Are future improvements in Amp/PreAmps slowing to a crawl?

I am truly sorry about your financial situation. You state that giving a fair shake at your expense hasn't been a priority, and I can empathize with that. On the other hand, you haven't, for one second, avoided burning him at the stake at every turn. Kind of a one way street, isn't it? Apparently the sword is only supposed to cut in the direction of your personal bias. In the same vane as you, I have no compunction about telling someone they are acting a fool when they are. Hopefully, you will get out of this financial mess and find a way to actually listen to the piece of gear you are discrediting. Of course, at that point, you could let all of us know whether it sounds as Roger describes or not. If it does, could you and would you swallow your pride enough to actually admit it?

Ironically the process has been perfected and the final version is coming out as X-12. There will be no X-13.It now has TOTAL control of the data recovered from the original recording. The Auto-Focus system has been perfected and now the holographic "display" is a full clone with no distortion and no noise. It can project the same acoustic layout including the exact spacing between objects as recorded. (at the proper volume of course) and the brain does in fact perceive it as live.

@csmgolf 
GO READ THE THREAD AGAIN, you LIAR. I do grill the guy hard, but only because after a very lengthy and civilized back and forth he still answered no specific questions, even when I literally laid out a simple template of what I and many others were genuinely wondering. I'll gladly listen to anything anybody wants to send me, but I'm not doing it at my own risk and expense. 
If you want to believe whatever jargon he slings, fine with me, but I'm over here evaluating things in a different sort of way. I'm sitting here writing this listening to a rig which, with the exception of the speakers, I've either built or rebuilt with my two hands. I'm in the habit of knowing what I'm playing with in an intimate sort of way. I'm not a man of unlimited resources. If I want to listen well I must learn, meticulously evaluate things, understand circuits, hear distortion, and discern causes and effects. I just want answers that actually mean something. I'm rather befuddled so few others do as well. 

Roger believed in his product enough to let you hear it for yourself. To test the device in question. IOW, he put up. You, on the other hand, irrespective of the circumstances, HAVE NOT put up. It is that simple. Everything else is chest thumping.  
I have in no way said that I believe what he has said. If you could please point out where I said that, I would be grateful. On the other hand, I have not discounted it either. I am curious though, what exactly would you "risk" by listening to this piece of equipment? Your pride? Your beliefs? Financial obligation aside of course. I would love to audition one of these. Of course, IF (note I said if) I found it to do what Roger says and reported it as I heard it, I would be labeled a kool aid drinker, a dupe, and subject to confirmation bias because it cannot possibly be so. It would be better if one of the people that claims this to be snake oil actually test it in their own system and report what they heard. If you heard Roger's device do what he describes, would you be man enough to come back to these pages and report that?

I can’t afford for something that expensive to be damaged in use or transit and be in the hook for it. That’s the risk I’m talking about. The specs he states on his site suggest it should sound decent. Does it perfectly replicate the recorded material? No. I don’t need to hear it to know that. But that’s the claim he makes, isn’t it? Haven’t I and others politely asked for a rational explanation? Have we gotten something other than snake oil jargon?
The point of this thread was to discuss Nelson’s statement that amps are a solved problem, that there is no technically perfect amp, and that they are, for all intents and purposes, art. But a few folks here, and chief among them Roger, piped up to claim designers are giving up, aren’t trying hard enough, and are failing to think outside the box. Those strike me as bold statements from people who’s experience and success pales in comparison to the likes of Pass. Those kinds of bold statements deserve bold explanations for which there have been none at all. It’s like when Leonard Suskind stuck his neck out to call Stephan Hawking wrong about black holes. People demanded a bold explanation. And he provided one. That’s what elevated him from a plumber to a physicist.