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

>>> 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. 

@scottwheel here we go telling people that they can’t hear possibly what they are hearing. This is where we are. So everyone that hears a difference in power cords cables etc are being mind tricked or ear tricked. Ok whatever! 

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?

Read this and you will have a gist of an aspect of the problem ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

Link this article above with this one about the conditions around a good audio design :

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf

For the competing theories about hearing, google it, there is many competing theories, but the main point is between theory of ecological perception inspired by J.J. Gibson in visual perception field and the theory based on a more traditional mechanical view ( Fourier, Helmholtz, etc )

By the way we must not conflate the immense progress in audio technology with pure scientific unresolved question about hearing itself ...

For example the fact we create A.I. with neural network are not a proof of our understanding of the brain AT ALL ... It is easy to demonstrate because consciousness dont emerge from the neural level , but from a much smaller scale according to the most important research in this field right now ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257134660_Consciousness_in_the_universe_a_review_of_the_%27ORCH_OR%27_theory

Technology is not science, and science is not knowledge ...

As transhumanism and other technological cult simplify it by reduction ...