There's a number of factors at the edges of this question such as space and convienience. I go to my high-end dealer's house (which doubles as his showrooms) and his main setup, along with a large RPTV, has a large BAT amp which must sit on the floor and Avalon Eidelon speakers which are halfway into the room (this is necessary for proper setup). Listening to 2-channel music makes these monoliths less imposing, but to watch a movie (the room is also set up for surround with Avalon speakers), you get the feeling that you're watching through a set of goal posts. There's also the tweak factor in very expensive equipment. To get the most out of some high-end equipment, every input/output/knob/cable needs adjusting somewhat before you can listen to different music or whatever. Impulse listening is lost because of the necessary tinkering. The bottom line for me is diminishing returns: if I only get 25% improvement for double the cost, I fall into a state of contentment. The nth degree is just too damn expensive and short-lived.
Correlation: Money and Good Sound
Why do many equate throwing money around with the assumption that it will result in vastly improved sound? I realize this is relative...for example...many who have not heard the GMA Europas will not even consider them because of their affordability(under 1k)...this is just one example...are there any others where a reasonably priced product(1k or under) competes or surpasses those 2 to 3 times the price? I am sure there are numerous cables...but cables are vastly overpriced already...also...the next speakers up in the GMA line are roughly 5k and 7k respectively...just something to think about....it seems there are many who judge a product on its worth vs. actual performance...also...I will probably get flamed for this...but I do feel NAD intergrated amps compete very favorably with others at 3 three times the price...