Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

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.

I am frequently told by non-audiophiles, when visiting my home and seeing (not hearing) my audio equipment that, although they're sure I can hear a difference, they're sure "they couldn't hear the difference anyway". I politely respond that, "of course they could hear the difference, but the difference would not necessarily be worth the cost for them."

I point out that they would not question if there is a difference between a Ford and a Ferrari (or Bentley - choose your favorite). No one would suggest that Yellowtail Cabernet tastes the same as Chateau Margot.

As in wine and cars, "extreme performance" carries an extreme price differential that is rarely seen as reasonable except by true enthusiasts.

>>you basically ran for cover and the thread stopped shortly after that.<<

No. I told you the topic had been beaten to death and I was dropping out.

Using your twisted logic, I guess I've kicked your butt in this thread and you ran crying to your mommy because you quit the thread two times.

Sheesh, man. You don't make no kind 'o sense.

>>But, zip cord does *sound* rolled off.<<

No, dude. Zip Cord sounds rolled off...to YOU.

Now, since we know it isn't, we need an explanation.

Which is easy. It is your imagination.

Can one's imagination cause such a thing?

Absolutely.

>>How can you say that it doesn't *sound* rolled off?<<

Because if it were rolled off, it would show on a spectrum analyzer.

This ain't a mystery.

You're walking proof that imagination, peer group pressure, golden ear syndrome, and many other things can cause one to hear what isn't there.

And, like I said, some audiophiles will persist even when the evidence proves
them wrong.

Because people believe what they want or need to believe.

And this is one of the reasons there is much skepticism with regard to the claims made by audiophiles.

Even when you show them two cables ARE the same, they will claim they sound different.

It is a real phenomenon.

>>every friend that stops by my house comments about how wonderful my system sounds lately.<<

This must feel nice, but as evidence goes, it is not very convincing.

It may be that the cables are making the system sound better, or it could be something else.

You've inserted new cables, you enjoy your system more, your friends sense you enjoy your system more, you are way into audio, they accept your expertise, they see that your eenjoyment has increased, they believe your system sounds better, so their minds tell them it must sound better -- or they tell you your system sounds better because they like you, want you to be happy, etc.

This is just one of the reasons listening tests, to be valid, must be done double blind.

>>What I do care about is having someone insult my hearing and how I spend my money.<<

Feeling insulted is a choice that you make. To anyone who is objective, the idea that one's hearing is open to psychological influence is not insulting at all. Otherwise, every scientist would feel insulted as he/she prepared double blind tests in order to rule out such influences.

>>his thread has been highjacked<<

Actually, the thread has not been hijacked at all. The title of the thread is --
why do intelligent people deny audio differences. There are very valid reasons why intelligent people doubt many of the claims made by audiophiles.

You seem like a nice guy -- I hope your system does sound better!

Happy listening.

>>So the argument that there are no differences is FALSE.<<

It has not been argued that there are NO differences.

I don't think anyone would argue that 24 gauge cable would sound the same as 12 gauge cable, for example.

There may also be cases of cables with capacitance so high that it may cause an audible difference. Why anyone would want such a cable is another question.

It has been argued that it has not been PROVEN that there are AUDIBLE differences between some of the cables that audiophiles claim sound different.

That's all.

That's enough to rile up feathers.

What you have is a lot of CONTRADICTORY evidence. You have anecdotal testimony that some cables sound different, but no one has ever published a double blind study supporting it. To date, every double-blind study that has been done has turned up the opposite -- subjects cannot reliably tell the difference. When this is posted, there is always conjecture about the system used, the expertise of the subjects, etc. But, apparently, no one can find the system and subjects who can pass these tests -- so guess what -- it remains unproven.

On the other hand, you have a buch of unbelievable testimonials, cable advertising that misleading, tests that show people can imagine differences that are not there, etc. Which all points up why it will take double-blind studies to prove there are audible differences.

And, it has been argued that this is what it will take to convince skeptics.

