Apples and oranges

First sentence good. The rest disposable.

Kinder Crisp and Ukrainian Blood Oranges.

In a perfect world we would be talking about the same thing, music! Yet we persist in talking about audio. I guess that is what internet audiophiles do. Most of my close friends love music and could care less about 'audio' let alone talking about it. For myself, when called upon to comment on my stuff, I usually demur to any discussion about equipment and refocus on music.

So I agree re apples v oranges, except when that term is applied to audio I always smell some aggrandizement coming, usually at someone else's expense. 

Newbee, very well stated!

Newbee

 All good.

Although we have differences in audio chain sonic quality, individual hearing acuity, and different room conditions (apples and oranges), we share in the interest of incremental improvements for both components and tweaks (same fruit basket).
 

Yep, those online audiophiles just PERSIST in talking about audio - go figure!! 🤣

I have heard “advanced” systems that cause me to want to run out of the room. The amount of money some “advanced” audiophiles spend on systems that, to me, sound nothing like the real thing boggles my mind. On the other hand, I have heard some “rudimentary” systems that allow me to suspend disbelief and enjoy the music far more than SOME of those “advanced” systems.

Yes, we are (or, can be) talking about the same thing. The incremental improvements that we all talk about are all relative, are they not? Sure, a thoughtfully put together “advanced” system gets a lot closer to the sound of the real thing than a thoughtfully put together “rudimentary” system, but the mistake that many “advanced” (elitist?) audiophiles make is to not understand and respect just how far even the very best thoughtfully assembled systems have to go before they sound like the real thing.

So, as concerns the OP’s premise the issue for me is not whether the system is advanced or rudimentary. Rather, it is whether the audiophile’s understanding of sound and music (not necessarily in this order) is advanced or rudimentary. There is usually a direct correlation to the sound of his system.

Frogman,

I don’t in the least disagree with you.  
 A “rudimentary” system that is well put together certainly can rival more “advanced” systems in musical enjoyment. I’m speaking about variables that exist in a not so well put together system. Perhaps “rudimentary” is the wrong word.  
I can see where this can come off sounding elitist. What I’m saying simply is that we’re not always talking about the same thing.

It is highly likely the more experienced audiophile with the advanced system had more elemental system at one time. I did so can empathize with those at this stage. 

For sure I've heard mega buck systems with pretty poor sound, heard this with churner systems. One needs to  build systems incrementally over time with an understanding of how any to create synergy or discover weak links.

rv, I understand what you are saying.  However, with the possible exception of very low bass and its room related issues, I don’t think there are any aspects or parameters of sound reproduction that cannot be talked about intelligently whether one’s system is advanced or not.  I think that “rudimentary” systems owned by members here are good enough to, for instance, create what could be considered a soundstage, provide reasonably good image placement, provide reasonably extended bass, reasonably extended highs, enough volume to satisfy most listeners, enough transparency so that instruments can be easily identified, etc.  Enough of all these and other audiophile concerns to be able to discuss what is heard and what can be done to improve these.  Seems to me that those of us with more “advanced” systems have the same concerns; just on an overall higher level of refinement.  Productive dialogue  is thus definitely possible.  

What exactly are the things that you feel are not possible to discuss by those with systems at different levels of refinement?

Every system is in some manner different. Soundstaging, for example, In a more “refined” system is going to be a different thing than in a less defined system.
I know when I started out, I had no idea what was possible in that regard. I blithely assumed what I was hearing was the the way things were supposed to sound. I could not intelligently discuss the issue, because I did not know what was possible. My parameters were certainly different from those of more advanced audiophiles.

Accepting the fact that “intelligently” is also a relative thing, can you be more specific?  What were the things that you felt you could not discuss with those that had more advanced systems?  I guess my feeling is that your concern is simply part of the nature of discussion forums.  Unless we are in the same room it is not possible to describe EXACTLY what we are hearing in a way that is meaningful to everyone else.  So, we are left with what can only be generalities to an extent.  Of course, some are better than others at communicating sonic traits.  I’ll offer one simple example in the simplest of terms:

Audiophile with rudimentary system says:  “I feel like my center fill image is not as solid as it could be.  I have tried experimenting with toe-in, but it only improved marginally.  What else should I try?”.

What would invalidate audiophile with advanced system to suggest:  “If you have experimented with toe-in, make sure you also experiment with moving the speakers slightly forwards or backwards; it worked for me”.  One could also reverse the rudimentary vs advanced description and the idea would still apply.

All I’m  really saying is that systems of varying levels sound different.  Each of us is hearing a differing thing. I guess you’re right when you say intelligent discussion can still take place.

It sounds like you are really referring to the listener's knowledge and sophistication rather than their system.

I have had to pull away from the herd, as my hearing, tastes, and wives change.

Onhwy61, I agree! A listener's degree of knowledge and sophistication are what makes a discussion interesting and an open mind can make them productive. The problem inherent with this hobby is that the interest level amongst audiophiles is so divergent its hard to find two people on the same wave length. Too many false gods, I think.  The sonic value (as well as the financial value) of components being one of them. Sadly I think we have become a 'plug in' community. 

Onhwy61 and newbee,

  Very interesting take.

I agree,  objectification of component worth based on cost can be problematic. I also sometimes move in divergent ways, lots of diy experimentation, feel this not respected by some.

I try to respect everyone's system and choices, the sheer amount of variables involved should give one pause. Many paths available for reaching goals.