How competitive are you with your system?

I spend my money how I want, I could careless what others think of my music room, I like to hear others systems but it does not effect what I think of my own, to each there own

Sorry @rvpiano ”Comparison is the thief of joy” was a quote by @pindac 

After quitting golf as a hobby during Covid, two-channel music listening took its place and has become my main—almost only—hobby, aside from jogging. However, I carried over a similar sporting spirit: I only compete with myself. In fact, golf is probably the only sport that truly allows one to compete against oneself. My goal in golf, which gave me a sense of accomplishment, was breaking 80.

My goal for my stereo system is to create a tonally accurate, balanced, palpable, and immersive 3D listening space. It’s not an ambitious goal on paper, but it has taken me a long time to achieve. The good news is that it doesn’t require fancy or expensive gear, and my setup includes:

Wiim Ultra (DH Labs Mirage / Cardas Clear USB, 0.5m) → Gustard U18 (DH Labs HDMI 2.1, 0.5m) → Harmony μDAC (Mogami quad XLR) → Parasound A23 (Belden 5T00UP) → Wharfedale Linton.

And after nearly four years of continuous effort, I’ve finally arrived. The Linton remains unforgiving of poorly recorded music, but at least I’ve tamed it. As a reward, it delivers tonal accuracy, balance, and a wide, tall, and deep soundstage that extends well beyond the speakers, which are placed 11 feet apart, 4 feet from the front wall, and toed in by 10 degrees.

No competition with others along the way—just my own continuous journey of learning and improvement, if that answers your question, Mr. OP.

Competitive? No. Instructive as a learning experience? Absolutely. I learned to listen critically having the original Quad Loudspeaker beginning in 1974 and experimented with augmenting it with ribbon tweeters and a subwoofer. Although that made for a bigger, fuller range presentation, I don't think the results were necessarily "better." I remember hearing the original Wilson WAMM (which also employed an electrostatic midrange) and came to a similar conclusion--it lacked overall coherence (at least in the set up I heard). 

I first heard full sized instruments over a friend's system comprised of the Duntech Sovereigns. This was in the late '80s. It was a very good system, but there was still something I liked about the apparent immediacy of stats. I heard the big Martin Logan Monolith(?) a very large electrostat at a salon in Paris with full Jadis tube amplification-very good on certain things. These listening experiences gave me exposure to what was possible.

I eventually switched, in around 2006, to horns using SETs and have been happy with that path of high efficiency, low power. I especially like the tonal character of the Lamm ML2 which in some ways defines the voice of this system. I still keep a vintage electrostatic system in my lounge, but it is more of a period system than any attempt at state of the art.

I've heard bigger, "better" systems than mine but all of it is "data" to inform me, exposure to what is possible being the key. It has helped me improve what I've done, though in some ways I've always considered myself an outlier--not following the traditional path. I don't regard any of this as "competitive" but probably "comparative" in the sense that it has informed me. 

I have the best audio system in the world and my dad can whip your dad.