What you paid for it years ago is irrelevant.
You’ve enjoyed owning it for years, so have got good value out of it already.
I changed from three to one source to maximise sound quality within the budget available.
I was very happy when I swapped a 252 for my 52.
This would go well with your Supercap, 250s and SBLs.
The problem I have is that it makes evaluating replacement/upgrade components more tricky.
An Olive NAP250 was pretty expensive for me 30 years ago, but having been serviced it’s still a desirable amp for people who enjoyed Olive kit, but does nostalgia play too big a part?
We’re already into ‘law of diminishing returns’ with many high-end components, but say I swapped for a NAP 250 DR, it’s hard to gauge without a proper demo, preferably at home, whether or not the improvement is worthwhile, is it 10%, 20% or 50% better, or perhaps even worse if you don’t like the sonic signature.
WIth a 10 year old smartphone there’s be a huge difference compared to a current one of equivalent pricing.
I know it shouldn’t really matter, it just makes comparison more difficult in hi-fi, at least for me.
If I was buying a NAP 250, I would get the latest new classic version of it – I was never a fan of the NAP 250DR.
On the other hand, why bother when you could get a pair of serviced NAP 135s?
Cheers. It was just an example to be honest given the 250 DR is no more. The new NAP 250 looks like a big step up from several accounts, but not something I can justify at this point in time.
If getting a purchase past SWMBO is a factor, buying pre-loved can ease the process…
One of the reasons I buy vinyl,
Better royalties for the artist,
All these streaming sites pay them pennies,
compared to a vinyl sales,
But unfortunately it’s the times we live in,
GO BUY SOME VINYL,
I’ve actually been considering that, a few years ago I’d have probably just gone for it, but we potentially have several costly things to pay for quite imminently and the current financial climate doesn’t help. When I stop procrastinating and sort out a few things out which are well overdue I may reward myself! I’ve had some free time over Christmas/New Year to do at least one of these things but the incessant rain has put a stop to it!
But why just vinyl? Buying CDs or downloads also puts more money in the hands of artists (as well as record companies). There’s more ways to listen than just streaming and vinyl.
Roger
And of course you can buy files to download, to stream from your own local store - that might give most money potentially available for the artist as there is no medium cost and no transportation/delivery cost - but how much gets to the artist I’ve no idea.
I guess the best way is to buy the cd, leave it in its wrapper and stream the albums from qobuz every time you want to play it 
Best way as in to give money to the artist? Surely that and buy LP as well, plus buy file to download, and of course any different versions/remasterings in all formats! Or you could contact artist directly and ask how to donate…
Don’t like cds, horrible little shiny things,
Only good for the garden, stops the birds eating the the grass seed, 
Should we be worried about what the artist gets? There are many options now for legally obtaining music - vinyl, CD/DVD (all formats), cassette, download and stream to name most of them.
By owning the music, we pay more, the distributor gets a lot and the artist gets some. While the artist may get more at the beginning, they don’t get anything for each time the music is played.
With streaming the artist will get considerably less but will get paid each time their music is played. Obviously the artists get paid from all sources whether bought or leased.
We may be smug holding onto our 30 year old CD that we proudly play every day, thinking that we are doing our bit for the artist but in reality the cost per play may work out at less than they get from streaming.
The convenience of streaming from Qobuz for example must benefit artists as well. Take my usage as an example;
Using Roon as the main controller, I listen to my CD rips and streamed music from Qobuz. I also add albums for which I already own the CD and have ripped to my Roon rock. This may be a higher res version or just for the convenience of having it available for a Qobuz only playlist. In this case I have paid the artist for the CD and am paying them each time I play via Qobuz.
Qobuz gives me access to far more music than I would ever listen even if HMV and others still had their large shops that you could spend hours browsing in. Years ago I would have been careful about spending money on an unknown album. With Qobuz it is so easy to really broaden my collection (many thanks to all contributors on the ‘what are you listening to….’ thread).
Far more artists are receiving money from me via streaming than would do if I had to buy all albums. Also, many artists that I would not have considered are receiving extra when I purchase a download.
I therefore consume my music however I wish with a clear conscience.
Back on topic, I suspect that streaming may lessen the SQ of music if all mixes are created loudly to satisfy the masses.
I can confirm you receive a lot more revenue per track/albums downloads than for streaming
I guess the question is how many times would you need to listen to a track/albums for the total revenue to exceed that of a download/purchase?
LOL I was looking at this before Christmas - we are into the hundreds of listens - depends on the streaming service provider and the download provider. I can get my stats for Apple later
Not good then!
no - other than streaming is almost like radio – so you get a far wider reach – as opposed to buying physicals/downloads which is a small minority of your audience.
The wider reach is where I suspect that the artists may get closer to a few people buying the music - I could be miles out of course.
Do you tend to stream or do you purely buy? Do you perhaps stream to find an album you wish to buy? It is interesting to know people’s take on the situation.
Well at least I now understand the first part of your username. 
Roger