Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

>>every friend that stops by my house comments about how wonderful my system sounds lately.<<

This must feel nice, but as evidence goes, it is not very convincing.

It may be that the cables are making the system sound better, or it could be something else.

You've inserted new cables, you enjoy your system more, your friends sense you enjoy your system more, you are way into audio, they accept your expertise, they see that your eenjoyment has increased, they believe your system sounds better, so their minds tell them it must sound better -- or they tell you your system sounds better because they like you, want you to be happy, etc.

This is just one of the reasons listening tests, to be valid, must be done double blind.

>>What I do care about is having someone insult my hearing and how I spend my money.<<

Feeling insulted is a choice that you make. To anyone who is objective, the idea that one's hearing is open to psychological influence is not insulting at all. Otherwise, every scientist would feel insulted as he/she prepared double blind tests in order to rule out such influences.

>>his thread has been highjacked<<

Actually, the thread has not been hijacked at all. The title of the thread is --
why do intelligent people deny audio differences. There are very valid reasons why intelligent people doubt many of the claims made by audiophiles.

You seem like a nice guy -- I hope your system does sound better!

Happy listening.

>>So the argument that there are no differences is FALSE.<<

It has not been argued that there are NO differences.

I don't think anyone would argue that 24 gauge cable would sound the same as 12 gauge cable, for example.

There may also be cases of cables with capacitance so high that it may cause an audible difference. Why anyone would want such a cable is another question.

It has been argued that it has not been PROVEN that there are AUDIBLE differences between some of the cables that audiophiles claim sound different.

That's all.

That's enough to rile up feathers.

What you have is a lot of CONTRADICTORY evidence. You have anecdotal testimony that some cables sound different, but no one has ever published a double blind study supporting it. To date, every double-blind study that has been done has turned up the opposite -- subjects cannot reliably tell the difference. When this is posted, there is always conjecture about the system used, the expertise of the subjects, etc. But, apparently, no one can find the system and subjects who can pass these tests -- so guess what -- it remains unproven.

On the other hand, you have a buch of unbelievable testimonials, cable advertising that misleading, tests that show people can imagine differences that are not there, etc. Which all points up why it will take double-blind studies to prove there are audible differences.

And, it has been argued that this is what it will take to convince skeptics.

Whether it is a worthwhile enterprise to try to convince skeptics rather than to just enjoy and embrace one's experience is up to others to decide.

I have suggested it, but no takers.

I have suggested that it is probably not a worthwhile endeavor and that in absence of this need to "win" or "convince" or to "prove" -- no proof is necessary. Only experience and beliefs need be shared.

Predictably, this does not satisfy.

Many people come here to be considered "experts."

>>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.<<

It would be nice if such a study were available, but there is no such study.

If there were, it would show that cables are not mysterious at all, but are very predictable, which would take all of the fun out of the cable phenomenon.

You would think some well-heeled cable believer would fund such a study, provide the system needed, the subjects that can pass the ABX tests, and put an end to the debate.

But, no one has.

So, there's no proof.

Just a number of people who feel insulted because anecdotal testimony may be interesting, but it is not acceptable as proof.

Personally, I think my suggestion would lead to more polite conversation.

Oh well......

I'm willing to be a participant.

But really, most "cable believers" think that testing to prove something that is easily seen to be self-evident to be a waste of time.

We don't need a test to prove that the sun comes up in the morning. Only the disbelievers need the test.

However, it someone puts something together, and can get me to the location, I'll put my money where my mouth is.
I've done this before, and I have no worries about doing it again.

Twl...Of course the sun comes up each morning, and the rooster thinks he makes it happen.

Are you sure a spectrun analyzer measures everything from source to brain? Or, maybe the human brain is inferior to a spectrum analyzer.