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
 
there are two types of errors. failure tomhear what esists, and claimimg to hear what does not exist.

the problem:

in the empirical world the only corroboration is anecdotal, which is an opinion, i.e., it is probably true and probably false.

perceptions are hard to prove.

so, i would accept anyone's claim as to what is heard and consider it an opinion.

knowledge can not be attained in the empirical world. thus claims of differences cannot be certain, onl;y probabilistic.

the question of differences in the sound of cables is like trying to detrmine which of three versions of an accident witnessed by three people actually occurred.

there is no way to corooborate any account of an accident and no proof that what one hears actually exists.
timlub
2,039 posts
 
Do you feel the need to convince him? Do you win in some way if you do? and what if no matter what you say, he won't admit it?
rja's avatar
rja
2,356 posts
 
"I have made up my mind and nothing can or will ever change it!"
Has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.
greeni
92 posts
 
We are all human and we all have ego. The ego wants above all control, and cling to what can be seen, touch and explained. Our minds are comfortable only in the security of the known. That which cannot be fathomed is simply too scary for the ego to entertain in its limited world view.

Our culture, the educational system reinforced this tendency. We tend to equate intelligence with a logical mind and sensibility, and dismiss our intuitive and creative faculty. In the process we lost awe of the mysteries of life and a large part of our true capactiy laid dormant. We are taught to think in acceptable norms of the society, and that fleeting voice of the heart are not trusted.

The ego's identification with control and what can be known is the reason why the subject of death is treated as much of a taboo. I draw on Rodney Smith:

"Consider the question of what it means to be human. Birth and death are the boundaries of our known existence and embody the enigma of life. We atempt to understand who we are and investigating where we came from and where we are going. This is one of the reasons that death holds such a fascination for us. By approaching it we hope to gain insight into our real nature, but that nature is as unfathomable as death itself. So the mind works to make death understandable even as our hearts delight with the impossibility of the task."

The ironic thing is when the world view is fragmented, life has a way of forcing a balance upon it. Often we appreciate this too late.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Rja, I don't think anyone is saying this, and I hope no one is saying "There is no evidence of any difference, so you are delusional."
More to discover