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
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Mrtennis, you ask, "why do intelligent people deny audio differences?" I guess the adjective need not be included, but this is the real question. I have never understood why anyone would want to seek to convince others that there are no audio differences. It is much like saying the Sun doesn't rise and set. If they want to think that others are delusional and that turns them on, fine. But they should expect no one gives a s... what they think.

No one has appointed any scam police, I hope. I make my choices by listening. I certainly am interested in why some speakers, wires, components, etc. sound better, but that is after I have been impressed.

Were someone to find a variable that predicts individual's preferences that I think validly captures the truth, I would be interested in critiquing their work and might find it useful. But were this merely that people prefer expensive equipment with bells and whistles, I would be indifferent. Were we to have a valid measure of quality of music reproduction and could find correlates that allow prediction of such quality, I would love it, were it not just price makes for higher quality.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
yes, there are probably people who try to convince others that there are no differences with respect to many of life experiences, in addition to audio.

however, the issue here is denying differnces when someone else reports them. it may not be an agenda to convince people that all amps, or preamps, etc. sound the same, but simply variations in brain--nervous system, and attitudes, rather than an intention to foist an opinion.

here is another example. two people go to the same restaurant and sample two versions of the same dish, e.g., veal marsala. one may not perceive the difference because of lack of discrimination, rather than a conscious attempt to convince the other that all veal marsala preparations taste the same.

there are always differences in opinion about many things, and i would always assume that there are no hidden agendas, but just honest differences in perception. of course there are biases of a personal nature, but perhaps these biases don't operate to try to change opinions but govern only one's personal conduct, or attitudes.

tbg, your perspicacousness is very impressive. you sound like a very bright person. i think i would have enjoyed being one of your students.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Mrtennis, thanks. I spent most of my career teaching research methods to grad. and undergrad. students. One of the key issues, especially in the social sciences is finding valid measures to allow testing of hypotheses. I amazes me how difficult it is for many to grasp this.

Your choice of the word indicates I'm certainly not alone.
lush
262 posts
 
One question arises that can never be proven...blind tests...somebody put forth a single blind test showing people can prove differences and all this would be over...

But we can't so it continues thread after thread...
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Lush, I think the real question is what constituted a valid measure of whether people can hear a difference between cables, etc. There is much criticism of the typical "same/different 30 second exposure" method. It certainly does not correspond to real life circumstances, although it is easy for researchers. There should be no concern about making it easy for researchers, however, only on reaching agreement about valid measures.

Since you cannot "accept" as hypothesis as only one instance that disproves it suffices to reject it. So the normal hypothesis is a null hypothesis that researchers want to "reject." Blind test advocates "want" to "accept" the null hypothesis, cables make no difference, however, thus as you suggest a single instance disproves it. I single person hearing differences would cause it to be rejected.

No one seems to want to deal with a widely accepted "valid" measure of whether anyone can hear differences.

Having been involved several times in double blind tests, I can personally say that I did not like the 30 second tests, but afterwards with long exposure, still not able to see what was playing, I could consistently express a preference. One time I participate in a double blind test of five preamps. We listened for a long time and personally rated the preamps. Afterwards, the average rating of the preamps was announced. I went to the trouble of getting one for use in my home system. I hated it as I did in the test.

I think you can see that I have no interest in blind test, except when I am bored and entertained by getting involved in one.
More to discover