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 11 responses by tbg

tbg
5,263 posts
 
There are all the same arguments in this thread-prove to me you can hear a difference, listeners are delusional, physics says there are no differences, charlatans are always eager to take people's money versus I like what I hear. I have two brothers who don't listen to music and who love golf. I gave up on golf years ago once I decided that I love hiking in the woods rather than trying to hitting a ball in to a hole on an irregular surface. We never talk about audio or golf when we are together.
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."
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Mrtennis, does anybody buy a speaker if they don't think it sounds good? We certainly survive based on our use of our senses and our ears can sense the full range of sound, not merely some limited aspects.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Lrsky, you and Greeni have certainly entered into a discussion I have never seen in any audio postings. I think you are neglecting observation, such as Newton realizing everything fell toward the earth and wondered about it, Rontgen the x-ray or De Forest the vacuum tube building on Edison. Certainly, education does impart the ability to build on what other's observed as did De Forest.

Then come explanations and a theory as to why one variable affects another, such as the dielectric constant affecting the transfer speed in a cable.

I guess I think such people who watch and listen and wonder why one thing causes changes in another move us ahead in understanding nature and what is going on. They know how little we know.

I have always argued that why cables sound different, why component breakin, etc. is not explained by much of what we know and imparted in our educations. I have known or know several who are innovative in audio. Often when I ask them where they came up with an idea, I get strange answers, such as it just came to me, I just hear what this circuit would sound like, or I accidentally did this and was shocked by the sound.

Curiosity is probably our strongest capability. Fifty years from now, people will wonder how we could have listened to MP3.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Mrtennis, I think we start testing hypotheses from birth, and we use our senses. In my methods courses, I would pick a member of the Corp (those in the ROTC) and ask him to stand in the small room and then to turn in a direction where there was a wall after about 20 feet. I told him to walk slowly. He would stop short of the wall, and I would ask why he stopped. He would say because there is a wall. I said I didn't understand, and he would say because I cannot walk through a wall. I would then say why not? He would look at me as though I was crazy. I would then ask him to come forward and turn so as to walk into the door. I would again ask him to walk and to continue until I said stop. He did and opened the door. I would ask why did you do that, and he would reply that is the only way he could continue to walk.

Obviously, kids learn all of this early plus more and do so by hypothesis testing, including walking into space at a stairway, if parents aren't cautious.

Obviously, observations are not convincing to others but are most convincing to the person experiencing them.

The real question in all of these questions about intersubjectively transmittable data is whether one with the experiences gives a damn whether others are convinced. In science, obviously we have to convince others, but is buying audio components a science? Is it even a science for manufacturers. Even were they to have the best "evidence" that their speaker is the best, if buyers didn't like what they heard, he would go out of business.
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.
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.
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.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Nietzschelover, I agree the real question is must DBT/ABX testing be invalid if it shows no audible differences.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Lrsky, this is a problem with all passions. Were to collect Barbie Dolls, race catamarans, make modern furniture, climb mountains, etc. what you say would also be true.

Fortunately, the internet and cheap long distance telephone calls have allow us to find others with similar passions and to occasionally meet in assemblies that we call "shows." I live in a city of about 80,000 with an adjacent city of about 70,000 people. There has not been a dealer in audio for the 32 years that I have lived here. I know of no other audiophile here. But an audiophile friend is coming up on Saturday for a visit.

In the 1960s and 70s, even in a smaller city, there were three audio dealers and I had at least four local friends who were audiophiles. But there were only really four or five manufactures of audio equipment. No one knew of what was going on in Europe or Asia, and I was much younger and poorer. Life was great then and now!
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Lrsky, having several times participated in single and double blind experiments, I have no further interest in them. I could not hear which was the same versus different in 30 sec. listenings. Even one experiment long ago where we did longer listening sessions and knew preamps only as A, B, etc. and did our rankings, resulted in an improbable winner. I took one home afterwards and took it back a week later.

As you imply, such sessions are invalid indicators of what is good sounding in the long run. I don't have much respect for what reviewers report either as they don't work to maximize the component. Fortunately, I have an extensive network of audiophile friends who can hear. This is especially important as dealers have vanished.
More to discover