Is it possible for something to be the best?

Yes, it is possible for a component to be the "best".The problem is that "best" is a subjective term. In terms of absolute audio quality, the "best" is generally related to the "best" that the listener has previously heard. A person that has only heard boom boxes, might think that a low cost separates system is the "best". One of the best ways to enjoy your system, once you have purchased it, is to just listen to it, and stop going around auditioning other equipment. When you decide you want a change or you need something new because of equipment failure, then go audition some new products. It is a rule that if you go looking around long enough, you will find something that sounds better than what you've got. If you are not prepared to buy this new stuff, then you will only be constantly reminding yourself that there is something better that you don't have. This leads to unhappiness with your present equipment. Just enjoy what you have, and when you are ready to make a purchase, then go out and listen to the stuff that you can buy, and get the "best" you can afford. Some people, like myself, can buy a very good product, knowing it is not the "best", and be happy with it. This is where "value" comes into play. My system is not the "best" at anything except being the "best I could afford". Since I could not afford anything higher, I am satisfied that I have got the "best" for my buck.

Okay, if you want to pin it down hard, the "best" is to be defined by a set of parameters. The term "best" only applies when there are parameters set. If the parameters are measurable, then a given item that measures best could be called "best". If listening tests are the parameter, then the listener's idea of best are the ones that fit his taste. ETC. for other criteria. Also, with audio, the system matching is important, because simply assembling all the "best" items doesn't ensure the "best" sound. This includes the room, as Bomarc says. I could safely say that no one system would be the "best" for everyone. This includes price. The "best" is of no use to you if you cannot afford it, other than as a reference point. This also includes experience. Your idea of "best" may change as your experiences widen and deepen. As I stated above, the best you can hope for is to get the "best" for you.

To add to my above post, I do feel that there are absolute bests, but the parameters for judgement must be set. And as Albert points out, not all will agree. As an aside, were the impressionists experimenting with an early form of digital representation, using large "pixels"?