Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

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.

While i said i wasn't going to do it, here i am again. As if i could have stayed away.... : )

Rs: Your attitude on this thread is noticeably different than where we left off on the other thread that you took down the same route. After i had fully disected Audioholics / Elliott's info piece by piece for all to see, you basically ran for cover and the thread stopped shortly after that. After all, there was no reason for the thread to continue once the "major debate" had basically been resolved. That was with ALL of the bases were covered bit by bit and all of the data laid out for all to see and follow along with. I even quoted Elliott's own verbiage, word for word in some instances, that supported the conclusions that i had drawn. As such, you can't say that you didn't see those posts, etc... and that is why you were re-posting the same data, as you had responded after the fact in that other thread. What is amazing to me is that you would try to pull the same stunt all over again here in this thread.

Now with all of the info gone from that thread and me stating that i'm not going to go through all of that again, you climb back on your podium and pontificate the same message again. Is this thread doomed to take the same turn of events? Probably. It won't be my fault though as i'm really going to shut up now. Everyone that saw that other thread, and especially those that participated in it, know EXACTLY what was said, why it was said and how those conclusions were arrived at. I made sure of that because i broke it down piece by piece as best i could. Trying to say that you've "explained away my argument" in this thread AFTER the fact with all of the evidence gone is a pretty lame thing to try and pull.

As far as the original thread goes, my guess is that Agon deleted it for multiple reasons. That is, there was soooo much bickering in it AND there was technical proof that demonstrated that not all speaker cables are created equally, nor do they perform equally. This may have discouraged potential advertisers from spending their money with Audiogon i.e. seeing their name in lights, but in a negative manner. While i don't agree with such things, Audiogon is a business and it isn't my business to run. Their decisions are what keep this website operating, so that is all that counts.

I'll only add one more thing that i brought up last time. How can someone trust someone recommending a product that they themselves are not using? You keep spouting off about zip cord being as good as anything else, so why not sell what you have, make some money back on it and then use some zip cord? This would put you dollars ahead and you could then set an example for all to see. You would also have several dollars left over, allowing you to buy some more music and maybe even grab a meal or two while shopping for tunes.

At least with me, everyone knows that i put my money where my mouth is i.e. i recommend the same product that i'm using and have taken the time to explain why. And also as mentioned before, if i could find something that worked better, i would use it. The cable that i mentioned and use is not the "end-all" of speaker cable design and technology, it is simply the most well-rounded product available at a reasonable price.

Sayonara.... Take II.... Sean
>