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
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi tbg:

our senses do not provide certainty or knowledge.

anecdotal information regarding differences in sound are purely opinions not facts.

audiophiles disagree as to differences in sound or whether differences exist. its just a matter of differences in physiology and perhaps, prejudice, bias, or pre-conceived notions before listening that can explain denial of differences.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

Perhaps it is for the same reasons that only the stupid can not see the emperor's glorious new clothes?
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,218 posts
 
As people mature they develop a world view, or ideology, about how the world "works". It doesn't really matter whether the ideology is true, factual, provable or even shared by others, but these factors do come into play. When confronted with something that doesn't conform to their world view people don't alter their ideology, they deny the facts. A few examples:

The world view -- President Obama isn't a natural born citizen. The facts -- there's a birth certificate attested to by the state of Hawaii. The denial -- it's not a birth certificate, it's Photoshoped, the typing fonts are suspect, etc. A recent poll shows roughly 50% of voters of identify themselves as Republican still have doubts about President Obama's citizenship.

The world view -- the End of Times and the Rapture were supposed to happen this past weekend. The facts -- it didn't. The denial -- God has given us more time to atone, who cannot truly understand how the deity works, a fallible human misunderstood God's message and the end time is now coming in 20XX, etc. Sociological studies have concluded that people who believe in apocalyptic scenarios actually increase their spiritual commitment after the apocalypse date has passed.

Now are these ideological driven people non-intelligent? Of course not. Whether the topic is climate change, capital punishment, gun ownership, recreational drug use, evolution, capitalism and democracy, vegetarianism or religion, intelligent people seem to have widely diverging and frequently polar opposite opinions.

In the audiophile world it plays out along these line:

The world view -- if it measures well, it will sound good. The facts -- some well speced products sound like shit, some poorly speced products sound real good. The denial -- You're not measuring the right parameters, you don't know what accurate sound is/you like the sound of distortion, your measurement techniques are faulty, etc.

The world view -- I only trust my ears. The facts -- standard scientific tests have repeatedly demonstrated how variable and how easily fooled human senses are. The denial -- science doesn't know everything, I hear a difference, your system isn't revealing enough to show the difference, double blind tests don't work, etc.

We all need a world view/ideology to make sense of what would otherwise be a bewildering, indecipherable series of unrelated events. At the same time that world view blind us and prevents us front looking at information in an unbiased manner.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Mrtennis, I think we start testing hypotheses from birth, and we use our senses. In my methods courses, I would pick a member of the Corp (those in the ROTC) and ask him to stand in the small room and then to turn in a direction where there was a wall after about 20 feet. I told him to walk slowly. He would stop short of the wall, and I would ask why he stopped. He would say because there is a wall. I said I didn't understand, and he would say because I cannot walk through a wall. I would then say why not? He would look at me as though I was crazy. I would then ask him to come forward and turn so as to walk into the door. I would again ask him to walk and to continue until I said stop. He did and opened the door. I would ask why did you do that, and he would reply that is the only way he could continue to walk.

Obviously, kids learn all of this early plus more and do so by hypothesis testing, including walking into space at a stairway, if parents aren't cautious.

Obviously, observations are not convincing to others but are most convincing to the person experiencing them.

The real question in all of these questions about intersubjectively transmittable data is whether one with the experiences gives a damn whether others are convinced. In science, obviously we have to convince others, but is buying audio components a science? Is it even a science for manufacturers. Even were they to have the best "evidence" that their speaker is the best, if buyers didn't like what they heard, he would go out of business.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi tbg:

i agree with you as to the perceiver of sound.

however the question asked ls "why do intelligent people deny audio differences?"

the simple answer is variations in perception.

if three people witness an accident and there two distinct versions of the accident , which is factual ?

perception of audio differences is not factual, it is opinion based.

i would like to compare the difference between the definition of fact and opinion. i believe both are based upon probability , as are perceptions of audio differences.

we are dealing with stochastic processes not certainty, in the realm of perception of sound. there is no way to determine the truth of audio perceptions.
More to discover