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
I suspect you just didn't like the argument, but can't quite put your finger on the reason.

It is simply true that people can be influenced to "hear things" for any number of reasons. We like to think it is the great unwashed who fail these tests, but the people who claimed to hear these large differences and to express these preferences while listening to Zip Cord the entire time were audiophiles and reviewers -- "experts." "Experts" are open to influence like anyone else. So, anytime there is an audio review, there is always the possibility that the reviewer was influenced to "hear things." Even in a single blind test, the person conducting the test can influence the test if he/she knows the identity of the gear under review. When it comes to cables and power cords -- all bets are off. Skeptics will not be moved by anecdotal testimonials and believers always seem to get angered when confronted by skeptics.

There is a way around all of this, but it calls for humility from all sides.

It calls for embracing these positions as "beliefs" rather than "the truth."

So...there ain't a chance in hell it will happen.

That's why these debates will never end.
>>How many premises did you have?<<

I think I had two of them, but I could have imagined it.
The way I see it is you disagree natural occurences can be explained without the classical/scientific/mathematical axioms because people claim they can hear the differences between cables when they are actually listening to the same cable. So, you have one conclusion and one premise. I might be simplifying your argument a bit, and I apologize.
Experiences can be explained in any number of ways, but proof is another story. There were all kinds of explanations, for example, for why cars could roll uphill in that particular spot I mentioned earlier, some people explained that it was due to gravitational anomolies and interferences and others said they didn't care how it was explained, they just knew it to be true because they'd experienced it. Turned out, it was an optical illusion.

Someone earlier mentioned that speaker wire sounded better when oxidation was cleaned from the terminations -- that's easy to explain. Oxidation robs signal across the spectrum.

On the other hand, you've got someone claiming that Zip Cord is "rolled off" and continue to claim it is rolled off even after it is shown that the alleged roll off is .1 db or less between 10Khz and 20Khz and is way below the threshold of audibility. Yet it was claimed that if Larsky's brother was honest, he would admit to hearing this "roll-off." How do I explain this type of phenomenon?
The only nice way to explain it is to just accept that some people believe what they believe, no matter what. But others, like me, aren't going to believe it -- because in this case we have facts that refute it.

One time, I recommended a certain interconnect to a poster. Another poster wrote in to say that this particular interconnect sounds "grainy" and suggested another interconnect that had received nice reviews. I showed him that the two interconnects were actually made from the exact same Belden Cable and Neutrik XLR connectors. He replied that everyone knows the interconnect he was suggesting is superior. How do I explain that? The mystery of audio cables? There is an undeniable psychological element to the "cable phenomenon."

There *is* one more premise; That is -- there is a lot of questionable stuff around cables; differences that disappear under double-blind testing, people who claim to hear large differences when the cable hasn't even been changed, people recommending mega-buck cables to a kid with a $500 system, testimonials that are not believable, people making claims about cables that are demonstably untrue -- unless we're going to believe that cables that are .1 db down at 20Khz are audibly "rolled off" just because someone says so in an authoritative voice, cable companies with misleading advertising and people parroting it around the internet, etc.

So, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical.

You can explain some of these phenomenon any way you please, but if you're looking for a magic bullet, some way to "win" the debate with a skeptic, you'll need more than that -- you'll need objective proof. You'll need to prove it in a properly administered double-blind study.

If you don't have that, IMO, you shouldn't expect to convert a skeptic.

So, why try?

Why try to "win" and "convert" and "convince" a skeptic that what you've experienced is "the truth."

Okay, I know why we do this, so it is a rhetorical question.

But, if you do try to "win" "convert" and "convince" a skeptic that you've got "the truth" -- you'll be confronted with the fact that you have no proof.

And, you don't.

With the possibility that you've imagined these things.

And, it *is* possible.

Unless you've eliminated the possibility by conducting a proper ABX test, it is a possibility.

What then?

You're left with an experience and a belief.

So, I am suggesting we all start with this premise instead of crashing there and then complaining.