The argument against upgrading

I understand what the OP is getting at.  However, how does anyone measure, quantify, discern, explain, understand, why any individual audiophile has developed a need/desire/urge (perceived or not) to upgrade his/her audio system?  It really doesn’t matter what you upgrade in your audio system or why, it’s strictly an individual desire/need/feeling, etc.  Who can explain this?  For instance, I have an audiophile friend who still uses his old 1980’s Klipschorn speakers and an old tube amp from the same era, and he has absolutely no desire to change/upgrade anything (his system sounds incredible).  I also have an audiophile friend who is just the opposite, and likes to upgrade/change frequently just because he gets a thrill out of simply trying something new.  Happy listening.                  

I don't really compare one component to another. I compare what I'm hearing to an idealized mental representation of what I want to hear. If it gets me closer to that ideal, I keep it. If not, I keep looking. When I get to a point that everything I have in my system reaches that standard, I'll stop looking and just enjoy it. 

Different is only better if it exceeds that standard. But the bar is high. 

Maybe it’s The Grass is Greener syndrome. Maybe some boredom with current Sonics.

I build variety to keep from being bored with my SS audio chain:

various cartridges from detailed to musical Koetsu, SPUs.  Maybe someday I’ll pickup a warm SS like GanFet, sliding bias A, or a punchy Gryphon amp for SS variety.

I also have a second audio chain with highly efficient speakers for tube amps including flea watt SET.   

I still go nuts about the improvement from 19K cables to 24K cables. Best 5K I have ever spent.

I won’t comment on this subject for those with unlimited budgets or a $100,000 budget ceiling. It’s clear that any upgrade must be defined by the overall synergy of the elements involved and their integration within a specific room, considering its acoustic properties and content and for a definite budget with all pieces with a comparative proportional price.

Every upgrade must have a general goal: the integration of an element into an acoustic whole. Therefore, changing an element without knowing how to optimize it for optimal integration within the overall acoustic environment and the synergy of all participating designs is a mistake, even if the upgrade proves positive.

A difference is not often really an improvement if its significance in relation to the total acoustic experience is not understood.

Upgrading is a dead end and often a pointless expense if we don’t understand the source of our acoustic dissatisfaction and its underlying cause.

Upgrading is a dead end if you don’t learn the basics of the system optimization process, regardless of the price of the system pieces...

Upgrading often reflects our ignorance of a fundamental fact: there is a huge difference between a system and its acoustic environment before and after optimization.

Before upgrading a piece you dim obsolete or not working well or unsufficient you must optimize it and the system also...

The optimization process—mechanical, electrical, acoustic, or DSP-based—generally costs less than an upgrade, and even if it does cost the same, once implemented, it provides a satisfaction that reveals the absurdity of throwing money away, when we are influenced by marketing instead of basic knowledge. As i said there is no comparison between the same piece or the same system working at his peak potential after optimization or right out of the box without optimization...

I call the state of being happy with the least possible costing system/room with no frustration of any kind in spite of the limits of a specific system for specific needs (mine is for nearfield  and optimized for a small acoustic corner) the "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold  or MAST.

Once there you smile and laugh because of the low cost /S.Q. ratio.... You quit upgrade and marketing because you have learned minimal acoustics basic......