Whether it is a worthwhile enterprise to try to convince skeptics rather than to just enjoy and embrace one's experience is up to others to decide.

I have suggested it, but no takers.

I have suggested that it is probably not a worthwhile endeavor and that in absence of this need to "win" or "convince" or to "prove" -- no proof is necessary. Only experience and beliefs need be shared.

Predictably, this does not satisfy.

Many people come here to be considered "experts."

>>there are definititely at least SOME measurable differences in some cables(resistance, capacitance, inductance, dielectric, shielding) which HAVE been PROVEN to have effects on the sound of cables.<<

It would be nice if such a study were available, but there is no such study.

If there were, it would show that cables are not mysterious at all, but are very predictable, which would take all of the fun out of the cable phenomenon.

You would think some well-heeled cable believer would fund such a study, provide the system needed, the subjects that can pass the ABX tests, and put an end to the debate.

But, no one has.

So, there's no proof.

Just a number of people who feel insulted because anecdotal testimony may be interesting, but it is not acceptable as proof.

Personally, I think my suggestion would lead to more polite conversation.

Oh well......

I'm willing to be a participant.

But really, most "cable believers" think that testing to prove something that is easily seen to be self-evident to be a waste of time.

We don't need a test to prove that the sun comes up in the morning. Only the disbelievers need the test.

However, it someone puts something together, and can get me to the location, I'll put my money where my mouth is.
I've done this before, and I have no worries about doing it again.

Twl...Of course the sun comes up each morning, and the rooster thinks he makes it happen.

Are you sure a spectrun analyzer measures everything from source to brain? Or, maybe the human brain is inferior to a spectrum analyzer.

>>But really, most "cable believers" think that testing to prove something that is easily seen to be self-evident to be a waste of time.<<

Exactly. People naturally want to think they can trust their perceptions.
This is why researchers report that people who've just heard large dfferences between cables get rip roaring angry when the blindfolds go on and the differences disappear. People don't want to think they can be influenced to hear things by peer group pressure, the appearance of a cable, things they heard on the internet, the need to be able to hear differences between any two things because it seems like any two things should sound different, although many times they do not, the need to perceive oneself as having golden ears, or the mind simply creates differences subconsciously because it is confronted with two different looking cables, etc. etc. etc.

But, it stands to reason that people who don't think they are susceptible to such influences are arguably the most likely to be susceptible.

That's why scientists guard against it by performing double-blind tests.

But -- hey -- most of us are just audio nuts, we're not scientists.

Bottom line: I end my particpation in this thread with the same thought with which I started. People believe what they believe. This thread, to me, has born that out. There are lots of approaches to audio that work and as long as we are all happy with our systems, who is to judge?

It was interesting chatting with you all.

Thanks, and happy listening.

Larsky -- I hope you and your brother work things out.

Life's too short to fight with family over audio!

Oh -- one more thing. If this thread is gone in a few days -- it is Sean's fault. :-)

people who don't think they are susceptible to (...)influences are arguably the most likely to be susceptible. That's why scientists (...) perform(...) double-blind tests

Maybe. Scientists also perform such tests to gauge how PERCEPTIVE people are. There, the variable is perception rather than the subject of perception (which IS different).
Amazingly in certain cases, similarly flawed responses ensue:)

BTW, has anyone used a MIC to measure zip cord, as part of a total system response??? (As in the roll-off that doesn;t seem to roll on the spectrum analyser?)? Cheers

Spectrum analyers are great. See my review of my new toy, Behringer DEQ2496. But they are not as sensitive as the human ear in some regards. The example I have heard...Imagine the Boston Symphony Orchestra going full bore, and one trombone player hits a sour note. The audience will hear this, but no spectrum analyser will reveal it. Spectrum analysers can be very effective diagnostic tools working with test signals like white noise, but should not be expected to do everything.

El, bad analogy.

Cable believers don't think that they make it happen.
It's the cable disbelievers who think that the believers make it happen(via self delusion).

