Apples and oranges

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.

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?

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.