The argument against upgrading

The argument developing here is just a discombobulating difference of opinions. 
The  way l see it is simple….

Who is the most happiest?

The guy with a reasonably adept budget system with no worries listening, who always enjoys the music he hears, and is content with his lot. Or is it the guy with the mega bucks oil rig sized system, who is not completely satisfied, but is always wondering if there’s something missing.

You left out those with  mega and mini mega systems who are very happy but nonetheless still enjoy upgrading...

@jl35 

l did miss out a few things ….

Those guys with one ear, the guys with no home, and the guys with the obscenely fat wallets.

All in good fun unless…….

@newton_john Taking your question at face value, you ask if an objective, incremental improvement in sound quality improves the subjective listening experience. I can only answer for me, of course, but I can say without doubt when I've improved the sound quality of my system, through equipment upgrades, room treatments, setup changes, whatever, it results in a more enjoyable subjective listening experience. When you attend a live performance, don't you enjoy it more if the sound quality is better?

Whether the "upgrade" actually produces a better sound is a different matter, but your question assumes it does. Its also a different question entirely whether the incremental increase in subjective enjoyment is within our financial capacity and if so, is something that would represent value. The first is an objective barrier, the second is entirely subjective with no right or wrong answer. I've heard $300k speakers at shows, for example, that I thought were fabulous and would undoubtedly increase my subjective listening experience. But for me, leaving objective affordability aside, the incremental increase in subjective enjoyment wouldn't represent value. Other things to do with that money that would bring me greater satisfaction. Economists would call it "opportunity cost." 

So, I think this may be another example of trying to divine an objective universal truth from what is inherently dependent on subjective individual circumstances and preferences. I don't think that's possible.

It’s all about your individual point of reference. 

Let us suppose you "optimized, optimized, optimized" some matchbox desktop speaker with "acoustic acoustic acoustic" and thought you had some great thing going, i.e., a guy with genuinely low standards, hot air and fantasy...

Now, all of a sudden, you got placed in front of a pair of say, Klipsch Jubilees in a nice room...and got your pants blown off. My physician bought a pair of those actually after i disciplined him away from li’l matchbox/crapbox speakers....(I have an atmos rig with a six sub array that could blow your pants off too, launch you into a different dimension...such things could happen)

Now, all that time you spent ’optimize optimize optimize’ (got some miniscule gains here and there) some lil crapbox with ’acoustic acoustic acoustic’ would be all in vain, completely meaningless, a waste of time....

So, long story short, get different points of reference from guys with serious rigs, to establish a goal worth pursuing...Your improvement metrics evolve when you establish a serious point of reference. At the least, you’d know how to not waste your time with meaningless rigs and meaningless tweaks (it’s still a low caliber rig in spite of all that wasted time).

It doesn’t even have to be that expensive, can also be done in a relatively affordable fashion. A well optimized rig and room built around say, even a affordable pair of Tekton Moabs, a pair of subs, diy treatments and a halfway decent amp could do it for a lot of guys.

But, if you’re sitting in a living room, can’t treat anything, subject to waf restrictions (has to be a lilsht matchbox speaker), etc ...such things are simply not possible. Just drop the standards, hit the play button and try to enjoy some music. Don’t worry yourself to death about incremental, this and that...if you simply don’t have the foundation for jawdropping sound (to begin with).

For example, i have a desktop office rig in my office room. I don’t even bother too much with it because it has serious limitations (when placed in context/ in light of above mentioned). On the desktop office rig, I just drop the standards, hit the play button, find new artists, etc and can still have a good time. 

Hope that helps

@newton_john  wrote

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.