2. digital
  3. 1107619061

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
lrsky OP
1,118 posts
 
To be the first to answer one's own post seems bizarre, but here is yet another slice of his logic from the same email.
"While it is unquestionably true that many technical areas have improved, many tests have shown that reports of this early harshness was, for the most part, unfounded. I.e., many of those early CDs played today sound indistinguishable when played on first generation players and newer players in a double blind test. _All_ CD players do not sound exactly alike as some are too cheaply made and others were/are simply defective. However, at a certain price point and level matched, the differences disappear. See http://tinyurl.com/53e3s for just one of hundreds of examples."

Have I lost it, or do cd players, circa 1984 REALLY sound largely like cd players of today, all things being equal, otherwise?
lrsky OP
1,118 posts
 
God, I am doing it again. I went to the site in question, and the Cd players listened to were, Krell, Theta, and others of that ilk.
I am sure he has plenty of others as 'evidence', but this one caught me by surprise.
This is in the upteenth generation of players, some 9 years after introduction.
rsbeck
887 posts
 
Sounds to me like your brother is trying to get in your head and has done a pretty good job. There's nothing wrong with either of your approaches to audio -- to each his own. His works for him and yours works for you. You can't force someone to see through your eyes or hear through your ears and it shouldn't matter if someone else doesn't hear what you hear -- or else you'll end up on an audio site writing to yourself. More like Jack Nicholson in The Shining. The proper response to your brother, as well as his proper response to you is something along the lines of, "oh, you!" With a bemused shake of the head.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
This question has two parts, in my opinion. The first part deals with technical superiority of new CD players (and superiority...or the Big Dog Syndrome among the new players). The second part deals with pure musical enjoyment, i.e. are new CD players more enjoyable than CD players of 10 years ago, or more.

I was recently involved in a less-than-scientific listening session involving a universally accepted state of the art digital playback system and a considerably less expensive contender. To avoid future arguments about the merits of these two players, I'm not going to mention them by name. What is interesting, though, is during the session the players were level matched and switched. The participants had a difficult time identifying which player was selected, and several times we were just plain wrong. Interesting! After a couple of hours, we could identify particular sonic cues that enabled us to correctly identify each player. To me, this simply proved that modern CD players are REALLY close in performance and sonics. It wouldn't surprise me if any individual might prefer different players on different days depending on mood and/or external influences...like having recently read a positive review.

Now, accepting that my modern player keeps up with the best of digital, I can offer an opinion regarding its performance versus a 15 year old Sony CD changer. I've had the new player out of the system at least once during my ownership, which required me to use my old player. Could I detect a difference? Yes. Was my old player less musically enjoyable? Definitely and emphatically not! In fact, I often use the changer during parties not just because of it's changer capability, but because it's somehow more relaxing and satisfying in that environment.

Now, are modern machines superior technically to older machines? Yes. Can one detect sonic differences? Yes. Are they more musically enjoyable? That...is a less clear answer.
More to discover