Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

Sean said:

Pabelson: Most EE's know what their text books have taught them

And textbooks teach quite a lot about circuits & circuit design -- don't they...
Despite what we (consumers -- not EE's involved in audio circuits) know or don't know about them:)!

Because the most significant variable is the ear/brain processor and nothing that is inherent in the equipment we listen to; try getting that across to subjective audiophiles. Audiophilia is a faith-based activity these days... No it doesn't all sound the same, but most of the time the differences are so insignificant as to make the whole thing beside the point.

Text books, and the study they relate to, teach us how to learn, as well as some facts and techniques. Most of the electronics technology current when I went to school is obsolete today, but the open-minded but systematic approach to learning that I was taught is still valid, and, at last report, Ohm's law still applies. One cannot chase after every fool idea that comes down the pike, and science can help identify the ones that just might be valid for further study. Could science miss a good one? Sure. But some crazy guy will try it anyway, and become a hero.

By the way, how are we doing with cold fusion?

I'd suggest this approach.

Amongst the audiophile community, there is a very significant statistical majority that there are audible differences in cables. These are people who have done all kinds of listening tests in their home environments, and many would have preferred to not spend any unnecessary money.

These differences are statistically significant enough to comprise a valid observed phenomenon, over a disparate group of individuals.

Now, the scientific response should be that since existing electrical testing methodology has only shown minor differences,and that A/B/X testing has not determined anything sufficient, that there must be some other testing methodology found to either support or refute this widespread observation.

Case in point: When optical communications networks are used, fiber-optic cables carry the signals. Electricity is applied to one driver, and comes out the other end's receiver as electricity(of course opto-couplers are used in this case, but bear me out). If I took that fiber-optic cable and tested it for electrical characteristics, it would seem that it wouldn't even carry any electricity, and it won't. But that doesn't mean that signals are not carried on it. You have to design your testing protocol to measure what you are trying to determine. When we add in the opto-couplers and know(ahead of time) that we are transmitting light signals with couplers on both ends, then we can measure the performance adequately. Similarly, we don't really know for sure(and this whole thread bears this out) what we are trying to measure. All we know is that the existing measuring techniques are apparently not adequate to account for a statistically significant and widespread observation.

So, one way to deal with it, is to just "dismiss" it as folly, or imagination. The other way is to figure out why the tests are inadequate, and determine new tests that actually can make some headway to finding out how to measure what is so commonly observed. The first step in this is to try to determine what the cables are doing that is not in our testing.

If every scientist dismissed everything that could not be readily measured at the time, we wouldn't know anything at all. Measurements are made to quantify observed phenomenon. Anything that is a statistically significant occurrence, justifies further investigation to find tests that can quantify it, whether they be electrical tests or acoustic tests, or whatever.

Something is going on here with these cables, and it would behoove us to find out what it is, and why it is.

>>Nevertheless, that doesn't mean timing is not an issue where differences in cables are concerned.<<

But, it also doesn't mean that it is an issue, either. Most of these "issues" -- like the myth about "roll-off" are passed around like a rumor, but are either easily debunked or there is no evidence -- outside of cable advertising -- to support the notion that they actually exist.

Cable advertisers dream up maladies, create insecurity in audio consumers, then give them the cure for the malady they've dreamed up.