Apples and oranges

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?