Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

I thought I would give a manuf perspective on this, since I have about 30 years experience and have been exhibiting at CES and RMAF for about 13 years. I am an engineer and designer, in addition to running a business.

The things that I have noticed with my own system over time and other customer, reviewer and show systems:

1 invariably, the system uses an active preamp, which tends to homogenize the sound and mask the detail and imaging. This is due to compression, harmonic distortion and noise added by the active pre.

2 If the system is digital, the jitter from the master clock, either in the CD player or computer interface, is too high and adds significant noise. Sometimes this noise is like an echo, so the listener can be fooled into thinking that this is a bigg soundstage, when it is not.

3 if the system is digital, the DAC invariably uses digital filtering, the so called "brick-wall". This does the most damage to the sound. This is
why NOS DACs are so popular.

listeners With the above symptoms often still feel that their system is extremely resolving, when in fact it is not, compared to systems that address the above issues properly.

How to address the above issues?

1 eliminate the preamp, by using the best volume control technology available in the DAC or use a transformer based linestage, such as the Music First

2 Use the computer interface or the CD Transport with the very lowest jitter clock technology.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

OR, if you don't care the differences don't matter which I think is most often the case.

OR, you kinda care but the differences beyond mediocre aren't worth the extra money required.

I'm not entirely convinced that it is a perception or lack thereof issue. I think most people can hear the differences between excellent and mediocre audio. IMO: It's more a matter of values. Some value excellent sound reproduction and most could care less.

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.

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.

Back to this 'old thread'.
I recently saw the movie, 'Hereafter', directed by Clint Eastwood, starring Matt Damon...I LOVED this movie, and the main theme, played thoughout, written by Eastwood, is a treasure. He has orchestra playing it, classical guitar, piano (think Eastwood played it)...it's haunting and beautiful. But THAT'S not the reason to write today.
Lush said...
"It still doesn't explain how no blind tests have yielded credible results in how we as listner's can perceive differences in an accurate setting."
There's a wonderful scene in the movie, in which Damon and Dallas Howard are taking a cooking class, and one 'exercise' is to taste food blindfolded...then tell what it is that they're tasting.
Overall, they were unable to tell what most items were.
I'm convinced that the 'Blindfold Test' that most people talk about...creates an 'angst'...some blocker, that causes most people freeze...to not be able to pereceive differences that one would normally think, are easily noticed.
I have NO scientific data to support this...but I had heard, before the movie of course, that under blindfold conditions, people don't perform within normal parameters...who knows...just thought it interesting.
Maybe someone out there DOES know.

Good listening.
Larry

By the way...I have a Book for sale on Amazon.com/Kindle it's a Political Action Thriller...called, "In Plain Sight"...it's a fast paced fun work...go check it out...$2.99--sorry for the commercial...but as a ten year poster here...maybe I've earned the right to plug this...I hope so!

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!

I sincerely hope that all of you realize one thing...many years ago, I would admonish my customers at the retail level..."This is a singular hobby, don't expect your friends to begin to understand."
They'll come over, you'll be all excited about your new preamp, speakers, whatever--try to sit them down for a listen...you'll turn it on, and up louder for maximum effect...they'll sit there impatiently, squirming a bit, looking around, then blurt out, "That's nice, you got any beer?"
So, when I make these statements about my brother, it transcendends even my logic circuits--I know at the most basic level, the futility of anyone caring as much as I do.

Good listening,
Larry

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.

All I say, is I think you are WAY over estimating the intelligence of this person. Just because someone has obtained a degree or has read a Windows operating systems book certainly does not equate nor qualify them as being intelligent. And certainly, with the given occupation of this person... As the public school systems in the US are a complete and total failure, to say the absolute least.

I started in this 'hobby' some 40 yrs ago in college and early on I had a conversation that has shaped my thinking on the differences in the sound from a system. The conversation was with a roommate from a couple of yrs earlier and he told me how crazy he thought I was (some things never change) when I was pushing the loudness button, high or low filters, or adjusting the tone controls and he couldn't tell any difference. But he had bought a stereo in the meantime and then he started to actually listen. He finally got to the point where he could hear the difference those adjustments make.

I hear the difference cables make, don't really care if someone else doesn't and because of my old roommate, don't spend time trying to explain or justify it to someone that doesn't. Just real happy when I find somebody I can talk to about my 'hobby'.

Tubegroover...
"My question to you Larry is How do you two get along otherwise?:) There appears to be something deeper going on than your question..."
I was talking to a friend, who's also a shrink telling him about some of our interactions, like the time..
I had bought my wife a beautifully restored Classic Jag XK.
Drove it to Lexington to show it off--his first question,
"What kind of mileage does it get?"

The shrink burst out laughing...me, of course I was pissed.
He said, "Larry you don't see this as sibling rivalry, plain and simple?"
Guess I didn't, but his daily goal seems to be to 'light me up' about any and everything, this being one example.

