Apples and oranges

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.