[soundbitten1]

Do bad recordings sound better or worse on a good stereo system ? I've heard both arguments . Just wondering what a general poll would say.

[Tyson]

All recordings should sound better on a good system.  If they don't, you are doing something fundamentally wrong.  But, while bad recordings will only sound "somewhat" better on a good system, good and great recordings will sound a "lot" better on a good system.

[nathanm]

The question assumes that there is an independent metric by which to judge a recording's quality as good or bad besides listening to it on a stereo system.  If a recording is predetermined as a Bad Recording then it will always be a Bad Recording regardless of the stereo; that is, until such time as someone listens to it and judges it to be a Good Recording.  A truly stereo-system-independent metric is difficult to imagine, but not impossible.  For example, you could observe the recording being made, and using your own previous experience and biases, deduce that the methods used by the recordist are going to be inferior.  You could observe a physical medium like a record with extensive scratches and assume it will sound bad when played back.  However, that would account only for the media flaws and not any flaws in the original electrical signal.  In practice the most common way to distill any inherent quality of a recording is to determine if its traits maintain themselves across multiple stereo systems.  Of course the stereo systems' quality themselves are simultaneously being judged by the recordings they are fed.  This complex reciprocal system helps to keep recording makers, players and listeners in a perpetual state of activity, a circle if you will, an audiocircle.

[Bob in St. Louis]

All recordings should sound better on a good system. 

True, but wouldn't a more revealing system reveal more of the bad stuff, thereby making it sound worse?
In my (very humble) opinion, it would depend on 'in what way' the recording sounds bad.
A recording that contains a 60Hz hum on an average system would sound "acceptable", but would sound worse on a better system.
Or a highly compressed recording would sound "ok" on a less revealing system than it would on a better rig.

Good thread (and I'm not trying to suck up). 
I've thought about starting a thread that lists bad recordings, but didn't since there's too many to list. 

Bob

[Watson]

A big chunk of bad recordings are bad because they're poorly mastered... excessive highs and lows or a boosted upper midrange to sound good on boomboxes and car stereos. These do sound worse on a good system, because you're finally blasted with what's on the recording and your system can reproduce it. It's one of the unfortunate things about this hobby. The more you spend, some recordings get worse. And no one has an EQ any more to dial those recordings back....

[Bob in St. Louis]

Yea, that's what I was trying to say. 

[Crimson]

GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. In a revealing system: Garbage In, Offal Out. That's my experience. Playing a highly compressed sibilant recording on my 'main' system makes me want to run from the room. The same recording in a car isn't half bad.

[ZLS]

    What is the definition of a "Bad Recording"? 

    I can listen to recordings from the 1920's and 30's and enjoy them tremendously even though the sound quality can best be described as problematic.  I have listened to Audiophile recordings that made me want to confess to crimes I didn't commit just to make them stop. 
    I judge the quality of a recording by how much of the artistic intent of the artist comes through. 

    Perhaps the difficulty with recordings today are a result of the more revealing the system, the more apparent is the fact that the intent of the artist is simply to make money; or as Joe said

                                                    GIGO
               

[Wayner]

GIGO,

Those older recordings are state of the art for their time, if they were done well.  I think what were talking about is bad techincs used in recordings that don't match others of that time period recordings; recordings of other peers.

Let's take the Moody Blues album "Days of Future Passed". It was recorded in 1967. It by comparison of other recordings made in the same time frame, shame other recordings, and by a large margin. I can't think of a horrible recording of the same era, maybe something by the Byrds. Great band, not so good recording techniques.

There are many stellar recordings thru the ages that are timeless. There are "other recordings" that just didn't seem to make the mark.

Wayner

[Tyson]

The question is whether a "good" system makes a bad recording sound worse.  Not a "revealing" system.  I agree that most good quality systems are revealing.  I also say that truly "neutral" doesn't exist, so you system will tend to tip in one direction or the other (even if only slightly).  Either it leans toward pleasant or unpleasant.  Pleasant sounding, high quality, revealing systems have the effect of making even poor recordings sound listenable, and good/great recordings sound amazing.  Unpleasant, revealing systems still sound OK/Good with the good/great recordings, but tend to make the poor recordings unlistenable. 

So, do you have a pleasant or an unpleasant system?  Well, do poor recordings sound listenable, or unlistenable on  your system?  There's your answer.

[soundbitten1]

I would say bad recordings sound listenable and pleasant on my system which also probably means that I do not hear the deep resolution of good recordings . If I had to make  a choice I guess I would chose the forgiving system since I own a lot of great but but badly recorded music .