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
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."
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.