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 13 responses by viggen

Lately, I noticed Bush's favorite phrase is "I understand that, but we got to..." Yah I know I am going way out on a tangent.
The part where you use a premise proven false to prove a conclusion to be false by arguing there is seemingly relatedness between them but isn't really.
Let me guess... he's the left brain, and you are the right brain of the family...
If he's really a scientist/educated person, he'd get his ears checked to make sure his "measuring device" is working before espousing "nuttin but ones and zeros" efficacies.

Digital technology is one thing. How it is implemented is another. It bugs me when people pull out seemingly related facts to support his own rationalization.
The way I see it is you disagree natural occurences can be explained without the classical/scientific/mathematical axioms because people claim they can hear the differences between cables when they are actually listening to the same cable. So, you have one conclusion and one premise. I might be simplifying your argument a bit, and I apologize.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean timing is not an issue where differences in cables are concerned. And, I don't think data presented has any bearings on these.

Nor, does it mean rolling off is an issue.

And, how do you remain objective between siblings. That's asking the impossible. *tongue in cheek*
Kind of a funny anecdote... this grad student was teaching this class and asked if we can complete this sentence... "causation does not equal.... ?" And we were like... huh? She's like... you guys haven't taken statistics? It's causation does not equal correlation! And... in my lowest voice.. I was murmurring... BAKAyaro it's correlation does not equal causation...
But, zip cord does *sound* rolled off. How can you say that it doesn't *sound* rolled off? This is almost like the Xeno paradox where a person is convinced he cannot reach his destination it goes againstsome midpoint theorem.

And, your other premise is basically saying the same thing as your first but with a different anecdote. So, I bunched them up into one premise for conciseness.
Are you sure a spectrun analyzer measures everything from source to brain? Or, maybe the human brain is inferior to a spectrum analyzer.