CarneyProcrustes

koho22

This is not to say that $7k cables make any sense at all. In fact the author of the above link shows how to make excellent cables using bundled zip cord that can cover much of the audible band.

On the other hand, those dismissive that cables make no difference are dead wrong, as most would acknowledge who've spent some time with decent audio.

As for Randi, I completely agree with his skeptical view and have loved much of his work. I do find him smug, to the extent he often hurts his own cause beyond his worshippers. And that his followers can be every bit as sycophantic as high end audio folks.

Back to the challenge - an interesting article in Stereophile:
[www.stereophile.com]

Challenge accepted, followed by backpeddling by Randi *and* the cable maker. Hmmmmm.

A DBT with those obscenely priced cables would be interesting. I have no doubt a difference would be heard wrt Monster cable, as measured by a statistical sampling of multiple listeners. I also have little doubt said difference would be so miniscule as to make the idea of paying $7k fairly silly.

Enjoy
Koho

koho22

Secondly, if you check the Audio Engineering Society website, you will find a white paper on "bad science" surrounding this very subject. In short, copper.... is copper. In most cases, a expert's claim of superior listening prowess, the "golden ear" is at best questionable. In many cases it's simply ego.

Memory, the ability to have perfect pitch (recall), all could be factors not quantified in some-one's claims of "better cable".

If you really want to get anal, consider Quincy Jones....with a head cold.

If you want to take the decimal point to the extreme, I suggest you use the same cable and monitor speakers that the original artist used in the studio he signed off on the final mix.

Even then, an artist like Sting would have different hearing at age 24 then he would at 60.

peegee

Talk to great musicians, they do not let other people play their instruments. They know that when another person plays their instrument it plays differently when they get it back. This is because that person sets up a whole different set of core vibrations that the physical instrument "aligns" to. This is not just true for the wooden string instruments but also for the metal instruments like flutes, trumpets, etc. Furthermore, a silver or gold flute or trumpet plays differently with different characteristics as will an instrument of higher quality brass will respond better than one of lower quality brass.

While there is no doubt we have the technology to build a better cable we have little need as the human ear can only detect so much consciously and subconsciously. While there is probably room for and a valid argument for expensive audio cables above the standard Monster grade there is no case for cables that cost $7200 unless they provide a physical orgasm while listening.

sop1

-Digital IS Far From Ideal!!!!
-Theoreticals are only Guidelines!!!!!!

r557p

Wouldn't a heavier wine glass require more effort to lift possibly resulting in more saliva in the mouth thus making wine from such a glass blander.

2. Differences in speaker cables

Installing $7,500 speaker cables would be more psychologically stimulating than $100 cables therefore the first few times (actually the opposite of a break in period) there would be more endorphins and adrenaline flowing through the body creating a much more satisfying listening environment in the listener's ear canals therefore better sound.

Where's my money?

dvdt

Benenglish wrote above: "...double-blind testing... [...] ...the beliefs of audiophiles that such testing is inadequate to the task.." The idea that double-blind testing is not an adequate testing approach seems bizarre (I recognize that Ben does not necessarily believe this, and may simply be reporting it...).

Then, the wine-glass analogy. Yes, certain shapes and sizes of wineglass have effects on the taste of wine: "taste" includes a complex combination of smells, flavors, and the phased interplay between them all, and thus the manner in which the wine is introduced to the mouth and nose has an effect. The "diminishing returns" argument nevertheless applies: a well-designed $25 wine glass might well have a perceptible effect when compared to a $2 RiteAid special. The likelihood of a $1,000 glass being any better than that seems vanishingly small.

Coke or Pepsi?

