Message to James Randi: I understand, we all need a pastime. But aren't there more important things to get your panties in a bunch about than audio cables? Couldn't we find a cause that had a little more impact on our quality of life?

Brilliant. Please hire Michael Moore and make "Calling Bullshit" a regular feature.

Randi is the man. I hope Dave Clark steps up to the challenge!

None ever will either, they make their living making people THINK they are experts. If the audio world knew that once you hit a point NOTHING you do to make these things better ever will, that would be the end of multi-thousand dollar gear, and a entire industry.

And its only going to get worse as more and more things go digital since its digital it's self that is killing the industry slowly but surely. Back before the 80's when records where the rage there WAS legitimate claims revolving around this stuff.

Its ok though, they will just cling to straws just like those videophile wackjobs do.

I'm very curious to know how this turns out. Although tehGiz tested digital signals, I want to know how much of a quality difference there is between decent 16 gauge copper cable ($50 for 100 ft.) and ridiculously expensive ($500 pair) cables, and ludicrously expensive ($7k pair).

i have a pair of these cables. they sound better when you listen to it hooked up to 92 kb mp3s. i have kentec speakers and a realistic stereo reciever hooked up to serato scratch live.

Speaker cables do sound different. After some break in time, different cables have different characteristics if you have good hearing to hear the difference.

Just like different wine taste different. Yes, they're all sour, but to those who have a good sense of smell, it's a lot more than just sour.

To the people complaining about this guy: what do you care? It's not your life. Which is worse: somebody standing up against some BS they know about or somebody wasting time complaining about the other guy? It's about the same thing, really.

Think of something you have a lot of knowledge about and think of someone going around claiming they can magically do things you know are impossible and making truckloads of money from it. Are you just going to stand there with your mouth shut?

@ChopSue-Me:
You are absolutely right. "Generic" vs quality cables do sound much different. However, at what point do we experience diminshing returns? How MUCH better is a $7200 cable than a $100 cable? Can the difference even be perceived?

@Falconfire:

Conversely...

Not accepting this challenge means you are no worse off because there will be limited to 0 publicity about it. However, accepting it incurs a degree of professional risk. What efficient human being would accept this dare to being with, irrespective of the truth?

I happen to agree that these cables are a ridiculous concept, but that's beside the point.

@ChopSue-Me: But there IS a point. And the simple scientific fact is, that once you hit that point NO HUMAN ALIVE can tell the difference.

While I will very much agree there is much difference between a 10 buck roll of RadioShaft cable and a good 100-200 dollars digital setup, there is NO FUCKING WAY a human can tell the difference enough to warrant those 7 grand little penis wires. Its just not possible.

And to put it in perspective for you, I have perfect pitch, and can hear tonals off of sounds most normal people cant hear and have been tested for this. I have NEVER heard some of the shit spewing out of audiophiles asses as being nuances in tones and such. Its just not possible because the human ear CANT hear it.

CHOPSUE-ME: That's an impossible analogy. You cannot compare the perception of the taste of something grown in the ground in different soils/climates/conditions to hearing a quantitative difference in electronic signals being sent over a 16 gauge copper wire. They're 2 entirely different senses...ya know...Taste and hearing... and also, well, that's it. You can't compare taste and hearing unless you're smoking a lot of good weed.

Different cables of the same material and gauge hooked up to the exact same stereo system playing the exact same recording in a properly sound-proofed room will produce results that are indistinguishable to "golden eared" audiophiles. It's just that simple.

I'm with the James Randi foundation... enough of this bullshit...

OOOOOOOOO AAAHHHHHHHH SOME cables. Emporer!

i just found it, i ran both a plain monster cable and my brand new set of pair anjou's into two computers both running a frequency spectrum analyzer, the fact that the pear cables respond to much higher frequency with a very good amplification rate is the reason... wheres my million dollars..

no one is willing to step up because they realize the difficulty in rounding up enough skilled audiophiles - people who would be able to hear the difference. no one would leave the results of this study to mere mortals.

