Interesting observation, but I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion. It's my opinion that once you get into truly high end amplifiers (say $5,000+), then personal preferences begin to dominate what people consider better or best. As such, it's highly unlikely that any group of audiophile will ever agree on what is the best amplifier. As an example, I have the original Quad ESL, you have the $80,000 Wilsons. The amp that works best for me won't work all that well for you.
high-end vs. ultra high-end amplifiers
It is quite frustrating to know that some amplifiers (Boulder, FM Acoustics, Accuphase) are sounding better than even very expensive ones from the big boys (Mark Levinson, Krell, Bryston, Spectral). I wonder why there is such a difference. Madrigal, Krell, Bryston, Spectral, they all belong to the high-end sector of audio industry and they are claiming they are making the best amplifiers. But I know that this is not true: I've heard amplifiers from Boulder and FM Acoustics and they sound just better than the Madrigals, Krells and so on. Is it because Boulder and FM Acoustics have more know how about amplifier design (I suppose not) or do they use more expensive parts and better circuit topologies? Do they have brighter technicians and designers? There must be an explanation for this phenomenon. It isn't magic! Maybe someone from the audio industry can reply to this thread.