How good is good enough?

It stops when you find out what makes sound do what it does.  It is not pricing that dictates sound, it is design and parts quality.  You can upgrade your existing components using better parts that the manufacturer used and get fantastic results without spending that much compared to what are considered reference components.  We do this all the time probably 5 units each month.  Even $20K units are improved greatly.

For me acoustics was more important in my learnings and in sound quality that the price of capacitors or the price of crossovers ...

For many it is the opposite...

But it is better to have perfect room acoustic with less good capacitors and crossovers than the reverse...

Any showcase with hundred of thousand dollars system mediocre sound quality is proof of my claim ...

Most audiophiles are focussing on gear, not on acoustics as much... They conflate acoustics understanding and experiments with few panels on a wall ...

"Good enough" for me is unstable at the moment because I'm curious about different types of speakers, amp and DAC topologies and architecture. 

Historically, I've always felt that reading and participation in forums like this always created some level of FOMO, which lead to purchases. I usually don't keep my speakers and equipment if upgrading or trying something different. I've learned that this is actually the counter balance to FOMO since purchasing, and especially selling, on the used market is kind of a pain. 

@witchitadog

To constantly strive for better sound is an endless quest, not necessarily based on the quality of our set but on our personality.

This is another thread about when a certain quantity of quality sound is "enough."

Having heard this question umpteen times, I have lost respect for it. After a certain point, sound really doesn’t get much better -- at least not as much as it gets different.

Compare an expensive Audio Note system with an expensive system built around, say, Wilson. Or Magico. Or Magnepan. Or whatever. Is it really reasonable to say one is better -- in terms of quantity of quality -- over another? This is an absurd question. It’s asking whether Picasso is better than Rembrandt.

These are children’s questions because they are absurd. They’re absurd because the act of asking already presupposes that criteria can be settled in advance, with examples marching in afterwards to be judged like contestants in a beauty contest. It is a Sisyphusean question.

To my mind, the question redounds why some think it can be asked and answered. The question becomes, Why are you (we) Sisyphus? when it comes to asking such impossible questions?