Why is there so much separation between the professional audio and audiophile worlds?

When @mapman says " Pro is about getting the job done well within a budget." I think back to 1971-2 when I had a part time job at a recording studio in St. Louis which had the contract for Budweiser radio commercials.  The operation was "all business" and when the studio musicians would arrive in the morning, they'd be handled some sheet music, had the opportunity to practice for just a few minutes before they recorded about a half-dozen samples, sometimes at different speeds, then it was on to the next piece.

I remember reading how Jimi Hendrix would show up to the recording studio and want to jam and how the producer had to reign him in.

Even the best measurement microphones, unless digital out and internally calibrated must be externally calibrated, preferably digitally to be flat.  Most microphones are flat over a frequency range not everywhere and when you look off axis not at all.

Your concept of fidelity is based in lack of knowledge but you spew on about it none the less. I am sorry you don't enjoy being wrong but that is not my problem.

Digital just sucks in my honest opinion. Compression, suppression all you end up with is soulless sound.

The question is why because if you look back to the golden age there was no or very little separation between the two the best stuff was the best stuff period pro or home.

Anyone that says all digital sucks has clearly never heard a decent SACD played on even a moderate system, among other possibilities.