One theory: As your system improved, you simply became more aware of what those recordings actually sounded like, and with time "acclimated" to their sound.
To disprove this theory you could define specifically what made the recordings sound bad, and confirm that those elements were alleviated by system enhancements. As another test, you could listen to recordings you thought sounded bad earlier in the upgrade cycle, but have not listened to for some time (and some upgrades): do they sound bad in the way they did before (indicates acclimation is the cause of your changing perception), or have they improved (indicates something other than acclimation)?
A second theory: Part of what you hear (and this is always true) is your system, and your system's interaction with certain recordings was unpleasant. But, as you became more familiar with the sound of your system, you were able to separate it from the recording, and the recording no longer stood out the way it initially did. (Or, possibly, later upgrades mitigated the unpleasant interaction.)
To determine if it is a system interaction issue, you could try the recordings on one or more completely different systems and see if the recordings still sound bad, and in the same way.
There is, of course, the possibility that the overall effect is a combination of these two phenomena.
I agree with Mrtennis, however, that it is important to define in what way a recording is "bad." For instance, I can think of four experiences I've had with bad recordings:
1. A recorded voice distorted because of poorly chosen recording levels, a bad microphone, or whatever. I didn't hear it with a lo-fi system, but it became apparent with upgrades. Nothing I've ever done has made it better, however.
2. Recordings that simply have a rough, "raw" sound. Again, it became more apparent with upgrades, but I realized that that was what the music really sounded like, and I adapted and learned to appreciate it.
3. Low-resolution recordings. Initially, upgrades (which improved the system's resolution) made these recordings sound rough, low-res, and ugly. Later upgrades (which improved musicality), made them prettier, and improved apparent resolution.
4. In my experience, better components (and especially better chosen components) handle shrillness better, so recordings with that characteristic will tend to sound better as your system evolves toward your personal tonal preferences.
I guess what I'm saying is that in addition to more than one type of listener, there is more than one type of bad recording. And the specific way in which a recording is bad may affect how we experience it later in time and later in the upgrade cycle.
To disprove this theory you could define specifically what made the recordings sound bad, and confirm that those elements were alleviated by system enhancements. As another test, you could listen to recordings you thought sounded bad earlier in the upgrade cycle, but have not listened to for some time (and some upgrades): do they sound bad in the way they did before (indicates acclimation is the cause of your changing perception), or have they improved (indicates something other than acclimation)?
A second theory: Part of what you hear (and this is always true) is your system, and your system's interaction with certain recordings was unpleasant. But, as you became more familiar with the sound of your system, you were able to separate it from the recording, and the recording no longer stood out the way it initially did. (Or, possibly, later upgrades mitigated the unpleasant interaction.)
To determine if it is a system interaction issue, you could try the recordings on one or more completely different systems and see if the recordings still sound bad, and in the same way.
There is, of course, the possibility that the overall effect is a combination of these two phenomena.
I agree with Mrtennis, however, that it is important to define in what way a recording is "bad." For instance, I can think of four experiences I've had with bad recordings:
1. A recorded voice distorted because of poorly chosen recording levels, a bad microphone, or whatever. I didn't hear it with a lo-fi system, but it became apparent with upgrades. Nothing I've ever done has made it better, however.
2. Recordings that simply have a rough, "raw" sound. Again, it became more apparent with upgrades, but I realized that that was what the music really sounded like, and I adapted and learned to appreciate it.
3. Low-resolution recordings. Initially, upgrades (which improved the system's resolution) made these recordings sound rough, low-res, and ugly. Later upgrades (which improved musicality), made them prettier, and improved apparent resolution.
4. In my experience, better components (and especially better chosen components) handle shrillness better, so recordings with that characteristic will tend to sound better as your system evolves toward your personal tonal preferences.
I guess what I'm saying is that in addition to more than one type of listener, there is more than one type of bad recording. And the specific way in which a recording is bad may affect how we experience it later in time and later in the upgrade cycle.