Obelisk1

Go James GO!!!!!
I can't get enough of this---call 'em out!

theDug

FlyingSpaghettiMonster2

Plainly speaking what about the signal that goes through the solder? 10k for oxygen free copper, and the signal goes through an alloy of lead.

jboy55

Audtech

i love it.

ecypher

BY WEATHERMAN AT 12:07 PM
@everyone who told me off: you're right. I had no idea who James Randi was and spouted off without doing proper research. While I don't think audio cables per se are worthy of much attention (I'm happy to let a fool and his money be parted in this circumstance) obviously James has got a lot more to offer with JREF. I humbly withdraw my cynicism.

You didn't have to and yet you did. I tender my respect to you and all people who are able to update their position to reflect new accurate data and be forthright enough not merely to admit it but to update the record so other people can learn what the latest information is, too.

Although I often argue strongly for my position, I want my argument to be right by dint of reason and correct information not merely because I insist I'm right. So, I, too can get it wrong either in reasoning or facts. I do try to set the record straight when I learn I've been in error but I know I some times I can fail in that respect, which is why I respect people who argue honestly and rationally and who will set the record straight if they find out new factual information. Such people help me learn and make better rational and factual arguments in the future.

Skeptic

weatherman

grooves1

grooves1

Funny, I'm sending this update out on a $5.99, 5m cat-6 ethernet cable, while transfering some files. Funny, files seem to not be corrupt.

I dunno. If you had used Pear hand-ripened CAT cables your post would have been more danceable and had more "swing" and "pace" :-)

Skeptic

From Valhalla,

"This interconnect has a very high signal speed of over 87% the speed of light which reduces phase shifting and timing errors to very low levels. The incredible transient response of VALHALLA means that no musical detail is lost and that complex passages of music and difficult recordings can be followed with ease."

I found a price for $2100.

Awesome $2100 for 'flawless' ~300 (24/96khz) kpbs over 1.5m.

Funny, I'm sending this update out on a $5.99, 5m cat-6 ethernet cable, while transfering some files. Funny, files seem to not be corrupt.

jboy55

Tricky things like "facts" and "logic" aren't going to play well in that set. When I say "let them have their fun," I mean do you honestly think the comments made on this board are going to snap them out of it? The fact that these cables were even marketed means there's a buyer, and that buyer needs a family intervention, not web-snark.

I agree with much of what you are saying but I disagree as to the usefulness of the critique you characterize as "web-snark." It is probable that the True Believers may be to far gone to be convinced by facts--they have already committed themselves to that false idea and cognitive dissonance will tend to prevent them from believing any contradictory information or facts just as many victims of violence literally can't believe the innocence of someone exonerated by iron-clad DNA evidence because the victim has come to accept the person falsely identified and prosecuted and convicted as their attacker. However, there are a great many people who have heard cables make a difference and will assume that the Pear Cables must sound better than regular high quality cables--after all, who would have the sheer gumption of charging $7,250 for something that didn't make an audible difference. These people far out number woo-woo audiophiles and for them, education is key.

We, as humans, have a hard time believing that someone might just blatantly lie to our faces, in public. no less, and about something so easy to disprove. Additionally, we are psychologically prone, in the absence of better data, to believe that higher priced goods are better. Pear plays of these and other psychological principles to fool people. They try to stay just on the legal side of fraud by letting tools like Dave Clark make all the outrageous claims for them--but they endorse those claims by including them in their marketing.

Pear needs to be called on their BS. Its good for everyone but Pear and people who revel in self-delusion.

IMO

PS, I note that Kevin Lee of Monster Cable ain't going anywhere near this thread, though, ironically, Monster Cables are the tentatively proposed "equivalent" cables that Clark would have to prove he can differentiate from Pear cables in DBTs :-)

Skeptic

The wires inside your stereo that connect the amplifier to the 'speaker-out' ports are probably cheap, small gauge copper wire. If cables can actually affect sound quality, wouldn't the wires inside the stereo still be the limiting factor?

dthomp325

BrentTurbeaux

BY BUFORD T. JUSTICE AT 01:32 PM
@Skeptic: Cables don't all sound the same. They'll sound DIFFERENT from one to the next, but that doesn't mean one is superior than the other.

