2. digital
  3. 1107619061

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
twl
3,251 posts
 
Look, even though everything has not been determined yet(maybe), there are definititely at least SOME measurable differences in some cables(resistance, capacitance, inductance, dielectric, shielding) which HAVE been PROVEN to have effects on the sound of cables. Scientifically measurable, known, and quantified.

Now, maybe some might say that this is not sufficient, and I'd be one of them, because I think that there is more to it, yet undiscovered. But, at least this data IS available, and it DOES account for some sonic differences in cables.

So the argument that there are no differences is FALSE.

Now we get to the part about "Can we hear the differences between an expensive cable and a cheap cable?" This depends upon the system and the individual listening.

In the other thread, where A/B/X testing was used, there was at least one person scoring 80%. And this was in a test with acknowledged flaws. This shows that even under duress, and poor test conditions, with short listening times, SOME PEOPLE CAN tell the differences.

I'm sorry for the ones who can't. But at least they can buy the cheap stuff and be happy.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Twl...You fell into that mistake of half-baked science! The fact that one of the auditioning group was right 80% of the time doesn't prove anything. Group statistics are all that matter in a test like this one. Someone usually wins the Lottery. Stay with your "gut feel" philosophy which I, as a scientist, can respect even if I don't always agree with your conclusions.
lugnut
1,190 posts
 
I really don't get it. Not only my ears but the ears of every friend that stops by my house comments about how wonderful my system sounds lately. And, it's because of new IC's and speaker cables. I don'd much care if anyone else thinks that zip cord is just as good. Let them use zip cord. I really don't care. What I do care about is having someone insult my hearing and how I spend my money. About the only thing I would agree with is that most IC's and speaker cables are way over priced and don't offer the kind of performance they hype in their marketing. There are some really good products though and are reasonably affordable. I feel sorry for the poster here that his thread has been highjacked just to bicker. Let us all get a life.
viggen
838 posts
 
But, zip cord does *sound* rolled off. How can you say that it doesn't *sound* rolled off? This is almost like the Xeno paradox where a person is convinced he cannot reach his destination it goes againstsome midpoint theorem.

And, your other premise is basically saying the same thing as your first but with a different anecdote. So, I bunched them up into one premise for conciseness.
johnmcelfresh
97 posts
 
I am frequently told by non-audiophiles, when visiting my home and seeing (not hearing) my audio equipment that, although they're sure I can hear a difference, they're sure "they couldn't hear the difference anyway". I politely respond that, "of course they could hear the difference, but the difference would not necessarily be worth the cost for them."

I point out that they would not question if there is a difference between a Ford and a Ferrari (or Bentley - choose your favorite). No one would suggest that Yellowtail Cabernet tastes the same as Chateau Margot.

As in wine and cars, "extreme performance" carries an extreme price differential that is rarely seen as reasonable except by true enthusiasts.
More to discover