Essentially, for the first time on this thread, I agree with Rsbeck.
People are going to believe what they believe.

Some people will act based on what they experience, and some people will doubt their experiences, and act contrary to them, because they would rather believe what others tell them they should believe.

If we relied strictly on numbers, like is suggested by some on this thread, then we'd all be listening to old Pioneer receivers from the 70's, which had "perfect" distortion numbers, but sounded like hell. These same kinds of people who are anti-cable today, were yelling to the rooftops that we were wasting our money on audiophile equipment, because any cheap receiver "measured perfect", and spending anything more was foolish. It was only the audiophiles who persisted in pointing out that some audiophile equipment sounded better and measured worse. The "measurement people" then fell back on the same argument, about it being "all in your head". Remember that? Well, after a couple years of this same kind of argument happening today about cables, it was found that designing for ultra-low distortion into a static load ruined the sound in real life applications. I'd say that this is about the same situation.

Science eventually "caught on" to what was happening in the "distortion numbers race", and realized that their testing was flawed, and that it actually led to the reduction of performance level in real world applications. It took awhile, but some people never really accepted that science was wrong(incomplete). They still listen to that crap from the 70's, thinking it is "perfect".

I think that this is like a movie, "Revenge of the Bench Testers". Where the plot consists of disgruntled bench testers(and their minions) who were embarrassed by their failures in the late 70's, coming back to destroy the audio world by planting seeds of self-doubt into the audiophile community who embarrassed them 25 years ago. Mwuuhuuuhahahaha!!

Don't worry. We found that they are not invincible, and last time all we had to do was disconnect their feedback loops, and they went back to their benches. :^)

It looks like this thread started out talking about differences in front end components, and then veered off into cables. Here is what I think might be even more interesting than a double-blind cable test: how about a double-blind system test? I know this might be difficult to arrange, but I think it would be fascinating to take a "standard" 2 channel Japanese receiver, disc player, and speakers system from a chain like Best Buy, and run it against a relatively pompous high-end system, like an EMM Labs, Kharma, Lamm system. Both systems would have feature full-range speakers, and a means of ensuring identical SPLs between systems would be essential. I think it might be surprising how many people could not tell the difference between the 2.

Rsbeck,

I'll give you this much after reviewing your systems. You don't spend much money on speaker cables. So, I guess you don't put your money where your mouth is. (meant as a compliment) Obviously, you believe what you say as do those that oppose you.

Enjoy your system while we enjoy ours!

Patrick

I also think that it would be interesting to put someone in a Mercedes Benz, then a Hyundai Elantra, (or whatever their best is, blindfold them, and ask them to describe their experience--and then tell us if the experience is worth five to six times as much. (Don't bother to point out that the Mercedes will LAST longer, since the Hyundai has a 100,000 mile warranty and Mercedes doesn't.)
Also, let me cook a steak, (sorry vegetarians) for what I can buy it for at the store, prepare the whole meal, wine included, and have them eat it blindfolded and see if the experience is worth the several times price difference. Life is full of choices, a great deal of which our ego plays a large, and probably most significant part. Pride of ownership is a key component (no pun here) in the choices we make.
When I got my Robert Lee special speaker cables, the Shotguns, I was fascinated at the difference they made, even though I had been using Kimber Select 3035 on both the top (treble) and bottom, (bass). And when I accidentally hooked up the low pass to the top on the right speaker, a friend of mine, who happens to be blind, said, "something isn't right here." (Talk about your ultimate blindfold test.)
He and I listen like this, him not knowing, and making decisions as to what is better. Even though I am faster on the uptake, (at his admission) we always agree on the emperical difference, and how the music is affected overall, when we change tubes or use a Sistrum, and so on.
The point here is, since I listen, almost exclusively with my eyes closed, (in order to SEE Chet Baker or Nat King Cole) what is the purpose of putting pressure on people by blindfolding them. This seems to be the only industry in which people are denied one of their senses to make evaluations.
One other thing. I read, and can't remember where, so it's worthless data, that people, when blindfolded and under test conditions, are pressured, and have a hard time even tasting the difference between common items such as strawberry preserves and cherry, or grapefruit and orange juice. If that is the case, maybe there is something wrong with that approach.
If you like it, it's good, (Bose or Polk, THIEL or Vandersteen, Maggies, et al) so what. Enjoy.
PS, Thanks to the group, I am leaving my poor brother alone. He is right to think I am an **shole! HA

