WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATE FOR THE HIGH END GEAR ON AUDIO GEAR?

There’s no debate in science about the nature of electrical audio signals. In the world of electrical signal transfer and processing it’s about the simplest thing there is. You want complicated? Signal processing via satellite for real time GPS that literally has to calculate the effects of special relativity because the speed at which the satellites travel create micro mismatches in synchronization due to time slowing down at faster speeds. That’s complicated. Audio signals from 20 hz - 20 kHz is really simple in comparison. And none of those far more complicated technologies are using “high end” cables or power cords. They use gear and materials based on their measured performance. And it works. 

“Psycho-acoustics is the science who put the right question here , and the answers are complex and multidisciplinary , never simplistic as claimed by the two opinionated groups above ...”

What are the competing theories in psychoacoustics pertaining to well established thresholds of human hearing or the current models of how we process and store aural memories? I was not aware of any actual theories in psychoacoustics that challenge the current body of studies that have already established those thresholds of human hearing or any theories that challenge the current models of how we filter and steer focus when listening and how that information is further filtered through data reduction and additional steered focus. Can you point us to any literature in the field of psychoacoustics that talks about these competing theories? 

>>> I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. >>>
 

>> am pretty sure this is questionable, at least. >>
 

how so? Do you believe that you and other audiophiles have developed some form of audio perception that works differently than what was the product of millions of years of evolution? Do you think that somehow your ear physiology has been some how reconstructed or that your brain functions that process sound have been re-wired? What makes it questionable? What makes you think you are exempt from human biology? 

human hearing in many ways is not extensively understood or measurable, and there certainly are individual differences...the process is the same, but the results are different...

“human hearing in many ways is not extensively understood or measurable, and there certainly are individual differences...the process is the same, but the results are different...”

based on what? As I mentioned before I try to pay attention to actual scientists in the field of psychoacoustics and the actual studies. According to scientists such as James D Johnston and Floyd Toole among others we know a great deal in deep detail about what humans can actually hear and can’t hear and have a pretty detailed map of how that correlates to measured performance in audio gear. In so far as the electrical audio signal in particular is concerned it is very well known as to what makes an audible difference and what does not. It does get more complicated once it’s about sound waves in three dimensions. What scientific sources are you getting this conflicting opinion from that states human thresholds of hearing are not so well understood? Honest question. Even in the world of high end audio we do have some substantial differences of opinions among top scientists. But none that I know of regarding thresholds of audibility. So honestly, if you know of any conflicting opinions from the scientific community I’d very much like to know about it.