Good call Tube...

Good listening,
Larry

Mrtennis,
"perceptible to some but not to others"?
This obviously denotes a level of superiority. More than this, I think, is the fact that some care about the differences but most don't. The fact that most don't care about the differences does not necessarily mean they can't perceive them.

Need help,
anybody tell me how much for a new one Gryphon S100?
I'm going to buy it

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.

All of this reminds me of an old joke.
During the night, a passerby spots a fellow, apparently, searching around on his front porch for something. The good Samaritan offers to help and asks him what he's looking for.
"My car keys," the man replied. And so, together, they get down on their hands and knees and commence rooting about.
After several minutes of fruitless searching, the Samaritan asks the fellow, "Well, exactly whereabouts did you drop them?"
"Over by my car in the driveway," the man replied.
"Then why are we looking on the porch?" the Samaritan queried.
"Because the light's better here."

My question to you Larry is How do you two get along otherwise?:) There appears to be something deeper going on than your question. If this isn't the case the only other answer, as it is to most non-audiophiles is, "it really isn't that important to me, why is it so important to you" ...(wink and smile)? Hypothetically lets say you could prove it to him with 15 people in a room agreeing with you, do you really believe at this point that he would acknowledge that he was mistaken? Sometimes we try splitting too many hairs when the answer is quite obvious. Ok, there is a difference, SO WHAT, what are you trying to prove to me? No one has ever said that to me but there have been times when I suspected it was going on at which point I drop it, why bother?

Thanks for accordance Tbg.
It remains an open question as to when DBT/ABX testing actually is appropriate, however.
To the unconvinced, I would propose that, phenomenologically, such testing is useful when the DBT testing experience does not differ from the one that is had when the object being so scrutinized is normally being utilized.
For example, this is the case with wine tasting.
No one ever asks wine tasters to participate in a DBT of wine glasses (that they could not touch), though. Nonetheless, analogously, that is precisely what is being asked of the "component testers".

This method of testing has flummoxed me enough to conclude the same: the test just doesn't do it for me. Discerning differences hasn't been so difficult in my admittedly sparse critical listening experience. The question of which has been superior has proven more difficult for me and has required more extended listening. (Actually, I've also thought about Heidegger re:audio, at least vaguely [e.g., "opening a world"]. To be less vague, I'd have to read him again, and that's unlikely to happen anytime soon). Anyway, this is why there are 30-day trial/audition periods, right?

Back to the original intent of the thread, I'm only mainly able to talk about this stuff with friends who really, really enjoy music. Most people I know like songs--they focus on the songs and rarely on how they sound. I do a bit of community theater, and talking to audio engineers can be very frustrating, because so many of them see it as their sacred duty to debunk flaky audiophiliac observations. To think too much about it seems silly and almost childish to them. Certainly, there's some serious audio voodoo out there, and it's nice to have clear heads with grounding in the fundamentals and hard experience to balance that out. But their general attitude seems to be that if you get stuff that's correct and set it up correctly, then everything will sound correct. Case closed. For them, "correct" is enough, regardless of obvious differences; it seems that sonic differences are tolerable as long as they aren't technically incorrect. I've regarded this as the general pov of mainstream consumers (e.i, "most people"). Audio purists are a narrow contingent.

The "zeroes and ones" argument is a bit simple, isn't it? There's error correction, timing, d/a conversion, output, etc. Does your brother regard these differences as audibly imperceptible?

Nietzschelover, I agree the real question is must DBT/ABX testing be invalid if it shows no audible differences.

The fact that DBT/ABX testing does not support the fact that there are audible differences between two different audio components just raises the question: what is wrong with that sort of testing?
Many years ago, I participated in an ABX test Stereophile once sponsored between two different amplifiers and was correct 90% of the time, btw.
The answer lies in phenomenology as explicated by Heidegger.
Listened to out of the context of something's role as part of a system that reproduces music one is listening to something thoroughly "broken". And all broken audio products sound the same. It takes special training to "beat" an ABX test.
I can tell you this: the "same or different" decision is made by listening with one's whole body and must be done in one, or two seconds. After that, one just hears the "broken" component.

To me music is a often a spiritual experience and I actually seem to hear more into the music.I don't think I would ever have that experience during a DBT. I think the stress of it alone would be enough to throw off results.

It still doesn't explain how no blind tests have yielded credible results in how we as listner's can perceive differences in an accurate setting.

He obviously has very little understanding of digital. So little it would be hard to argue with him because he's blinded by the same frame of mind many other "smart" people have in the belief bits is bits. If it was all 1's and 0's and perfect it would make all our lives much less expensive and we would all be happily enjoying "perfect" audio in our listening rooms. Is anyone here experiencing perfection? :)

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,
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

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.

I was just kidding around

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

Good listening,

Larry

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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, 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.

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, 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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.

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

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?

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.