I don't have a problem with the idea that better cables can sound better. That makes sense to me. Example, say, a thicker higher quality cable versus the cheapest two strand zip cord you can find.

Now, on the other hand, I don't see you getting much benefit beyond that, as in, the $7k cable versus a $50 monster cable.

Sure, this guy could put that million dollars to a different use, but I for one, think it's a safe bet and think that this guy using his million dollars to call bullshit could ultimately save consumers many multiples of that.

@alin0steglinski: Yeah, that's not a double blind experimental setup. Nobody's debating that to a spectrometer they look different, you Pear shill.

An none of this audio DBT horseshit, either - it should be a real experiment like big people and Scientists use. Take a random sample of listeners and use the setup ECYPHER describes. Hell, I'd bet that the folks at Monster would even provide the room and the setup. Have Chen pull 5 people off the street and ask them to listen.

Call the new segment MythModo.

Any consumer that would seriously consider paying $7k for speakers cables deserves to be shirked.

His money is as safe as in the bank.

@weatherman: I understand what your sentiment, but there's a bigger picture to what Randi does. He is promoting rational thought and use of the scientific method -- two principles that have brought mankind things like vaccines, safe buildings, and increased food production. At a higher level, he empowers people to believe they are in control of their life (and not at the hands of mystical forces); at a simpler level, he helps prevent people from being taken advantage of by fraudsters.

@meeteater: Skilled audiophiles is exactly what you don't want. You can't control for the desirability of response in those people. They also have a vested interest in the results of the experiment (aka, being called full of shite by everyone). You need just plain old people off the street. If you want, go get some folks from a church choir or from a music school. Hell, you can even get 5 people with perfect pitch if you want, but stay away from audiophiles.

@weatherman:
Couldn't we find a cause that had a little more impact on our quality of life?

I suppose you are busy at this moment, working to solve world hunger?

Personally I think going after people who make fraudulent claims about their products is a good cause. Randi is more about critical thinking than specifically speaker wire. You seem to have missed that very important point.

@Elvisisdead: if they dont know which cable is which, then you want audiphiles. I can promise you none of them will pick the right one. I would say out of 200-300 tries they would come in about even between the picking the right one of the two infact.

I think if you read the wikipedia entry for audiophile which I have just edited. You will learn more about what drives these people.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Pay attention specifically to the first paragraph under the overview.

@morcheeba: You beat me to it. Randi does great work in promoting skeptism, rational thought and scientific method all of which are things that are sadly lacking in our society.

@weatherman: If you check out a little more background on Randi (check out the JREF) you'll see that he challenges all kinds of hucksters and charlatans on a wide range of topics, most famously so-called psychics and homeopaths. I believe he has $1 million challenges for both of those too.

Wow, he put his money where his mouth is.

BY WEATHERMAN AT 10:18 AM
Message to James Randi: I understand, we all need a pastime. But aren't there more important things to get your panties in a bunch about than audio cables? Couldn't we find a cause that had a little more impact on our quality of life?

...and tell me why you are attacking the promoter of science and reason, **Randi**, rather than the cable BSers who may be making fraudulent claims? If you want to talk about skewed priorities perhaps you should look at who your statement attempts to protect.

Randi's James Randi Educational Foundation promotes rational thinking as a tool that helps us separate what is true from what just seems to be true. It is an artificial distinction to turn off rationality for audio testing and I think it is harmful to do so. To start promoting irrationality in one field is to falsely promote the idea that irrationality is a reasonable way of evaluating the veracity of testable claims is a bad idea. We must do all we can to keep the Camel's nose out of the tent and keep irrationality from diluting our ability to use science to reliably inform us about how the world actually works.

BY CHOPSUE-ME AT 10:37 AM
Speaker cables do sound different. After some break in time, different cables have different characteristics if you have good hearing to hear the difference.
Just like different wine taste different. Yes, they're all sour, but to those who have a good sense of smell, it's a lot more than just sour.

