As system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?

Absolutely, not...after chasing the audio gods for a few years, I settled on Conrad Johnson + Proac combo...haven't heard a bad recording since then

There seems to be quite a difference of opinion so far, ranging from "most definitely yes" to "absolutely not" to "it depends on the recording." I wonder what accounts for the discrepancy. Maybe it's a consequence of different audiophile priorities and the differences in the systems they assemble as a result of those priorities. In the March 2010 TAS, Jonathan Valin said this about audiophile priorities:

...there are three kinds of listeners (though these types tend to overlap): first, those who primarily want recorded instruments and voices to sound like live music - what I can the "absolute sound" type; second, those who want to hear exactly what has been recorded, whether it's lifelike or not - what I call the "fidelity to mastertapes" type; and third, those who could care less about the absolute sound or mastertapes and just want to hear their music sounding thrilling and beautiful - what I call the "as you like it" type.

As I see it, the first kind of audiophile above prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. The second prioritizes ACCURACY to the software. And the third prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it.

How does this bear on the question in the OP? Here's a theory...

For the audiophile who prioritizes ACCURACY to the software, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings tend to sound worse as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more accurate.

For the audiophile who prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings tend to sound better as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more musical.

For the audiophile who prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings sometimes sound better, sometimes sound worse (depending upon the particulars of the recording), as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more transparent.

Jonathan Valin, for example, seems to prioritize musicality and transparency more than accuracy. As a result, he says:

I've never fully understood why a piece of gear has to periodically make records sound "bad" to pass audiophile muster.

Of course, other reviewers and other audiophiles have different priorities, and the systems they assemble reflect those priorities. That is why different systems handle bad recordings differently. And that accounts for the variation in opinion expressed in this thread.

Thoughts?

The difference in opinions is because the professional is able to compensate the idiosyncracies of his equipment. I can get my system to successfully play any recording of any music genre, regarding of its quality because...

"High end is who you are, not what you buy."

With psychic power and primal intensity,

this discussion has not included a statement of definition of poor recordings.

i attempted to suggest at least a connotation of a bad recording, and given such a definition, it is then necessary to define what improvement menas.

if one assumes that "improves" means, less errors in frequency response, then it follows that a recording with errors in frequency response will become more evident.

for some this situation is indicative of a better stereo system, but clearly the flaws in a recording could be fatiguing.

Moving from a warm system to a neutral and highly resolving setup can make recordings seem to sound thin and strident in some cases. I always measure system improvements by whether good recordings sound better.