The argument against upgrading

@deep_333  @mahgister 

By design, the original question makes no presumptions about the absolute quality of a system or the philosophy underpinning it.

Rather it concerns the effect of making an incremental improvement in sound quality to any system. It challenges the generally held assumption that this objective improvement must automatically translate into a better subjective listening experience.

Is this assumption valid? What can be said in support of it? How can success be assessed? Does success depend on the qualitative characteristics of the improvement? ie. noise and distortion reduction, imaging, dynamics, solving the problem of bass in real rooms, removing digital artefacts or overcoming listening position limitations.

@newton_john 

Essentially what you are saying, imo, is a variation on the discussion of Music vs Sound Reproduction; the notion being that the music is all that matters and how well it’s reproduced is a trivial consideration.  
  This discussion is as old as Audiophilia and for me it’s a false dichotomy.  Most of the people on the planet think like this, but hey, they aren’t posting on audiophile sites

It hurts my 401 k. It's the dopamine that keeps me comming back.enjoy the science and the music and stay healthy.

@lalitk 

If your system pic is current, then the best ‘upgrade’ would be room acoustics.

That is a question best raised elsewhere. Any response here confuses the issue at hand. 

@mahler123 

Essentially what you are saying, imo, is a variation on the discussion of Music vs Sound Reproduction; the notion being that the music is all that matters and how well it’s reproduced is a trivial consideration.  
  This discussion is as old as Audiophilia and for me it’s a false dichotomy.  Most of the people on the planet think like this, but hey, they aren’t posting on audiophile sites

I disagree. Look at my post immediately before yours addressed to @deep_333 and ​​​​@mahgister