Although speaker cables can make an audible difference when you move from truly crappy to high quality, once you get above a certain level of quality all speaker cables sound the same and double blind tests prove there are no audible differences. JERF has $1,000,000 on the line to back that up.

Speaker cables are not like wine because the situations are not analogous. Wine is widely varied in flavor and you apply it directly to your taste buds. Speaker cables, on the other hand, are one part of an electronic system. The wine is more akin to your choice of music CD. The speaker cables are closer to your choice of wine glasses So, can you taste the difference between wine glasses? I suppose some cheap wine glasses might have flavor, but no high quality wine glasses are going affect the flavor of your wine differently than equivalent glasses from another manufacturer. I'm sure you could by a pair of $7,500 wine glasses, but they won't actually improve the flavor of your wine unless you are seriously deluded. And the $7,500 speaker cables will not improve the sound of your audio system over regular high quality cables unless you are deluded.

One sure sign of Audiophile BS is the claim that cables need to be "broken in" by playing music through them. That is 100% pure BS. Electrical cables are not jeans that need to be washed or mechanical parts that need to be worn down to optimal tolerances with use, they are just electrical wire who's properties remain the same before and after the so called "break in" period. There is no scientific evidence to believe that cables perform any differently after a few weeks of use. Your brain, on the other hand, has plenty of time during that "burn in" period to imagine all the differences in the sound you think you are hearing. Any person who claims that cables need to be broken in is not basing that idea on rationality or double blind tests and and that person subsequently lacks credibility. And any cable company that claims your cables need to be "broken in" is beyond suspect.

IMO.

Actually, the rules are set up so as to give ultimate control to Randi. To claim the prize, you have to follow the rules and here's the one that will kill off most applicants:

"This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a "media presence," which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person's abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified."

Basically, that means that the offer is only open to whoever they want to open it to. It also means that some academic must be convinced to risk their reputation first, a pretty big hurdle to get over.

The rest of the rules are equally lopsided in favor of Randi. Testing protocols must be agreed upon in advance and the rules make it quite clear that if Randi ever thought anyone had a ghost of a chance of winning, he could simply specify stupid testing protocols. In the instant case, given the way double-blind testing is commonly done and the beliefs of audiophiles that such testing is inadequate to the task, it's pretty clear that there could never be an agreement on testing protocols between the parties involved.

I won't go so far as to say that the offer of the JREF is in bad faith, but I will say that it's structured so that there's essentially zero reason for them to fear having to actually write any checks.

@Alienbones: Actually, it might make more sense to make Michael Moore the *subject* of a "Calling Bullshit" article.

@meeteater: "skilled audiophiles" = "people who buy into this nonsense, and hear the sound quality as better purely by placebo effect"?

BY ELVISISDEAD AT 11:15 AM
...
An none of this audio DBT horseshit, either - it should be a real experiment like big people and Scientists use. Take a random sample of listeners and use the setup ECYPHER describes. Hell, I'd bet that the folks at Monster would even provide the room and the setup. Have Chen pull 5 people off the street and ask them to listen.

Next, audiophiles love to talk about how only audiophiles and "golden ears" people can hear the subtle differences in high end system. That is BS and is related to how only certain people could see the Emperor's New Clothes. Although people's sense of hearing varies, tests have shown that "trained" people are no better at hearing sonic differences than "untrained" individuals and that some audiophiles have an inflated sense of their own perceptive abilities.

Also, it isn't necessary to pull random people off the street to make this test scientific. This isn't a test to see if **average** people can hear a difference in a proper DBT. This is a test to see if it is possible for anyone to hear a difference, especially people who claim they can.

A proper DBT presumes that the blinding is working and that the subjects aren't attempting to cheat. A test for $1,000,000 can't make that presumption and the protocol needs to take measures to prevent deliberate, highly motivated and well funded cheating from succeeding. With that much money at stake, it would be economically sound to spend several hundred thousand dollars to cheat. The cheaters could walk off with a very tidy profit.

