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
Tgun5: Your last comment is significent. There are many CD's that,in fact, are only bearable in the car. However, I think some of this is due to the fact that our level of sonic expectations is less in the car system. Audiophiles are almost universally in "mode-critical" when listing to the main in-home system. When in the car, we relax, and do not have as high a level of expectaions. Thus, we concentrate more on the music, than the sound quality.
Rsbeck makes an awful lot of sense, and argues his points cogently.

He'll also be ignored and worse.

Nothing changes
Not here to reserect an old thread--however...appropos to the comment I just made (six years ago) regarding how blindfolds 'alter' reactions and put pressure on respondants. Last night I watched, (for the second time) the movie, Hereafter...starring Matt Damon. There's a scene in which he and Dallas Howard are taking cooking classes and one exercise is to, when blindfolded, taste rather well known food items, then describe their flavor.
Essentially, the message was, as I stated 2/10/05, they really couldn't differentiate between some well known food stuffs.
I know that that sounds strange, but its really true--and I firmly believe that when audiophiles are 'put to the test', in the manner described, they can, and some do 'freeze'. Not unlike, being 'test phobic', something that I am personally familiar with, having gone through that in a younger life.
In my store I had a strict 'test' policy for wires and such.
Don't try to fool me--just do this: A--then B--then A again. I'll make copius notes as to which is better and how, and that becomes my decision. The key was to do this with that same product, on more than one occassion...the day, the moment, the mood all effect the senses, so to make 'sure' do it more than once.
Anyway--one more addendum to this.
Way back in the day, questioning his choices for crossover parts, as many people did, I would ask Jim Thiel, "Why don't you use better parts." He would say, "Well, they measure the way they do with THESE parts Larry."
Deferring, I didn't push it too far, unless wine was flowing at dinner. Then, in the twilight of his life, Jim designed the CS2.4 Special Edition--with the entire difference in speakers, being vastly upgraded crossover parts. When questioned on this, he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, there are some things that matter that can't be measured."
Amen to that.

Good listening,
Larry
Without your recent addition, I would not have found this thread. I just read it all. Most, here, go through a some similar experience/frustration attempting to share/turn on someone to the "sound". In the words of Yogi Berra, "There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell them". Next time, I suggest you just pull a Tommy Smothers. Tell your brother, "Yeah, well mom always liked you best"! Smile to yourself and give him a hug.
There are all the same arguments in this thread-prove to me you can hear a difference, listeners are delusional, physics says there are no differences, charlatans are always eager to take people's money versus I like what I hear. I have two brothers who don't listen to music and who love golf. I gave up on golf years ago once I decided that I love hiking in the woods rather than trying to hitting a ball in to a hole on an irregular surface. We never talk about audio or golf when we are together.