You've misread my posts. I never say that cables can't sound different. Truly under-spec'd cables certainly do make an audible difference. However, above a certain level of quality there is no audible difference in speaker cables. The Pear cables are not audibly discernible from regular high quality cables in a proper double blind test. JREF has $1,000,000 on the line to back that up.

Super-premium cables are not used as a "tone" control because they make no audible difference over regular high quality cables. They are, however, used to facilitate imaginary improvements in sound and engender detailed debates as to the exact nature of the imaginary differences. These imaginary differences have spawned their own vocabulary, with meaningless terms like "swing" and "pace."

Keep in mind that even measurable electrical differences in cables do not necessarily translate into audible differences anymore than microscopic differences in wine bottles will make the wine taste different.

Dave Clark's claims about sonic differences in Pear cables are based on imaginary differences and magical thinking. They have no basis in scientifically testable fact. Of course Clark is welcome to take Randi up on the $1,000,000 offer and try and prove he can hear a difference. But we all know he won't. He may not even have to make excuses as there already seem to be apologists and anti-rationalists here to defend Clark's faith-based audio review methods.

IMO

Skeptic

What would be a valid test would be to take the $7k cables, produce an electrically identical pair (matching every measurable parameter as closely as possible) and seeing if one can tell a difference between THOSE cables. 'Cause these will likely sound DIFFERENT than Monster Cables. If that difference happens to be euphonic to the listener, they'll pronounce the cable "better".

Cables are simply a super-expensive tone control for people who look down their nose at tone controls. If we didn't need EQ, we wouldn't use it in the studios in the first place.

Buford T. Justice

-A

Adam C

I have and will always buy my speaker cable by the roll at Home Depot. I don't even go for the marked-up RS junk.

P.S. If you want to improve your system or sound quality, try starting with the speakers. They introduce typically about a 40-60% level of distortion into the signal. Try reading some of Paul Klipsch's papers on the subject.

DonJuane

What I usually do is just eq the high end on my new Klipsch 2.1 THX rated home theater speakers. It's probably fair to say that it accurately compensates for any small voltage roll off that occurs with the six foot hookup cables that came with this $150 speaker setup.

My problem with audiophiles is that they usually have extremely poor taste in music and never ever ever attend live gigs, the one case that removes their mega-ultra-galactic quality gear that they spent their life savings on out of the equation.

radadada

Cables: break-in is often justified because of changes in the dielectric proprieties of the cable insulation. It is a fact that heat and age will affect the dielectric proprieties of thermoplastic (PVC, Teflon or other stuff they use to insulate the cable). Is this earable? that's an other story. Never heard the difference on my hi-end system (yes I am an audiophile). The more esotheric explanations are based on the current charging the molecules of the dielectric (do you smell BS yet...).

Amps: tube and solid state amps all have components that are affected by temperature stablility. In some case reaching an stable optimum temperature can take days (that is why you always leave the power on on a hi-fi system). In the case of tube, it is well known that their sound characteristics change with usage (you will eventually have to replace them).
This, in all honesty, is easy enough for anyone to ear; a new amp usually sound harsh and is not that pleasant. ;-)

Speaker: This is a mechanical device with moving parts. It is quite easy to understand that the cones and general assembly will "loosen up" after a while. This is also very easy to ear.

ansbjork

BY BRENTTURBEAUX AT 04:20 AM
I don't understand people who collect action figures and pay big money for them -- at least a cable DOES something. Let them have their fun, as detached from logic as it may be. They aren't hurting anyone.
Every time you give credence to one of their products, it stirs them up and gives them the life-affirming chance to legitimize their hobby. Just let them play!

If the magic cables were just marketed as an elite prestige item, or limited edition designer collectables I would agree with you, but they aren't. They are sold has having miraculous properties that are supposed to make your sound system sound better--for a price.

