Wow - just wow.
Nice mid-fi system. Not what I would call hifi by any means.
Ethan, apparently you equate 'resolving' with 'audio clarity'. They are not the same. I had often wondered why you were so adamantly not on the same page as most people with high end systems (as seen on this forum), now with this photo it is abundantly obvious why. The prior post about your system's capabilities was not an insult, it must have been based on having seem this or similar photos before. As such it was simply a statement of fact. Having run a service department for decades, I am very familiar with the abilities of this Pioneer amp and others like it. They do indeed have good specs- no worries there, but as you probably know not a lot different from most car stereos in that regard either (not that there is anything wrong with that...). But good specs often do not translate to good audio performance simply because the specs often don't take into account known human hearing perceptual rules. IOW the specs are arbitrary and not actually related to audio.
The shame of it is, even if you are adamantly anti-vacuum tube and anti-analog, you can still hear noticeable differences (and by that I mean improvements) in high end transistor gear. If you think they are built the same because the specs say so you are wrong. Open up a high end solid state amp and you will see larger power transformers, more filter capacitance (both of which contribute to lower IM, especially on transients which is an issue not measured in the specs), larger heatsinks, superior grounding paths (lower noise, lower IM) and so on. Your amp by contrast employs inexpensive electrolytics and various shortcuts throughout the circuit, and if you want to look for something that is microphonic, there it sits (just an example). Electrolytics are often used without proper biasing in Japanese audio circuits, causing audible distortion (this is just an example, there are numerous compromises built into this amp for the sake of cost vs performance).
If you were to list your system strengths (the 'pros'), take whatever they are and multiply by about 10 and you get where a true high end system (tube or transistor) typically operates. List the weaknesses ('cons' of your system) and divide by 10, once again you have where many high end systems are operating. This is not an insult so much as it is information- I am sure you have dealt with many room problems, which is always good, but in selecting the electronics and the speakers you are not doing all the room work the justice it deserves. Of course, budget is always a concern, and if that is the case for you then I would say you have done an excellent job getting the most you can out of mid-fi gear. But it would be incorrect and a bit insulting to assume that because you have done this work and also due to the specs that this system is able to operate in the same arena as a true high end system can. Its apples and oranges. You don't have the resolving power, and from your prior posting history, don't know that you don't know it. Put another way, if you did have the resolution, you would be aware of more details in your recorded library- more aware of vocals, more aware of backing tracks and mic technique. Equipment as we see here is only good on a professional basis for testing to see how a recording works on mass market equipment (because that is what it is) but it is by no means reference quality.
If you are insulted by this its not the intention. Instead its to get you to consider that there there is more to audio than you have assumed.