As to Monster helping out with a double bind test that proves that super-premium cable's don't make a difference? What are you thinking??? Monster wouldn't touch a DBT with a 10 foot, oxygen free coper poll. Remember that although monster makes good quality cables they are in the over-priced premium cable market. In fact, they invented it. They will not risk stepping on their own toes or those of all their high profit, high-end distributors by getting involved with double blind testing of any sort. It isn't in their interest.

@Skeptic: @morcheeba: @catbutt: @wjousts: If you look at weatherman's other posts you'll see that he is frequently missing the point.

I love James Randi, and I'm so glad he's taken on this cause. People believe what they want to believe, and when they're given a more expensive version of something and told it's better, they believe it. Penn & Teller: Bullshit did a fantastic episode on "the best," and handled the subject beautifully. They also do a lot of work with James Randi. I'm sure nobody will take him on it, which is unfortunate, because I want to see the results.

BY BENENGLISH AT 11:45 AM
Actually, the rules are set up so as to give ultimate control to Randi...Basically, that means that the offer is only open to whoever they want to open it to.

Hmm...seems like you are concentrating on the wrong thing here.

Cable BSer: "Our BS cables sound way better than Monster cables! Critic Dave Clark says they are 'danceable!'"

Non-gullable person: "Really! If Dave Clark can do that for real JREF will give him $1,000,000!"

Cable BSer: "Cough*sputter*Er, look over there! I think I see something shiny! Yeah, its rules that say not everyone is eligible!"

Non-gullable person:"Randi already said Dave Clark is eligible."

Cable BSer:"Sputter*cough*sputter*Uh, well, you can't trust that Randi, 'cause, um, well you can't."

When BSer's know they have to put up or shut up they go on the attack. The JREF $1,000,000 prize is an embarrassment to Pear and Dave Clark and to willfully deluded audiophiles everywhere. They would much rather attack the venerable JREF than admit that double blind tests show that super-premium cables don't make an audible difference over regular high quality cables.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much BENENGLISH...

Further, the JREf prize has been open to all comers for years. However, this year JREF decided to weed out the legions of truly deluded people who claim they can do things like fly or live indefinitely without food or water and concentrate on the bigger fish who make an impact on the public consciousness. Thus, a new set of rules set up for just the kind of public claims that Pear and Dave Clark are making.

Anyone who claims that someone who rakes in $7,250 for every set of 12' BS cables is no big deal has set the bar too low.

IMO

@Skeptic: Wow, that's a really fascinating way to go off on a tangent, there.

Allow me to restate. Yes, JREF has stated there is one person eligible for this prize. By winnowing the field of applicants to only one potential, they make it next to impossible to have to pay off. By requiring that applicant to convince an academician first, the bar is set higher. By specifying that testing protocols must be mutually agreeable, the bar is pushed higher, still. (Yes, I recognize that this last one is practically necessary.)

The result? The offer of the JREF is as credible as me offering a prize of a million dollars for the first person who can do a standing broad jump of 100 feet over a pit of alligators. What's so admirable about offering money then setting up conditions that make it impossible for anyone to claim the prize? What does it prove?

Nothing.

Furthermore, the first two conditions cited above leave me with a sneaking suspicion that I could not expect the JREF to negotiate in good faith to set the testing protocols. Yes, I realize you refer to the JREF as "venerable." You seem to think we should trust them to act in good faith. Well, I don't. With a million bucks on the line, I don't trust anybody. Just call me a skeptic, Skeptic.

Don't get me wrong. I think James Randi has done great work and I like his general approach. However, I've seen him ambush people by imposing changes to testing conditions on live TV. (In that case, the subject, who claimed to be able to turn the pages of a book with his mind, was an obvious fraud but that still didn't excuse the way Randi surprised him with changes to the test.) It's pretty clear that Randi sets up situations that, first and foremost, make Randi look good. I see no mechanism assuring that the JREF must negotiate testing protocols in good faith when it comes to this subject.

