In further response, with the disclaimer that I know less than most everyone on this board (also, I'm too slow with my reply)...

Granted, there are a lot of variables in sound reproduction. It's never perfect. However, I don't believe the engineers involved in the recording process should be looking for some kind of synergistic magic. They're going to be going neutral and flat or the rest of the process is compromised. It has to be about measured improvements based on established audio principles, or you HAVE to call BS. Now after that point, the producer of the album is going to make choices that affect that purity for an effect they're going for, and that may include anticipating the equipment of their target audience. I think that's a mistake, but it happens. After that point it gets exponentially more impossible to maintain the integrity of the initial recording. Everyone's system is different, as well as the room they're using. These are variables the holders of the original vision simply cannot control. As such, maybe they shouldn't be seeking some magical combination of gear that colors the sound in some perfect way.

As for playback, end users can do what they want. I chose to buy from a company that seems serious about the science and who were within my budget. I'm very happy with the results. Am I done trying to improve the sound? No, but I don't want to throw my money at companies that can't justify their prices. They can get away with it for now, but in the long run, isn't it going to hurt the business? The best audio gear is never going to be affordable for the casual consumer if it always relies on finding some elusive, mystical mish-mash of components that transport you to audio nirvana.

"Better" is subjective, and we should only be paying more for "more accurate," and for this, we have to trust measurements and extensive double-blind listening.