WHY DO SOME AUDIOPHILES TRY TO TELL OTHERS WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN’T HEAR IN A SYSTEM?

@calvinj    Great thread!  My final statement is the more time/effort/knowledge and money put towards this hobby the better the results. It's that simple!

@dayglow we research the hell out of things before we buy them.  My system came about because I got a home demo where it blew my other amp out the water. Started with that and kept building. 

@dayglow wrote:

Thx for the reply. Synergy has always been the key with building a fine sounding HEA system. The focus should be on synergistic systems at all performance levels not just mocking expensive components that are mismatched.

True, but I sought to address that newer and expensive components within the more "accepted" hifi-segments and dogmas here are more readily given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assumed performance envelope and overall popularity. I merely pointed out that such gear can also sound bland/off, and that integration and implementation - even within this realm of equipment and price range - can't be taken for granted. 

I assume you understand all components have a performance ceiling, even with everything fined tuned...room acoustics/power conditioning/vibration control and proper set up.

Yes, but it's not necessarily tied to price, segment or age. 

Newer modern equipment will almost always outperform even refurbished highly regarded vintage or pro/studio gear.

I disagree, with a few a provisos; when it comes to digital source equipment, new technology can be a significant contributor and in some iterations will see a performance gain that leaves older DAC's wanting in resolution and transparency. With amps however I find they can be up to ~30 years (or even more) and still sound great compared to new dittos. Speakers - that is, drivers and their design as well as age - can be older still and sound fantastic. A great design and implementation is great no matter how old (whereas wear can be a factor), and older horn designs here tend to be more readily based on physics (i.e.: without the same degree of size restrictions as contemporary designs). Old, passive crossover parts usually need replacement, but run actively the drivers can be brought to life in ways passive can't equal. Pro/studio gear can sound fantastic and leave nothing to be desired vs. "hifi" ditto (not to mention that it's liberating seeing this segment of gear being void of trends and fashion) - sometimes even to the contrary. 

Nostalgia and cost might be the only reason to take this path not that most think were above this gear it just does not garner any performance advantage.

Again, that's the easy, convenient stance; why bother buying used and older gear when you can afford buying new and expensive? That's pretty much it and not much else from this kind of thinking, but in reality though it leaves out a heck of a lot to be explored if the rationale if actually based in sound.

Lastly validation from other Audiophiles should not be a concern/need within this hobby we all have different standards.

We do, but it's not really about validation, is it? It's about challenging ways of thinking that, from what I can assess, is not without its share of dogma and conjecture, not to mention a lack of an open-minded approach. 

WHY DO SOME feel the need to SHOUT when they  START THEIR THREADS?

Arrogance