Tgun5: Your last comment is significent. There are many CD's that,in fact, are only bearable in the car. However, I think some of this is due to the fact that our level of sonic expectations is less in the car system. Audiophiles are almost universally in "mode-critical" when listing to the main in-home system. When in the car, we relax, and do not have as high a level of expectaions. Thus, we concentrate more on the music, than the sound quality.

Rsbeck makes an awful lot of sense, and argues his points cogently.

He'll also be ignored and worse.

Nothing changes

Not here to reserect an old thread--however...appropos to the comment I just made (six years ago) regarding how blindfolds 'alter' reactions and put pressure on respondants. Last night I watched, (for the second time) the movie, Hereafter...starring Matt Damon. There's a scene in which he and Dallas Howard are taking cooking classes and one exercise is to, when blindfolded, taste rather well known food items, then describe their flavor.
Essentially, the message was, as I stated 2/10/05, they really couldn't differentiate between some well known food stuffs.
I know that that sounds strange, but its really true--and I firmly believe that when audiophiles are 'put to the test', in the manner described, they can, and some do 'freeze'. Not unlike, being 'test phobic', something that I am personally familiar with, having gone through that in a younger life.
In my store I had a strict 'test' policy for wires and such.
Don't try to fool me--just do this: A--then B--then A again. I'll make copius notes as to which is better and how, and that becomes my decision. The key was to do this with that same product, on more than one occassion...the day, the moment, the mood all effect the senses, so to make 'sure' do it more than once.
Anyway--one more addendum to this.
Way back in the day, questioning his choices for crossover parts, as many people did, I would ask Jim Thiel, "Why don't you use better parts." He would say, "Well, they measure the way they do with THESE parts Larry."
Deferring, I didn't push it too far, unless wine was flowing at dinner. Then, in the twilight of his life, Jim designed the CS2.4 Special Edition--with the entire difference in speakers, being vastly upgraded crossover parts. When questioned on this, he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, there are some things that matter that can't be measured."
Amen to that.

Good listening,
Larry

Without your recent addition, I would not have found this thread. I just read it all. Most, here, go through a some similar experience/frustration attempting to share/turn on someone to the "sound". In the words of Yogi Berra, "There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell them". Next time, I suggest you just pull a Tommy Smothers. Tell your brother, "Yeah, well mom always liked you best"! Smile to yourself and give him a hug.

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.

I keep my audiophila habit a deep dark secret. Regular people think you're crazy or extravagant or both. Of course, these same people think it's fine and worthwhile to buy a Mercedes or BMW. I think people are influenced by the non-stop luxury car advertising.

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.

Do you feel the need to convince him? Do you win in some way if you do? and what if no matter what you say, he won't admit it?

"I have made up my mind and nothing can or will ever change it!"
Has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

We are all human and we all have ego. The ego wants above all control, and cling to what can be seen, touch and explained. Our minds are comfortable only in the security of the known. That which cannot be fathomed is simply too scary for the ego to entertain in its limited world view.

Our culture, the educational system reinforced this tendency. We tend to equate intelligence with a logical mind and sensibility, and dismiss our intuitive and creative faculty. In the process we lost awe of the mysteries of life and a large part of our true capactiy laid dormant. We are taught to think in acceptable norms of the society, and that fleeting voice of the heart are not trusted.

