Perhaps we should stick with midfi...

There may be some trolling in the original post (in fact, it reads as though the original poster didn't actually spend 60 grand) but the underlying point is not a bad one. You can get a good setup with, say, Rotel components, and be probably 90% to 95% "there" (where "there" refers to some ultimate audio goal); especially if you don't custom design a special listening room. Beyond that, there is a rapidly decreasing return to scale for audio equipment where you spend exponentially more money for sonic improvements that increase at an exponentially decreasing rate.

High end is worth the money if you've got the disposable income to spare, but it's not worth breaking the bank to get there.

Another problem with high end audio is that there is a lot of snake oil being sold. A further problem is that many of the "audiophile" reviewers who post glowing reviews of equipment have conflicts of interest that they don't reveal in their reviews. Underlying this is that it seems that many audiophiles don't know a whole lot about electronics; so they get swayed by subjective comments and "objective" technical comments that are sometimes wrong. The net effect is that (from what I've observed) people who have the cash for high end are constantly experimenting with new equipment. Let's face it, even if you "audition" equipment (which I have always found to be a rather pretentious term), the sound of audio equipment is like the sound of your favorite record: when you first hear it you might think that it is the greatest thing you ever heard, but over time you get used to it and the thrill of original ownership begins to decline. As a consequence, you get a lot of equipment turnover (especially among those who seek constant thrills) that shows up for sale on websites like Audiogon and Ebay.

The Audiogon gods tend to delete postings that are too critical of the audiophile game, so this posting may be gone before long... :-)

Azaud:

Your comments underscores one of my criticisms of the way that many audiophiles approach equipment purchases. Expressions like "synergy" and "trust your ears" are so mushy and ill-defined, that it makes the whole thing seem like systems come together by magic. In my view, if the system is that poorly matched, then there should be some objective data that would suggest that outcome: either the output impedance of one device is incompatible with the input impedance of a downstream device; or the output level of one device is insufficient relative to the input sensitivity of a downstream device, and so forth. To that extent, there should be someone who can offer some insight as to why some of these device might not work together very well: I mean, something more precise than just "synergy" and "trust your ears". Granted there are some fine points that you can't represent in objective data, but if a system is a "total disaster" (as opposed to being optimal) then there should be some objective evidence of the disaster. I approach this stuff as being partially visceral, but also partially analytical - I tend to not believe in magic.