Quality system, make poor recordings sound better?

It may not be the recording, but the mastering. At least on vinyl (I can't speak to CD or digital formats), I can play some standard reissue of an old pop album that sounds flat and lifeless; but find the right early pressing and even if the original recording has its warts and limitations, you get the breath of life in it that doesn't exist in the mediocre remaster/reissue. These differences are not subtle and involve no 'golden ears' beard stroking contemplation. The differences are pronounced and readily apparent. That then means that you have to research the best pressings, or buy a bunch of them and make that determination for yourself. I have to assume the same issue exists with CD/digital formats.
I'm at a point where I'm in it for the music, not for the sonics- but that said, I still seek out the best pressings of the music I'm interested in. It may not make as much difference for newly released material where the recording started in the digital domain, a lot of dynamic compression was used, and there isn't a wide range of options for different masterings. But, certainly for older stuff, there can literally be hundreds of different versions of a popular recording, issued at different times, from different places (both within a given country and across the world).
Some recordings just didn't start out that great to begin with, so even the best versions (on vinyl) have their limitations. I don't mind that, though I hear the shortcomings. But, there is some distance you can go to improve the source material that has nothing to do with the gear, once your system reaches a level of 'good.'

Caroline was a budget imprint of Virgin if memory serves. I think some of the Bad Brains records were on that label at one point- not hi-fi, but low-fi music, cool stuff, though.

Knight- Dreamboat Annie on Mushroom records, which I think is a KenDun master is actually a great sounding record.

Knight, sorry, don't know about the digital versions. I 'rediscovered' this piece of vinyl a few years ago, and was amazed at how good it sounded. Looking it up, it was apparently a 'demo quality' record in its day. (I was around in that 'day' and certainly remember the songs from the radio, but it wasn't on my radar for home listening). Mushroom was a Canadian label, i think, and these may be earlier pressings, but I believe they were widely distributed at the time~ doubt it is an expensive record if you do vinyl.
Enjoy.

I've gotten my system 'tuned' to be able to enjoy a wide variety of vinyl (my
only source). Whether that means the system is colored or not, I hear a
huge difference among different recordings and different pressings. I use
horns as well (with SET amps and tubes all the way back through the line
stage and phono stage). My system is hardly the 'best' and I hear its
inherent limitations, though those don't bother me- the differences in
recordings and pressings seem to be far more pronounced when I listen to
a range of material.
The notion of 'accuracy' has always baffled me- most recordings are
gimmicked to some degree, and fidelity to the actual event (if there even
was one, rather than something cobbled together on multiple tracks from
different sessions) is a virtual impossiblity as a benchmark.

Maybe Ralph has the ability to make such comparisons if he does
recordings of actual events, then cuts a record from them.

I'm less interested in how the system sounds over some audiophile
approved record and more interested in how it sounds across a wide range
of material.

For me, if the midrange isn't pure, clear and grainless, the rest doesn't
matter. I can live with the sins of omission.
In the end, I think each of us has our sense of what sounds 'right,' whether
it is a function of taste, preference or experience. Which may explain the
wide variety of different sounding systems that different people regard as
impressive or desirable. Not advocating anything here, just another
blithering insight into what may be obvious.