Okay...going out on a limb here.

Seems to me that "the best" equipment has at least two qualities that elevate some articles well above the beaten throng. The first relates to longevity--in build and presentation. While much out there was indisputably constructed for the whims of the moment, companies like Naim, McIntosh, Accuphase and Audio Research were interested in long-term investment. When certain folks arrive at that point in listening that they make increasingly informed decisions based on nuance, such a market exists for them. I don't think that Joe Schmo wuold know the difference between a CD played on a Sanyo or a Wadia, but there are differences. Yet while such acquisitions are exorbitant, for the most part I would say that such equipment is generally robust enough in build and presentation that their relevance is beyond dispute.

The second criterion is related to fatiguability. Good music is rarely-if ever-tiresome, but if it is played on inferior instruments or a musician who should have been encouraged to be a lumberjack the experience can be just dreadful. To many a keen eared listener, the reproduction of sound on stereo equipment of inferior quality can be similarly unpleasant. Put that same listener in a chair before equipment that allows the music to be presented, an he will never grow weary.