Isn't it really about quality of recording?

I agree with your @petaluman.

There’s a lot of truth to the OP’s post. As my system got better I began to hear wider variations among recordings. This is true both with digital and vinyl. With vinyl the variation is greater. Too much vinyl gets issued in crappy shape whether it be from source, mixing, plating, pressing, you name it. When I relied upon CD’s the sound variation was noticeable but now with Qobuz it is more pronounced. I have no way to prove it but it seems Qobuz is affected by variations during the day and week in internet service. Music ripped from CD to my Aurender W20 never varies day to day but the identical album streamed on Qobuz does (or seems to). But all that said, can a great recording make a compromised or mediocre system sound greater than or as good as a so-so recording on a great system? Doubtful. 

Someone mentioned Flim and BB’s "Tricycle". Now that is a blast from the past. If you Wiki the band you will see that "Tricycle" was one of the first all-digital recordings-the second by the band with the first being more of a digital demo-and that Flim and the BB’s were studio musicians with a side-project bar band. Their albums started with an effort to show off the dynamic range of CD’s. From that point forward for 30 years we audiophiles who ditched vinyl thought DDD was superior thanks largely to "Tricycle". Now for the 15-20 years we same enthusiasts that came back to vinyl are looking for AAA. Strange (some would mis-use the word "ironic"). My dad would have been in his mid-50’s when CD players became affordable. He mothballed his Thorens TD124, gave all of his records to Goodwill, and went with CD’s (only). At the same time he ditched his tubed Scott preamp and amp and bought a Marantz receiver. One of his first acquisitions- Flim and the BB’s "Tricycle". It all ended well. I got his TD124.

I will go a step further and say a quality system can make a previously great record crap by  revealing how poorly a singers voice is and or poor musician ship.

Many artists from the 70's in particular. 

Just my experience 

..

A friend and fellow recording engineer once said "Digital lets you hear the engineering mistakes much better than analog".

I've heard magnificent Hot 7 remasters and crappy new work on several what to me are pretty good systems.

Always remember: GIGO.

I asked a dealer this question a long time ago when looking for an amplifier. I said, "You know,we spend all this money on our systems but what about source material?" He just looked at me and shrugged. What gets me is the vast difference in recording quality from various artists. As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.