Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

>>Nevertheless, that doesn't mean timing is not an issue where differences in cables are concerned.<<

But, it also doesn't mean that it is an issue, either. Most of these "issues" -- like the myth about "roll-off" are passed around like a rumor, but are either easily debunked or there is no evidence -- outside of cable advertising -- to support the notion that they actually exist.

Cable advertisers dream up maladies, create insecurity in audio consumers, then give them the cure for the malady they've dreamed up.

Now, the scientific response should be that since existing electrical testing methodology has only shown minor differences,and that A/B/X testing has not determined anything sufficient, that there must be some other testing methodology found to either support or refute this widespread observation.

The scientific approach is to build on prior knowledge, not to ignore it. Prior knowledge tells us why cables sound different--sometimes it's physics, sometimes it's psychology. If you cannot accept this, you're free to try to disprove it. Good luck.

On another thread, member Aball mentioned that the French and German governments are collaborating on a research project to find out why there are differences between what is currently measured, and what is heard.

Apparently, according to what Aball read, there is some kind of micro-corona effect around wires, which interacts with the surrounding atmosphere or dielectric, causing ionization effects, that they have discovered. He reports that this effect differs with varying applications. This collaboration has evidently produced a " measuring box", which can measure this in some way.

It is interesting to see that efforts are underway to explain this phenomenon.

Kind of a funny anecdote... this grad student was teaching this class and asked if we can complete this sentence... "causation does not equal.... ?" And we were like... huh? She's like... you guys haven't taken statistics? It's causation does not equal correlation! And... in my lowest voice.. I was murmurring... BAKAyaro it's correlation does not equal causation...

>>the scientific response should be that since existing electrical testing methodology has only shown minor differences,and that A/B/X testing has not determined anything sufficient, that there must be some other testing methodology found to either support or refute this widespread observation.<<

The number of people who hold a particular belief does not add validity to the belief. Where I grew up, there was a road up in the mountains where if you stopped your car and took your foot off the brake, your car would seem to roll uphill. People would scream and freak out. People who didn't believe would become converted upon experiencing this phenomenon. Then, after some scientific investigation, it turned out it was just as optical illusion. Cars were actually rolling downhill. Didn't matter how many people believed their cars were rolling uphill -- they weren't. When investigation revealed that it was an illusion, it would be standing logic on its head to suggest that the number of people who believed their cars were rolling uphill meant that scientists should keep devising new tests until they could support what the community believed.

There are all kinds of examples of this.

There are people who believe they can determine where water is located underground by using a curved tree branch. They are called "dowsers." In some rural communities, they are held in high esteem. But, when tested, none of these dowsers have proven to have any such ability. What happens when dowsers and psychics fail the test? You guessed it. They blame the test.

In the best case scenario -- there are beliefs held by audiophiles in great numbers, but which have not stood up under scientific testing, but which audiophiles nevertheless continue to believe. If one believes in something for which there is no proof -- then that is, by definition, called faith.

Skeptics will not be won over by the numbers of people who believe and people who believe will always be vexed by skeptics.

If one is a believer in things for which there is no proof, it seems to me that the believers should simply accept the fact that there is no proof, embrace the belief as a belief, and accept the fact that -- at this point -- skeptics simply are not going to be won over by anything other than iron clad scientific proof.

Trying to raise anecdotal testimonial to the level of proof won't do it.

Simply attacking the tests won't do it, either.

Again -- best case scenario -- maybe the tests ARE invalid. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that they are. That just means there is no test to prove what the believers believe so it remains unproven.

Only two problems remain.

The desire to have others believe and the frustration that develops when this desire --for whatever reason -- becomes acute.

I would only suggest that we each take a personal inventory and look into why we need others to believe as we believe, how acute is that need, to what lengths we are willing to go to try to try to convince non-believers, what is the quality of the evidence we have to offer, why is it so damned important to convince others rather than just have a discussion between people who hold different beliefs, and how do we behave when confronted with a non-believer? Do we call names, engage in ad hominem attacks, form in-groups and out-groups? A cursory look around these audio forums reveals that we do indeed engage in all of this unfortunate behavior.

What does it all mean?

We're human.

And -- it ain't just about cables.

.