The ego's identification with control and what can be known is the reason why the subject of death is treated as much of a taboo. I draw on Rodney Smith:

"Consider the question of what it means to be human. Birth and death are the boundaries of our known existence and embody the enigma of life. We atempt to understand who we are and investigating where we came from and where we are going. This is one of the reasons that death holds such a fascination for us. By approaching it we hope to gain insight into our real nature, but that nature is as unfathomable as death itself. So the mind works to make death understandable even as our hearts delight with the impossibility of the task."

The ironic thing is when the world view is fragmented, life has a way of forcing a balance upon it. Often we appreciate this too late.

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."

perception based upon sensation is not fact, it is opinion.

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.

Greeni,
You make a really interesting point-- which is no doubt true.
The 'measurable'(I'm paraphrasing my own thoughts as to your meaning here, how's that for a stretch?)is always preferable in terms of testing, to the obvious.
You said, and I agree:
"Our culture, the educational system reinforced this tendency. We tend to equate intelligence with a logical mind and sensibility, and dismiss our intuitive and creative faculty."
So, (I'm agreeing again, just being provocative), one must ask some questions regarding logical versus creativity AND intuition and their relative merit.

"Who taught Willie Shakespeare to write?"
"Who taught DaVinci about physics, in a world before the concept of physics was even thought about by the masses?"
(Think, helicopters, gross anatomy and other such things that he speculated on), AND by the way, his I.Q. while impossible to calculate has been guestimated to be in the neighborhood of 220. Since, 100 is the 'norm' that means that his core capactity is 2.2 Times that...I think that's probably really, really a low guess.
"Who taught Pasteur?"
"Who taught Mario Puzzo?"

So, while your 'creative' comments and the lack of appreciation are clearly on the mark, MOST of what has shaped this world has been 'created' by someone special.

When I first met Jim Thiel, and was new to audio...I asked him, "Where did you study."
When I met John Iverson, (of Electron Kinetics fame) I asked him the same.
They both just shook their heads, no doubt thinking..."Oh, I went to UK (Lexington) or IU, (Bloomington) and studied Loudspeaker building 101 thru 404 and 'Amplifier Creation'
101 thru 404.
Those of us who can create and intuit, do this without any logical jumping off point it seems--and those who need emperical data, sometimes sit back and evaluate those who have.
Somehow that seems really wrong to me.

Good listening,
Larry

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.

This is an intriguing topic for me, not least because of a recent incidence. A couple of weeks ago I was selling over head-fi my Grado RS2i headphone, a much sought after item, to a gentleman in Sweden. On my way to the post office I got a vague hunch that I should cancel the transaction, but because the Swedish gentleman has already paid then I did not heed my intuition and went ahead and shipped the parcel to Sweden. Not long thereafter I received an email from the buyer that he received the parcel but was forced to pay heavy custom duties because I have specified the value of the phone on the accompanying shipping documents. I wasn’t conscious of the issues because I shipped like these from my country to the US many times without problem. To pacify the Swedish gentleman I made a refund to him, so that the net price was such that I would never have sold the phones at such low price. I told the Swedish gentleman what happened, and that the refund was my tuition fees for not listening to that fleeting inner voice. He wrote me back “you should always listen to your intuition”.

Now this incidence seemingly has no bearing to the OP’s question of why do intelligent people deny audio differences, but I do see a correlation. I guess sooner or later one would come across people who insist only upon the measurable, logical, the calculated way that everything that cannot comes to terms within which framework are literally banished, repressed, push away, much like the OP’s brother holding a Masters Degree in Education would not acknowledge perceivable audio differences, when everyone else could hear it. The reason this person would not acknowledge perceivable audio differences is akin to the mistake I made when my conscious reasoning mind is not willing to acknowledge the vague feeling that something is wrong, because logically I could not sensibly discern a reason thereof. In the same way the OP's brother could not hear audio differences with cables because the frequency spectrum should scientifically be all the same.

I don’t know who taught DaVinci about physics, but I asked what makes his Mona Lisa such work of art. One could, of course, says that she has a mysterious smile or that there is something elusive about her, etc., but truth be told our reasoning minds are not able to explain that very thing that makes this painting a masterpiece. That which speak to the heart do so in a language not comprehend by the logical mind. The conscious mind plan, solves problem, etc., the unconscious mind transcend.

