Apples and oranges

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.