Frankly, I hope Dave Clark takes up the offer of the JREF. Then I hope Clark publishes a full disclosure of the way the negotiations fall apart and the test never happens.

Face it, the way this thing is set up, it's in the interest of both Clark and the JREF that the test never come to pass. I sincerely doubt it will.

If the JREF was serious about this, they'd publicly specify a draft of the testing protocols they want to use and then sponsor a wiki-based debate on the particulars. Only when they had unilaterally accepted a finalized testing protocol would they then open the offer to any golden-eared audio reviewer who thinks he can beat the test. In that way, the JREF would give up the ability to sabotage the whole thing during the negotiations phase, thus avoiding a payout. Likewise, the golden-ear guy would also be unable to wreck the proceedings if things weren't going his way.

As the offer is currently structured, though, it'll never happen. And that's great for the JREF. They get to make their claims without fear of contradiction.

Well, that's nice for them, I suppose, but it doesn't prove a darn thing about the utility of good cables.

I guess I'm winding up right where I started. I can't tell the difference between $200 cables and multi-kilobuck cables, but that doesn't give me a solid foundation from which to assert that no difference exists. I just can't quite understand why you so obviously feel comfortable doing so. Have ya got anything more than just hubris and labels in that debating toolkit of yours? 'Cuz, that's all we've seen so far...

I smell sock puppets...

@benenglish: I think you are interpreting the rules of the challenge incorrectly. There is nothing about the conditions that says JREF can deny anyone they want to. As long as someone can meet these fair and reasonable conditions they can particpate and in fact the legal system will enforce that fact. To say JREF's offer is in bad faith is presumptuous.

These conditions exist, not to deter anyone, simply to protect the prize for someone who is willing to accept the challenge. Just like Guinness book of world records will not call you a record holder unless they see the proof. I also disagree that anyone willing to attempt this challenge is putting their reputation on the line, only their time and effort. The only one who has damaged their reputations is Dave Clark, Pear Anjou and possibly some commenters like yourself for making misleading statements.

LOL. I think it's great that someone did this.
Shure makes me think about the prize to someone who proves having some kinda psychic or supernatural powers.
Both are BS.

Speaking of tangents, BENENGLISH, the whole Randi attack is a tangent to deflect the fact that nobody can hear the difference between Pear's $7,250 cables and regular high quality speaker cables in a double blind test. "Critic" Dave Clark is either deluded or full of it and can't prove that he can hear that "danceable" quality that he claims Pear Cables have in a double blind test, whether it is put on by JREF with a $1,000,000 or properly set up by anyone else.

Cable-hyper's claims are BS. They can't hear the difference they claim to be able to hear. Double blind tests prove that to be the case and apologists try and go on the attack to distract people from that scientific fact--just like you are trying to do now.

I can't tell the difference between $200 cables and multi-kilobuck cables, but that doesn't give me a solid foundation from which to assert that no difference exists. I just can't quite understand why you so obviously feel comfortable doing so. Have ya got anything more than just hubris and labels in that debating toolkit of yours?

How about my Science Toolkit? Positive claims require positive evidence. I don't have to prove that cable hyper's positive claims of efficacy are false. There is no reason to presume their claims are true to begin with because their claims are not scientific. They merely assert that their magic cables perform miracles. However, the onus is on Pear to prove that their cables perform as advertised, not merely to supply an eager tool who will say stupid stuff like these cables have "Great swing and pace!" There is no such thing as "Great swing and pace" as a descriptor of audio cables, let alone a quality that can be discerned in a DBT. I need prove nothing. BS cable hypers have the burden of proof.

I assert that there is no difference because DBTs and ABX testing has shown that to be the case. There are no reliable DBTs that contradict that position. Your position is that we should believe outrageous claims of magical audible improvements and qualities like "Great swing and pace" without proof. That is not a scientific default position.

IMO

If I had a million dollars to piss away like that, I would give it to charity.

And leave the poor idiot that bought the speaker cable to tell the difference.

No?