Can the need for novelty and change be mitigated by rotation?

Part of my premise is a question if past some threshold we can meaningfully speak about “better”.
There is a broad agreement on what sounds poor (for instance, we had Grundig “Party Center 2200” when I was a teenager; fine for radio news, orherwise crap). I recall Williamson did a lot to set benchmarks. Past that lies the land of diminishing returns, where different people prefer different things, and “better” becomes individual.
If swapping into the system a different piece of equipment which was set aside for a half a year causes me similar [positive] emotional reaction as a new piece of equipment, I interpret it that I have reached a plateau. Most probably it is my hearing limitations kicking in, there surely are much better ears (I cannot sing, at least I dare not, and, more importantly, nobody asks me to)... but I am not so sure whether there is a strong correlation between good ears and audiophile hobby (that could be an interesting research topic).
It is a scientific fact that people in average think that they are better than the average person. So audiophiles normally should believe that they (we?) have better ears than the average person. Before research, I have my reservations to agree to that (for one thing, I believe research consistently shows that women have better hearing than men).
Moreover, if smb. hears a difference, and smb. else does not, it may just as well mean that the first person’s mind plays a trick - we often experience what we expect to experience.
So those are my problems with subjective approach to sound quality - if I observe my own behavior, I conclude that I may be going in circles. I could knock myself out doing ABX comparisons, etc., but that is already done, results can be repeated, no need to re-invent a diamond frame bicycle.
That being said, some subjective observations remain consistent, e.g., I consistently set aside Pass Aleph 4, and I prefer to it ML no. 27, 23 and even Parasound hca 2200 2. I like Aleph’s purist schematic and SE class A, but I prefer a different sound most of the time. I would not call my preference “better” though.

@inefficient,

I have an abundance of gear and yes, I enjoy swapping components when the mood strikes. I have a Coda #16 SS amp, an Aric Audio Transcend Push Pull and arguably the best sounding, a Linear Tube Audio ZOTL40 which at about 20 lbs makes it very easy to move. I find this does help the craving.

I also can highly recommend a room with cathedral ceiling such as my living room offers. There is a positive effect on the sound stage that’s hard to explain.

@lancelock 
It’s an interesting amp, indeed surprisingly light (my “hificollective” Glasshouse 300B is some 25 kg/ 55 lbs; sturdy steel chassis, but the real weight is transformers).
Thank you for the tip on cathedral ceiling. It must alter ceiling reflections and room modes - good to know that brings improvement. I guess I really need to turn to planning from acoustic perspective ... end result will be a compromise, of course.

Congratulations! You have discovered an aspect of audiophilia that is quite appealing to a subset of enthusiasts! These are the listeners who as a pursuit, a goal, seek variety.

Some of this is in my character, and I see it expressed in my life also in terms of motorcycles. I would rather have two fine motorcycles of quite different genre (cruiser/sport) than one considered higher pedigree. The excitement of the distinct difference in experience is better imo than being held to only one experience. I have no doubt that in the moment, riding a higher level bike would provide some unique experiences, however it cannot provide the variety of experiences. That is the crux of the dilemma; if you put your money to work in a restricted fashion, then you will not get the variety of experiences, or at least not when you wish.

I spent a long time searching for "The One", the one speaker, the one system that would ultimately satisfy. Because I always heard deficiencies in the sound regardless of what equipment was used, I finally realized the performance spectrum is SO wide, and the inability for any rig to capture a nearly perfect sound internet, that I started to expand my components and speakers. Over the years, the focus has turned solidly to speakers, because their physical characteristics are so varied that one simply cannot get similar sound from a different genre of speaker. I also learned that this does not change as one moves up in the quality of the electronics.

This has brought FAR more contentment, enjoyment, exposure to the experiences of the High End than any pursuit of The One. Variety is not a problem, but a great passion and pursuit. It is a legitimate means of enjoying the music, of course not for all, but every bit as valid as any other expression of involvement in the hobby, i.e. being a Mediaphile and focusing on collecting and curating media.

What level of equipment does one need to attain in order to not be plagued by perceived imperfections in the sound quality? That is for you to figure out; it’s personal. But, I attest that when one reaches a high enough level of sound quality with the capability of swapping around systems, it is a pleasure that nothing else in this hobby for decades provided.

Concluding, then, your post as stated in the title suggests that variety is a sign of some issue, problem. Not at all! It's only a problem if you are unaware of the vast spectrum of performance, cannot accept deficiencies in systems, and do not want to spend any money! If you address the realities of the process of setting up rigs and accept that it is a great alternative to anchoring to one expression of sound, pursuit of variety is fantastically fulfilling!