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
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.