Can a great system make a mediocre recording sound good?

The trouble with this "it's not the system it's the room" argument is that the good recordings and the mediocre recordings are both being played in the same room. Moreover, it is the same room as my upgraded-from system. I fail to see what difference the room would make in comparing one recording to another in the same room. Judging from what some people spend on gear I'm sure some of them could afford different rooms to listen to different records, but that is not a lead I am in. A better system makes all recordings sound better than they were, but they all finish in the same order as before in terms of recording quality.

The Ry Cooder record is indeed a good choice, but I made it back in the 1970s when I bought it. Speaking of good choices, one thing I learned now that I have heard just about all of the original versions of the songs he covered, that whatever you think of him as a musician, he sure knew how to pick them. Something very interesting could be written about folk singers as music critics, based on their choice of material. 

The ultimate example of the difference digital mastering can make is a comparison of the first, second and third generations of the Complete Robert Johnson, the last of which is an absolute revelation. I think they might have had the original metal parts for that one. The ultimate test would be if someone had a pristine set of original 78s to compare it with, possibly to be found next to the Arc of the Covenant in that big warehouse at the end of the Indiana Jones movie.

I'm perfectly willing to turn the volume down if it'll make the music I want to hear more listenable.  By the same token, if I don't particularly care for the music but I'm compelled to listen because it's been recorded so insanely well, I'll turn it up and pretend I just don't hear my wife's "Turn that down!" shrieks.

@larsman - im not sure that I fully understand your question, but let me give it a shot - what I mean is that it is very easy to determine what a good recording is, because it will sound good, even on lesser sound/room systems. On the other hand, it is very difficult to determine if a recording is actually poor, because every level up the chain of resolving sound/room systems will bring ever smaller changes that will reveal ever more information regarding the subtle acoustics of the recording venue, ie, making the particular track sound more realistic, in bringing you to the place where the recording happened. For many of us, ‘good’ resides purely in the accuracy of instrument or voice reproduction as timbre and tone, timing, and what we like to refer to as the lowest amount of signal distortion. I have found that a better way of putting it has to include ‘….the accuracy of instrument and voice reproduction in the specific venue of the actual recording’ for the simple fact that almost every recording venue subtly (or unsubtly) changes the sound signatures of voice and instrumentation. A good example of unsubtle change can be found in Yukie Nagai’s last movement of Beethoven’s moonlight sonata, where better systems are able to parse the echo of the recording venue in transforming the somewhat ‘clouded’ sound that masks the venue on poor sound/room systems. A considerably more difficult recording to translate is Delia Fischer’s ‘choro de pai’, a small ensemble track that had the recording equipment placed such that the depth of field and separation of the instruments can only be heard on very very well power supplied and resolving sound/room systems. I am of the belief that the only truly bad recordings are the ones that have undergone so much post-production sound engineering so as to present parodies of the instruments, and of voices. A good example of this can be found in billy joel’s ‘New York state of mind’, but even so, it is still listenable with a better system. However, I have found that the bulk of what many refer to as ‘poor’ recordings are actually those among the likes of the Nagai and Fischer examples I gave - the Fischer example, especially, is one track I do not believe I have heard in all its nuance of recorded acoustic accuracy of venue, because of the greater depth of field, air, and separation I hear in it, with every greater sound/room system I have been lucky to hear it played back on.

My list of ‘poor’ recordings became eroded so much over time, I began to realise that in the world of unoverly sound engineered albums, there are actually very few recordings I should dismiss as bad, for the reason my sound/room system may not (yet) be good enough to playback the subtlest cues of reverberation, decay and atmospheric quality that we call realism. It is for this reason that I said a truly poor recording is very difficult to identify.

in friendship, kevin.

You are confused here...

FIRST : Acoustic control of a room improve ANY system to the roof...

Lower cost one and higher cost one...

SECOND : no room acoustic will transform an audio system of less good design in a better design...

THIRD : the distance between a relatively good basic audio system and a higher costly one is not what most people think ... WHY ? Because they had NEVER listen to a basic good system in a controlled room... To improve the system in their head the only way is to throw money on a top high-end design...Yes the top high end design will be better BUT NOT BY THE HUGE MARGIN PEOPLE HOPE FOR...

FOUR: the goal is to improve the way any recording can give the best : it is acoustic the best way IF WE HAD ALREADY SETTLE OURSELF ON A CHOSEN AUDIO SYSTEM RELAQTIVELY TO OUR WALLET ...

We dont discuss in the sky here theoretically and dont put simplistic argument like a 50,000 bucks amplifier will make a greater positive difference than my 2,000 bucks Sansui AU 7700 in the SAME ROOM ( paid 50 bicks yes i am lucky) For sure the more costly amplifier will do a better job in the same room ...

The main point is we must invest few bucks in acoustic generally if you are not sure we CAN give 50,000 bucks for an upgrade...And even if we can pay for a costly gear and that is my point, the acoustic control PROBABLY will be a greater choice and improvement if the amplifier we already have is very good...

Is it not simple?

The trouble with this "it’s not the system it’s the room" argument is that the good recordings and the mediocre recordings are both being played in the same room. Moreover, it is the same room as my upgraded-from system. I fail to see what difference the room would make in comparing one recording to another in the same room.

@kevn - Holy cow - thanks for that big writeup and explanation! I was just a bit confused about how something can still sound good when other factors would indicate that it shouldn't, and often doesn't. 

But I might add that I also do a lot of listening on headphones, where those environmental factors do not come into consideration, and you can certainly tell quite easily whether it's a ratty sounding source or not....