A mistake spending too much on amplification?


I was wondering if I screwed up by spending too much money on amplification? I have been upgrading my amp/preamp for awhile now (I started with a CODA Unison, then upgraded to a McCormack DNA-125 and EE Minimax, then to a Herron pre, and now mating that with Sixpacs). And, although there are subtle improvements, I am not hearing any night/day improvements, even when I go back to the CODA. And the CODA is much cheaper!

Does this mean I outpaced my speakers? Kind of like putting a supercharged turbo engine in a car with bald tires? Speakers are VS VR2's and Soliloquy 6.3's. Anyone have a good estimation on amplification costs relative to speaker costs? Sell the better amplification; use the money to buy better speakers?
chiho
BOA2 says,

"The fact is there are significant variations from one component to the next"

It is certainly a strongly held opinion by many but is not and, in my opinion, cannot be proven as "fact". I've been in this hobby a very long time and experience tells me that quality components are much more alike than different.

This does not mean that the differences aren't important. In many cases they certainly can impact how a given listener responds to a given component. Night/Day? I don't think so.
The behavior of either a piece of electronics or of a loudspeaker can be described in terms of its "transfer function". The transfer function is the sum total of everything the device does to the signal as it passes the signal on.

A purely electrical signal consists of variations in but two domains: time and magnitude.

But a loudspeaker's output has variations in five domains: Time, magnitude, and three dimensional space.

So a loudspeaker's transfer fuction is far more complex than that of a purely electronic component, and the loudspeaker therefore has much greater inherent opportunity to screw things up (which it takes full advantage of!).

Cutting to the chase here, in my opinion speakers make the most difference.

Duke
Mlauner writes "sources first no matter what your amp are." Not bad advice, and a very reasonable way to build a system. Start at the begginning and go forward.
I on the otherhand prefer to start with the best amp I can get or preamp and then work in either direction depending of what is weakest at any point. Myh view is the music is amplified right, first, and foremost the other parts can be brought into line sooner or later.
Neither approach is right or wrong just different approaches
Do you still have both the Sixpacs, & the DNA-125? If so, you might want to keep them both given their reputations. It's puzzling that they wouldn't sound quite different from one another tho.

But I don't know your speakers, or how efficient they are, or how good they are. Or your cables, source components, etc. What.....are you trying to accomplish, sound wise?