying.

OP, if you tune your system to a very high state of tune, you can get to the point where only a handful of recordings sound good. Been there done that. The best tune in my opinion is when only a handful of recordings sound BAD. Work towards making everything sound good even if you loose a little detail or shimmer. 

Which is why "audiophiles" get siloed into listening to sonic spectaculars. On most boards I participated in, I usually put up a thread called "Non-Audiophile Records" to discuss standard issue pressings from back in the day. 
I take the good with the bad. I'm not a Stones fan, but the early UK boxed label (stereo) is a decent sounding record to these ears, though I haven't listened to it in quite a while.
Ditto, the UK first press of All Things Must Pass has some body and dimension that is sorely lacking from the US copies (bought one of those when it first came out). 
Which takes us into the thicket of finding desirable pressings of records, a subject that is bottomless. 
I find lots to listen to; at the moment, "used" record prices are inflated and desirable or rare records are more expensive than ever. 
My sweet spot, musically, for the last 4 or 5 years has been so-called "spiritual" or "soul" jazz from the early '70s-- that stuff has gotten astronomically priced and many have never been reissued. 
It's fun to find a killer obscurity, especially if it's not on everybody's radar. 
But, there are some records that just sound lousy and if you like the music, you focus on that, not the sonic demerits. 
I used to keep a shelf of known impressive sounding records for demo purposes. I gave that up a while ago-- I just listen to what stirs me and buy what I can, notwithstanding the market. 

I dunno. How?
Your statement reveals nothing.

Get ROON, can use the digital equalizer to fix the poor quality. It works great

FWIW, I have found that as my system gets better, my music also sound better. Of course there are some which don't sound as good as others. And some are just...YUK. But the vast majority sound good overall. 
Some may hear it differently. IMO, Some are more into the sonic character of the music more than the music itself. I am into the music itself. I have no desire to hear a  great sounding recording that does nothing for my soul. IE, I don't play Female vocals and have no desire to listen to that. It doesn't move me, no matter how good the recording is done. If someone else enjoys it, then fine. I'll take the lesser recorded music

how condescending to suggest people don’t understand this point.

Actually, it is not condescending but right. Yes its about making the music sound better. But, The music sounds best when it is brought forth in the purest of signal from the source material. This was the goal of high fidelity., to be faithful to the music as recorded. That means not adding or subtracting anything to/from it. Adding things to make it sound better, IE tone controls, is often a band aid to fix something in the signal. However, it brings about distortion. The shortest path of a signal is what is desired. Adding controls IE tone controls adds to the signal.

@jumia,

"Hi end (and the rest) systems remain at the mercy of lesser quality recordings, past and present."


As they must. Such is life.

I think we have to assume that the people making the original recording got it right.

If they didn’t then no system will ever get it right. Therefore a remaster (or even shock! horror! - a remix) might be required.

But with so many different editions of popular albums now available it often becomes a question of which one is the best.

George Harrison’s 1970 All Things Must Pass album (triple LP) has been reissued many times since and yet there is no clear consensus as to which version is the definitive one (so far).

The original UK vinyl release on Apple might still be the best, but copies are rare.

Some of the digital versions have been simply awful, yet new ones keep on coming every few years.

Of course high end is about making tunes sound better.  Ie. Effort to eliminate all the crap that degrades sound while on route from source to a driver.

of course its about making it all sound better.

how condescending to suggest people dont understand this point.

Hi end (and the rest) systems remain at the mercy of lesser quality recordings, past and present.

tried a rolling stones album and it sadly didnt sound so good, ‘ let it bleed’.

its sad. Thats all.

Fortunately, linda ronstadt albums sound really good.  Some stuff from that era were done better.  

The original question is based on a profound and yet all too common misperception about high end audio. It is not about making recordings sound good. The very best cost no object system cannot possibly ever make anything sound good. That is a completely inside out and backwards understanding. What the very best components and systems do is nothing. Nothing. Not one tiny little thing.

Well, except amplify so we can hear. But other than that, nothing. The whole point is to be able to hear the original recording in as much fidelity as possible. Fidelity by the way means truth. High fidelity means highly truthful. Does not mean good. Truth ain’t always pleasant to hear now, is it?

Case in point.

If you’re interested in classical and jazz then you should see the remastered reissues from Pristine Classical. They take albums from the 20s to the 60s and make them absolutely amazing with their XR filtering.  You can’t almost tell the difference between a a recording on the 30s and 60s. 
Their recent Miles Davis reissues are sublime. 
You can also stream from their website. 

You pay your money. You take your chances! Considering the problems of capturing sounds with a mike it is a wonder that there are so many good - and better - sounding recordings available!

You're over-generalizing. At this level of analysis anyone can say Edison made lousy recordings on his wire thingy, the gramophone sucks, how can even the best system get fidelity from tin cans and string? Fraid you're gonna have to up your game a little to have something more to talk about.