IMHO there exists vast difference between intelligent and wise, one of which being the latter acknowledge there is only so much that the mind could comprehend, and requires a healthy dose of humbleness.

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.

Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

Perhaps it is for the same reasons that only the stupid can not see the emperor's glorious new clothes?

As people mature they develop a world view, or ideology, about how the world "works". It doesn't really matter whether the ideology is true, factual, provable or even shared by others, but these factors do come into play. When confronted with something that doesn't conform to their world view people don't alter their ideology, they deny the facts. A few examples:

The world view -- President Obama isn't a natural born citizen. The facts -- there's a birth certificate attested to by the state of Hawaii. The denial -- it's not a birth certificate, it's Photoshoped, the typing fonts are suspect, etc. A recent poll shows roughly 50% of voters of identify themselves as Republican still have doubts about President Obama's citizenship.

The world view -- the End of Times and the Rapture were supposed to happen this past weekend. The facts -- it didn't. The denial -- God has given us more time to atone, who cannot truly understand how the deity works, a fallible human misunderstood God's message and the end time is now coming in 20XX, etc. Sociological studies have concluded that people who believe in apocalyptic scenarios actually increase their spiritual commitment after the apocalypse date has passed.

Now are these ideological driven people non-intelligent? Of course not. Whether the topic is climate change, capital punishment, gun ownership, recreational drug use, evolution, capitalism and democracy, vegetarianism or religion, intelligent people seem to have widely diverging and frequently polar opposite opinions.

In the audiophile world it plays out along these line:

The world view -- if it measures well, it will sound good. The facts -- some well speced products sound like shit, some poorly speced products sound real good. The denial -- You're not measuring the right parameters, you don't know what accurate sound is/you like the sound of distortion, your measurement techniques are faulty, etc.

The world view -- I only trust my ears. The facts -- standard scientific tests have repeatedly demonstrated how variable and how easily fooled human senses are. The denial -- science doesn't know everything, I hear a difference, your system isn't revealing enough to show the difference, double blind tests don't work, etc.

We all need a world view/ideology to make sense of what would otherwise be a bewildering, indecipherable series of unrelated events. At the same time that world view blind us and prevents us front looking at information in an unbiased manner.

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.

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, 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.

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, 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.

One question arises that can never be proven...blind tests...somebody put forth a single blind test showing people can prove differences and all this would be over...

But we can't so it continues thread after thread...

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.

Why do intelligent people insist there are differences when none exist?

Budt, is the Emerson shelf system your main system or is that in your office?

Budt,
I'm not sure I understand your post.

Good listening,

Larry

I was just kidding around

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,
The phrase 'sensitivity threshold' comes to mind.
Some of us are 'tuned in' to exceedingly small incremental changes in pitch and volume--others not. Sort of like friend who's wife can 'remember colors'...she can see a paint chip of a color and remember what seems to be the 'exact shade' that that color is. So she is tuned in to color shadings.

I've spoken of another guy on here before, but a dear friend of almost 30 years, (previously a customer) is blind and has been since birth--and, knowing that some folks ascribe to the old chestnut about sight loss and hearing...and I actually had this happen. Joe, my friend was in my store, and this 'Beverly Hillbilly' lout comes in, sees Joe, with his Guide Dog, listening to music, and blurts out, "WOW, YOU'RE BLIND, I'LL BET YOU HEAR EVERYTHING..." or something else equally innane.
Joe and I listen together sometimes, new product eval and such...and we agree on virtually all things audio--the only difference is, we've noticed I'm quicker on the uptake for whatever reason...maybe a smaller 'threshold' than most people.
Over the last 30 years, observing him...I can only say that Joe pays exceedinly 'close attention' to all things audio--moreso than most people, and therein lies the difference he experiences.

Good listening,

Larry

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.