Don't disagree with much of what you say at all but my point really is that we're talking about perception, not empirical truth - specifically the perceived sonic value of a piece of kit against the fiscal outlay. In your example you could easily substitute Micromega for Naim and the point would be the same. You've bought items you now describe as landfill. Why? It's worth what you're willing to pay for it - or were willing to pay for it at the time - and what you're willing to pay for it depends on its performance and the value you attach to that performance. Some have ultimately found Naim kit not to be 'worth it' and may have come to feel their purchase was influenced unduly in some way. They may describe that experience as 'snake oil'. Not me, I don't own any Naim kit, but I think this is a reasonable summation of the discussion so far.
As someone who's owned Naim, I think this is quite fair and likely true for some people. At the time I bought my Naim kit, the main source of information about HiFi generally, and Naim in particular was magazines.
I sought it out, auditioned it, liked it, and whilst very expensive, thought it very good and ultimately worth the price of admission.
A decade and a bit later, when I moved into AV and with it some 9000ES series Sony kit, I was pretty shocked and dismayed to find that on blind, AB level matched (measured) comparisons, the sonic differences between the Sony and Naim amplification were very small indeed. I won't say they sounded exactly the same, but they were far more alike than dissimilar.
On very well known, favourite tracks one could perceive those small differences - a cymbal crash here, a snare drum strike there, the acoustic space on cathedral organ, the timbral colour of the instrument etc. But if playing less than familiar music, and again blind and level matched, it was much harder to pick differences - again, not exactly the same sonic 'signature' but more alike than dissimilar.
At the end of the day, the conclusion was that the Sony amp had noticeably higher resolution, and much better transient response/dynamics - or translated to Naimee terms, quicksilver v's plodding PRaT - and inevitably a much more insightful and musical listen than the Naim on most musical genres.
The shock and dismay came about due mainly the 'badge', reputation and of course the considerable difference in price.
In the ensuing years, I've done a lot of AB testing at home; amps, CD/DVD players, racks, cables etc, and where possible always measure as close as I can to get the same volume level, and do it blind where I can with the help of a friend.
I have little doubt that under blind ABX conditions, as the Richard Clark amplifier challenge proved, most people would struggle to pick meaningful differences between any competent amplifier, not driven into distortion and operating with a suitable load, let alone source components and cables, racks etc.
The power of expectation and confirmation bias is immense, and the psychology of marketing no doubt plays a part in this.
Our hearing is also not linear, but logarithmic, so even subtle differences in volume can result in perceived differences in sound attributed to an component being compared in a shop setting, when in reality all we are hearing is the difference in perceived loudness.
So there were some lessons learned, and whilst I enjoyed my time with Naim, it's idiosyncratic nature with all the warming up rituals etc counted against it, and ultimately it was sold off as it did not match the musical results of the Sony and was stereo only, whereas I had moved into a M/C AV system.
Was the Naim sonically worth what I paid for it? Yes, I think it was - at least at first, and given the resources and knowledge I had at the time, and there was no doubt it was a very enjoyable and satisfying listen on the whole.
But technology and with it the performance envelope moves on, - the Sony was and is effectively a Tact Millennium in design and modus operandi, - which made Naims products look quite dated in circuit design terms, and ones knowledge about HiFi and proper controlled testing methodologies grows with experience.
As such, another decade and a bit on when I found myself in the same position again, seeking a new complete system, I found what I wanted in a fully active (at last!) M/C AV setup from B&O, which thus far has proved to be the best performing and most satisfying HiFi system to live with that I've had the pleasure of owning.
Cheers