They aren't hurting anyone? You could claim that about any rip-off that "only" involves money. It isn't just rich people who buy this stuff, it is also obsessive audiophiles with ordinary incomes who spend every last cent on audio gear, and they are being tricked into buying the Emperor's New Cables rather than gear that actually makes an audible difference.

Also, the general public is hurt when they are told they shouldn't think critically and instead just lie back and take it when possible fraudsters try to pass magical claims off as real.

Rationality and critical thinking are keys to progress in civilization. When we start to ignore reason in favor of magic we are giving up the tools we have to advance knowledge and technology. One day its magic audio cables, the next its magic pills with nothing in them--oops, that would be Homeopathy...

We need to fight back and not let the veil of irrationality descend on civilization through apathy by saying things like, "Let them have their fun, as detached from logic as it may be. They aren't hurting anyone." That way lies the Dark Ages...

Skeptic

darb215

theycallmetak

If you pay enough for fancy cables, you will believe you hear a difference.

Your millage may vary.

Windhawk

Every time you give credence to one of their products, it stirs them up and gives them the life-affirming chance to legitimize their hobby. Just let them play!

BrentTurbeaux

Anyway...

"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."

What you need to know is that Randi changed the rules only a few months ago. Prior to that, ANYONE, ANYWHERE could apply for the JREF Prize. Consequently, his small office was inundated with applications, many from people who were clearly deranged. If you go to randi.org, you can find details about how diffficult and time-consuming it was to deal with all those applications. Finally, out of necessity, Randi had to bow to the inevitable and limit who could apply.

"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."

Oh? What are you basing that accusation on? What would YOU propose, that Randi just let any applicant play by whatever rules THEY want? As things stand, no one can be tricked into being tested by standards they didn't agree to in advance. Isn't that fair? By the way, the rules ALSO specify that Randi will have NO part in any testing, except as an observer.

"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."

Have you ever wondered WHY purveyors of ridiculously over-priced audio equipment wouldn't like double-blind testing? Gosh, could it possibly be that they KNOW their crap isn't any better than more reasonably-priced stuff and the DBT would demonstrate that?

crankymediaguy

Just as how certain wine glasses/decanters/etc. can only help bring out the best in wines' aroma and taste so much (with a limit easily met by standard equipment for sale within reasonable reach to the general public), so the same applies to speaker wires.

I consider myself an audiophile and even I know that a lot of the stuff out there is a bunch of baloney. Companies can claim that they can produce even purer sound but after a certain point it comes down to:
#1 limitations on the storage medium
#2 limitations on the environment
#3 diminishing rate of return

Music only sounds as good as the medium on which it's recorded, and even if these wires really did work, CDs would not bring out the benefits. Sure there are records, but everyone knows the problems of analog recordings and how easily they degrade over time. Now with mp3s, sound quality has degraded even further but most people don't care.

Then again, few, if any, listen to music in the ideal environment. Portable music players means you're outside (and earphones/headphones, no matter how great, can effectively reproduce the entire sound spectrum discernible by ear) so there's plenty of noise, and listening to songs on a stereo means you probably wouldn't even notice the difference from anything above 192 kbps mp3, unless if you have an extremely well insulated cabin.

Plus new music that is coming out from all genres is increasingly digitized and over-edited; vocal pitch correction, for one, is so commonplace it's not even funny.

A $1 million reward sounds outrageous but it's so clever because how could any self-proclaimed audiophile resist a million bucks just by 'proving' this product is actually better? But guess what, there's no one who's going to take him up on this offer successfully because it would be virtually impossible to correctly identify the Anjou cables.

The only thing sweet about these overpriced wires (and many other audio equipment out there) is the thought that you paid for the very 'best.'

SOhp101

Cables make a difference but what kind of system are you going to hear it on?

