Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?


In my years of audiophilia I have crossed swords with my brother many times regarding that which is real, and not real, in terms of differeces heard and imagined.
He holds a Masters Degree in Education, self taught himself regarding computers, enough to become the MIS Director for a school system, and early in life actually self taught himself to arrange music, from existing compositions, yet he denys that any differece exists in the 'sound' of cables--to clarify, he denies that anyone can hear a difference in an ABX comparison.
Recently I mentioned that I was considering buying a new Lexicon, when a friend told me about the Exemplar, a tube modified Dennon CD player of the highest repute, video wise, which is arguably one of the finest sounding players around.
When I told him of this, here was his response:
"Happily I have never heard a CD player with "grainy sound" and, you know me, I would never buy anything that I felt might be potentially degraded by or at least made unnecessarily complex and unreliable by adding tubes."

Here is the rub, when cd players frist came out, I owned a store, and was a vinyl devotee, as that's all there was, and he saw digital as the panacea for great change; "It is perfect, it's simply a perfect transfer, ones and zero's there is no margin for error," or words to that effect.
When I heard the first digital, I was appalled by its sterility and what "I" call 'grainy' sound. Think of the difference in cd now versus circa 1984. He, as you can read above resists the notion that this is a possibility.
We are at constant loggerheads as to what is real and imagined, regarding audio, with him on the 'if it hasn't been measured, there's no difference', side of the equation.
Of course I exaggerate, but just the other day he said, and this is virtually a quote, "Amplifiers above about a thousand dollars don't have ANY qualitative sound differences." Of course at the time I had Halcro sitting in my living room and was properly offended and indignant.
Sibling rivalry? That is the obvious here, but this really 'rubs my rhubarb', as Jack Nicholson said in Batman.
Unless I am delusional, there are gargantual differences, good and bad, in audio gear. Yet he steadfastly sticks to his 'touch it, taste it, feel it' dogma.
Am I losing it or is he just hard headed, (more than me)?
What, other than, "I only buy it for myself," is the answer to people like this? (OR maybe US, me and you other audio sickies out there who spend thousands on minute differences?
Let's hear both sides, and let the mud slinging begin!
lrsky
>>In case you can't remember, you weren't able to refute any of the scientifically derived claims that i made in that thread.<<

ROFL. Yeah, that's the ticket. I recall you claiming that when people disagree with you it actually confirms that you're right -- and you posted a bunch of other incomplete misleading garbage in that thread.

If you have spectral analysis to back up your comments, let's see them.

Otherwise, this is a lot of hot air and urban mythology.
>>scientifically derived claims that i made<<

It would be more accurate to say that Zip Cord is down .1 db at 20 Khz.

Like I said -- it is doubtful that this is audible.

It is even less scientific to make further extrapolations such as this causes Zip
Cord to sound full, or whatever.

You have no double-blind listening tests to confirm these projections.

So you have guesses based on unproven theories based on something that
hasn't even been proven audible.

It is also rather dishonest to say that the link I provided in the other thread
helped your case -- the person posted spectral analysis and contradicted you
and you claimed he really agreed with you but didn't want to admit it. So,
you also claim to be a mind reader and you've proven to be rather impervious
to contradictory information.

Hmmmm --- I guess if you fail to back your claims and I fail to engage you
further on this topic -- you can claim victory again.

Like Artie Johnson used to say,

Verrrrrrry Interesting.

.
All of the figures that i provided was extrapolated from the data that Rod Elliott provided on his website. These were the tests that you used as a point of reference. If you've got a problem with the figures quoted, argue with the guy that provided your points of reference. Don't ask me to disprove the info that you've already stated that you accept to be accurate. You either believe it or you don't, which is it? Sean
>
Sean,
Through the years I have done some listening tests with him and proven that I personally do hear differences, that perhaps he doesn't, or more likely doesn't care to, but to no avail. He isn't an audiophile, and I just need to let that go. I guess there's a part of me, like maybe with you and your wife or friend(s) who you WISH you could share this with, but they just have no desire for it.
This whole thread was actually a metaphor for the whole of the group, and the frustration that SOME may feel from loving the chase, and the differences we hear, and wanting to share, and getting stonewalled by them.
But thanks for the advice, as usual, good advice from a pro.
Larry
Virtually everything that Sean has said about speaker cables above is wrong. He is right that zipcord will suffer a measurable rolloff in the treble, but so will any cable. That rolloff will increase with resistance. (Contrary to his claims, skin effect will be negligible, because we are dealing only with audio frequencies.)

But he really demonstrates his lack of understanding when he makes these assertions in a post suggesting a comparison between Nordost and 10AWG zipcord. The zipcord will have *less* rolloff than Nordost Reference cable, because Nordost cables have higher resistance. Valhalla, for example, has a resistance of 0.0026 ohms/ft, the same as 14AWG copper--which is what Valhalla is. Of course, Rsbeck is right that the rolloff in either case is too small to be audible--unless we are using extreme lengths, in which case the zipcord will have flatter frequency response.