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

Showing 10 responses by mrtennis

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.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
perception based upon sensation is not fact, it is opinion.
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.
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.
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.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
there is a field in psychologyb called psychophysics.

essentially its concern is the ability of a person to hear differences between stimuli.

with respect to sound there have been experiments which show that at certain frequences, given a an spl of a signal, the just noticeable difference varies from individual to individual. its been a while since i studied psychology, but the concepts of differential thresholds and adaptation level could help explain why some people perceive differnces and others don't.

i hope this provides a reason why some people deny hearing differences.

the relationships between perception of changes in frequency and spl is not linear, and it all depends upon the baseline of the independent variables.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi larry:

i think you have nailed it.

some people can detect differences of 2 db , while others don't detect them unless they exceed 3db, so i guess it's a matter of aural acuity.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
it's possible that we are complicating a simple phenomenon of acuity. some people hear what others do not, for what ever reason. this is true for all the senses, and applies to diferences in taste, sight and touch that are perceptible to some and not to others.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
sense perception and intelligence, however its defined are independent of each other. the question shoule be rephrased to :

why do people deny audio differences ?

this question could also apply to other subjects.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
i think i have the answer to the question, originally posed--selective inattention.

if you lack interest, you won't bring to bear your full powers of concentration. a consequence is a reduction in one's efficiency of observation.

thus if one is not interested in audio, one may not pay attention and not hear differences.

if you are not looking for something you won't see it and if you are not trying to attend to the quality of sound, you won't hear differences.
More to discover