Try doing that test with some $25K speakers with a $50K system to back it up - I'd be willing to bet theres a diff. Wait, I've done it.

bk000

BrandonAbell

Just LOOK at the PROFIT MARGIN!
I would rather sell ONE pair of these amazing cables than say, a THOUSAND pairs of 12/2 SJO rubber shielded waterproof high current carrying cables!

Can't you hear the difference! I hear it all the way to the bank! It's the sound of my new sports car I paid for with just One Sale!

Face it, audiophiles, these cables are WAY BETTER than almost anything out there. So are the Emporer's new Clothes! Just look at them!

dswpro

Ednonymous

BY AEC007 AT 06:54 PM
If a formal challenge is meant to discredit Pear Anjou's name, a $1 would suffice... don't you think?

The $1,000,000 prize is very rich pot to minimize the credibility of all those reality-doging excuses by hucksters prevaracating why they can't be bothered to take the JREF test. "I'm too busy." "I can't be bothered." "I'm only interested in helping mankind...."
A prize of $1,000,000 goes a long way towards calling bunk on all such blathering. To those who claim to not be interested in money, fine why not try for the prize and donate the $1,000,000 to the charity of your choice? I suspect that even Dave Clark isn't stupid enough to think that he can actually hear the difference between those "Danceable" Pear cables and regular high quality cables in a proper double blind test, so the chance of him actually applying and going through with it is virtually nil.

If you are so offended that $1,000,000 as a prize for proof of paranormal claims is a waste and you are convinced that Pear's magic cables work as advertised and that "critic" Dave Clark can actually hear the "Great swing and pace," then you should encourage Clark to apply for the prize and donate his winnings to a charity you deign to approve of.

BY CHOPSUE-ME AT 05:13 PM
As for someone's earlier comment about wine glasses not helping the taste of wine try telling that to Riedel and the thousands of Oenophil who swears by it.

That would be me. All the blather about wine glasses is based on the shape of the vessel not the type of glass or cyrstal. You'll note that I already anticipated your objection by noting "no high quality wine glasses are going affect the flavor of your wine differently than equivalent glasses from another manufacturer." And, of course, people "swearing by it" isn't proof of efficacy, only that people think something works.

Audiophiles "swear by" their magic cables and they can't even hear the difference in a double blind test. I note that you say how great your cables do in an A/B test, but not a blind test, let alone a double blind test. So, in fact, you just think your super cables sound better. You don't actually know if you can tell them apart in a DBT.

IMO, as are all of my posts.

Skeptic

$1 Million for the X-Prize? Sure! it will ultimatelly help humanity to conquer space and $1 million would not even recoup the money spent to get there. Ask Burt, he spent a lot more.

$1 million for a speaker cable pissing contest? Save the money for better use.
And I thought the goverment pork barrels projects were enough money wasted... It seems civilians can do even better!.

What's next?

Scientific performance testing of motorcycle ashtrays by an independent lab?

There are things worth spending money for. This is not one of them...

If a formal challenge is meant to discredit Pear Anjou's name, a $1 would suffice... don't you think?

aec007

What part of "none have stepped up so far" do you not understand?

I Doubt this is because they dont want to rob this guy of his million dollars...they charge $7250 for cables, they have no problem ripping people off.

The only other reason i can possibly think of is that they know a DBT would result in proving the epic failure of "trained golden eared audiophiles" and also their cables.

tin

*GOAL IN LIFE UPDATED*: get rich. use money to call BS.

tin

Fierock

Before I purchased my speak wire, I thought that it didn't make a real difference either until I was able to do an A/B comparison. The speaker wires I chose are not $7k but they're still pretty expensive, more than Monsters. I can clearly hear a difference on my semi-expensive system. It's not imaginary either. I have friends who come cover who are blown away when they hear my system. I didn't do an A/B test on them but I'm sure based on the way they raved about mine that I made the correct choice.

These systems all need break in time, from the amps, CD player, down to the speakers and speaker wire. New speaker wires have a tendency to sound harsh. New speakers have a tendency to sound tight. In fact, amps have a tendency to sound harsh too if not warmed up.

