What do you LIKE BEST about your current audio system?

The way the music sounds.

That my equipment is all paid for. 

What I like best about my stereo is the sound and the simplicity. I upgraded the CD player, speakers and cables last year plus added room treatment. Prior to that, I hadn’t made any changes in 25 years. (Clearly over due.) Now, I’m thinking I’m good for a while but....

I just ordered Mark Waldrep’s book “Music and Audio: A User Guide to Better Sound”. That might change my mind about things.

@gawdbless makes a good point.

What I may like most is my setup’s ability to unwrap the sheer **musical performance** in a compelling, live, 3D way. Emotionally, intellectually and physically engaging.

That and that from top to bottom and across the board, it now lacks for Nothing. It wants for Nothing. There isn’t anything missing and I don’t have to listen past anything at all anymore. I’m finally out of the upgraditis woods it seems.

Just no issues of any kind. The lows, mids and highs are now, finally, all equally wonderful sounding and are without performance fault. Doesn’t really happen that often, at least I don’t think, and certainly was no accident...years of hard work. But, it’s behind me now and it was worth it.

$7.5k system is non-pedigreed. It’s unquestionably (for me) all the Alan Maher Designs (power treatments) that has made ALL the difference.

I listen to 2 or 3 CD’s a day during the week even though I’m not yet retired. Listen to roughly equal amounts of rock, classical and jazz with a wide range of genres in between. Always look forward to every minute of it.

I’ve always been about the midrange first- if that sounds artificial, grainy or processed, the rest doesn’t matter. I started "serious" hi-fi listening (as opposed to just bombastic stuff) with a pair of old Quad ESLs in 1973, using tube amps.
In around 2006-7 I revisited what I wanted; I had upgraded the Quads to the Crosby modded Quad and commensurately better tubed electronics-- the Crosby Quad was a better all around speaker but in my estimation, not quite as see-thru as the original. I chose to go with horns and SET amps.
I get the immediacy and clarity that I enjoyed with the Quads, with better dynamics; there is something about those SET amps with very high efficiency speakers that can not only give you an ’in the room’ quality but a spooky absence of electronic artifacts. This system can play loud if necessary, but it’s more about the dynamics.
Shortcomings: discontinuity with dynamic woofers- I have addressed that by positioning and by adding additional woofers; the system can still sound ’thin’ on some material. I tend to listen to a lot of ’non-audiophile’ records and the quality of the source material varies widely.
I’ve only introduced digital into my system in the last couple months-- and using a good transport and NOS DAC, as well as a modest computer based system, am pretty pleased with the lack of artificiality from CDs and digital files.
It’s still a commitment to listen to though; letting everything warm up, it is in a dedicated room and is not a casual background listening system. I did have the old Quads restored and they are now set up in a second vintage system--despite their considerable limitations, they are so yummy to listen to, it makes you wonder how far we have really come in 60 years.