Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

Being without skepticism does not render one Edison. That's a flawed argument. I don't mean to be ugly, but you posted your family squabble on a public site and asked for feedback. I'm just telling you that it seems your brother has gotten under your skin and that it seems to me like there is more to this than audio -- this seems to be a problem for you. In my experience, when someone becomes an evangelist to the extent where you want your brother to set aside his skepticism and see the world the way you see it -- it has become a larger problem than audio. You seem extremely conflicted about your brother -- that much is pretty obvious. This, to me, seems like a larger and more important problem for you to delve into rather than trying to gather like minded audio enthusiasts to side with you against your brother -- sorry -- that's just the way I see it.

If he's really a scientist/educated person, he'd get his ears checked to make sure his "measuring device" is working before espousing "nuttin but ones and zeros" efficacies.

Digital technology is one thing. How it is implemented is another. It bugs me when people pull out seemingly related facts to support his own rationalization.

I would caution that assuming that "because the human being is subject to suggestion, and can be fooled", does not equate to "the human being is always fooled by suggestion".

Simply because something CAN happen, doesn't mean that it IS happening in any particular case.

If someone hears some differences in products, it is certainly just as much of a possibility(or more so) that it is happening, as if it is not happening.

Relegating every unproven statement to the "junk bin" just because it hasn't undergone a battery of tests, is not scientific either. All scientific hypotheses come from observations, which then leads to testing. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes not. And sometimes the testing regimen is not correctly applied, or insufficient to determine the truth.

It is incorrect to state that there are no differences in audio products because of similarity of outcome in simple measurement protocols. It is well known that the measurement protocols for audio equipment are woefully inadequate and incomplete, and this is admitted and known even(or mostly) by the people who do this testing.

Similarly, with double-blind A/B testing, there are known inconsistencies, and the outcomes are determined statistically and never called "absolute", but are always qualified by statements such as "in this test, things tended to come out this way". And all these tests are clearly subject to at least as many "psycological issues" as the ones they claim to be testing.

To me, the interesting thing continues to be why the ear of the listener, his pleasure or displeasure, in the environment he uses, is considered to be the only measurement that is not "accepted" as valuable by the "scientific community", when ultimately it is the only measure that is important to the listener. It seems that some feel that the listener's pleasure should be eliminated from the criteria for buying a product, and that he should buy strictly on test results alone.

Truthfully, I don't understand the point of trying to argue and convince a listener that he doesn't hear what he thinks(knows) he hears. What is the benefit of it? If you do convince the person, and he goes out and buys the cheaper gear that you convinced him should sound as good(based on extremely rudimentary tests and alot of speculation), and it doesn't(and likely will not), then what have you done for him? Conversely, a person should not try to convince someone to buy an expensive product if the rest of his system isn't up to supporting the performance level of that product, because it won't pay off that way. In any case, I expect that the listener will use the available methods to audition the products before they buy, and utilize any 30-day money-back guarantees of satisfaction, to safeguard their investments. By doing this, there is very little financial risk(perhaps some shipping costs), and the user can determine for himself what he prefers for his system. This is what most people do, as far as I know, so what is the big deal?

Just because a person doesn't know everything about everything does not reflect on their intelligence level. It reflects their experience level on a given subject, and possibly some insight. The dangerous part comes in when a person thinks that they know everything, to the exclusion of being reasonable enough to think that there are some things that they personally do not understand, so they attribute them to "psychological effects", and make no further attempt to understand or learn, but simply dismiss to the easiest available rationalization. This is where learning ceases, and dogma abounds.

During the past several years, I've spent a large amount of time designing and building pre and power amplifiers, in an attempt to learn more about why different designs do sound different. During that time I've become more and more aware that subjective differences can arise from small (< 1dB) deviations in frequency response and also from small changes in the harmonic distortion balance. The old rule that odd is worse than even seems to hold true, particularly at high frequencies. A smoother, more velvety treble results if even order dominates and a cooler and more clinical or even harsh treble is obtained by allowing odd order to dominate. This rule seems to hold true even when distortion is <0.001%. It is also my opinion that what people are hearing when observing changes with different interconnect cables is little more than a small frequency response change due to cable capacitance. Higher capacitance can also increase the distortion produced by op-amp buffered CD players, and this distortion is generally 3rd order.

While I do believe that audiophiles can hear changes and differences that the average person cannot, I also concede that these changes and differences are often grossly overstated. Too many audiophiles seem to be caught up with small differences in sources and amplifiers. The 2 biggest contributors of distortion in any hi-fi system are : 1.) the loudspeaker, and 2.) the listening room. (IMHO)

To further define and examine this debate, here is another dimension:

INSECURITY!!!!!!!

-- both that of the audiophile believers and their skeptics.

We like (and perhaps need) to justify the enormous effort and expense that can go into all this.

Non audiophiles dont like to feel INFERIOR while enjoying their Bose systems that they thought were high status, high performance products and we are quickly to dimiss as mass marketed garbage.

During my salad days as a bachelor in London, I used to enjoy having my suits and shoes all made by hand. Like audio, there are examples of huge hype and rip offs in this area, but there is also a secret world of expertise and suppliers known to enthusiasts.

Bespoke shoes are a particularly esoteric, laborious, and ridiculously expensive luxury. Anyone who knows the look and feel of bespoke shoes can spot a pair instantly, although they might go unnoticed by people not tuned into the differences.

Similar to well made audio, they might cost thousands of dollars, although will last 20 years if well maintained and can be "amortized" down to the price of more ordinary luxury items.

A friend of mine, who suffers from a similar arrogance to Lrskys brother, used to LOVE to try and taunt me that -- although he would spend thousands on suits, shirts and accessories -- that bespoke SHOES were a ridiculous waste of money and really not worth the difference.

He was a very competitive person, his insecurities would routinely lapse into arrogance, and he cant deal with the fact that HIS shoes might not be the most rarified and luxurious items and he COULDNT AFFORD $3-4000 for a pair of shoes.

This phenomenon seems to be exaggerated when people are smugly content in their own status because more reasonably priced products have been well marketed to their ego.

People who confidently stock their parties with Veuve Cliquot would be horrified to hear that its the SAME as much cheaper champagne served under a different label for 5 bucks a bottle.

I hope we are confident enough to say that maybe all of our hobby is not worth the extra expense, not as demonstrably fabulous as we think, and that we might certain fail double blind tests if forced to take them.

But I also hope we are investing in our own happiness -- even if placebo effect -- and for our own, private enjoyment.

Further to my comparison with clothes made in London, some tailors suggest that all pricey hand stitched monograms should be HIDDEN on the tail of shirts -- not on the chest or cuffs -- or on boxer shorts because they should all exist for the private pleasure of the wearer. Even better, white thread or white fabric?!? Only YOU know the ultimately discreet luxury of your clothes.

So here is a challenging existential question for audiophiles -- if you kept your system in a secret room and no one ever saw it but you, and you werent allowed to ever discuss it or disclose the price to anyone -- is there anything you would change about it?

Audio is particularly intimidating for some reason, perhaps because it is so expensive and not easily accessible to the laymen.

Meanwhile, most people have invested what they feel is a significant sum of money on "perfect sound forever".

I think this explains the biggest piece of the puzzle:

"Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?"

Long live audiophiles and Audiogon.

Best wishes to all of you.