All of these things depend on your sense of hearing. Like being able to taste good wine, good sound depends of your sense of hearing. Watching American Idol has shown that many people are completely tone deaf. They can't hear for shoit. Not only that, many people use headphones so loudly that they're half deaf and don't even know it.

As for someone's earlier comment about wine glasses not helping the taste of wine try telling that to Riedel and the thousands of Oenophil who swears by it.

The fact of the matter is that it might be difficult to gauge scientifically WHY or HOW it works rather than seeing first hand that it does. Just like for many decades western made fun of acupuncture but you know what? It works despite no solid scientific proof!

ChopSue-Me

wonkydonky

The offer is disingenuous as all hell.

Threatened by Randi and scientific standards of proof much?

To quote someone, you to be precise, "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..."

Of course, I wouldn't use "hubris" to describe you. To have hubris in the classical Greek sense you must first qualify as a "great man," not merely be an ordinary person who may suffer from excessive pride.

You, of course, are still dodging the fact that Dave Clark has made completely unsupportable and rediculous claims. He can't hear the difference between Pear speaker Cables and regular high quality cables in a double blind test. Nobody can. Cable Hypers and their apologists are BSers. "Danceable" my arse.

Skeptic

Anyone who's managed to get published as a critic/reviewer in the business and claims or has previously claimed they can tell the difference should have no problem getting a test set up. JREF lives to expose critics, they definitely hope someone takes them up on their offer (if not just for the publicity alone).

Offering to agree on the terms seems pretty fair. It allows them to circumvent critics from saying they can hear a difference, just not in the exact situation used for the testing. You write Randi off saying he won't negotiate in good faith, but there's little reason for him not to, he's got science on his side.

crash

No.

Rule 12 on this page: [www.randi.org] sounds merely restrictive upon a first reading. Then after you run through all the permutations in your head, it becomes clear that the JREF reserves the right to tell anyone who wants to apply for the prize to screw off. To apply for the prize, you must not only find some "authority" who agrees with you first, you must also be, in the interpretation of the JREF, a capital-S Somebody in the field. Those criteria are enough to exclude nearly anybody. Under that rule, they can invite Clark to apply then disqualify him if he can't find a substantial enough backer.

The offer is disingenuous as all hell.

benenglish

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?

An as to that "poor idot" who buys speaker cables...Is that also what you say to Consumer Reports? "If I had that money to piss away I wouldn't waste it on scientifically testing consumer products. I'd just leave the poor idiots who buy them to tell the difference..." Is that what you'd say?

Randi isn't just calling out a BS Cable Hyper, he is using the cable BS claims as a teaching opportunity to promote science and reason. Who could be against that? Oh, I almost forgot, the cable BSers are. They only like science to the extent they can use it as a veneer to give a false sense of plausibility to their BS claims. Other than that, they have not use for it and have to attack Randi and JREF as a diversion from being called out on their BS.

IMO

Skeptic

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

No?

aec007

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

Skeptic

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

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.

Fierock

Skeptic

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...

benenglish

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

TurboFool

If you like pointless reporting on useless topics, you'll love gizmodo!

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

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

In the same way, no audiophile could ever identify what cable they are listening to in a blind test.

irlsanders

Andy S.

"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.

benenglish

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.

Skeptic

Joseph

@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.

wjousts

[en.wikipedia.org]

Pay attention specifically to the first paragraph under the overview.

graviton

Falconfire

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.

catbutt

Elvisisdead

morcheeba

His money is as safe as in the bank.

PigVenus

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.

Elvisisdead

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.

Deech

meeteater

alin0steglinski

ANoel

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...

ecypher

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.

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.

SlightlyLessDeliciousNoise

Papercutninja

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?

GumbyJump

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.

ChopSue-Me

gary_slamson

Aloof

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.

Falconfire

aseriesoftubes

Alienbones

weatherman