so it seems Pear cables are a mere 'pitch'...
"a fool and there money..." so to speak.
C'mon Pears CEO!
take the test and show Captain Randi debunkn masta that hes the naive one...mkay.

Dejago

1) JREF and Fremer will agree ahead of time exactly what wins the prize and what doesn't. Including number of tests and "hits" needed. I can guarantee that statistically, a win by chance will be virtually eliminated.

2) At the beginning of the test, Fremer will be told which cables are being used, to see if he can hear a difference WHEN HE KNOWS. (a little pretest) If he can't, the real test (obviously) can't happen. If he can, all later excuses for not winning are stopped dead in their tracks.

3) I'm betting JREF has enormous resources in the scientific community to give them the basis of their knowledge, about the workings of the cables. And I mean Nobel Prize enormous.

4) My understanding is Randi won't be conducting the test. In fact, he won't even be there. The test is conducted by an unbiased party that both JREF and Fremer agree to ahead of time.

5) JREF will strongly encourage Fremer to conduct the test on his own first. And to match as closely as he can the agreed upon conditions and protocol. I can tell you this suggestion has resulted in some withdrawn prize applications.

Cool thread.

FromTheSouth

A Lawyer

Second, I can only use one person because only one person has accepted. I'm not setting out to see if ANYONE can differentiate between ordinary Monster cables and Pear Anjou cables; I'm trying to accomodate Michael Fremer.

Third, Fremer will have to obtain statistically-significant positive results in order to succeed. The actual figure - to be discussed - will depend on the number of trials, etc. And yes, Fremer et al will supply the speakers, amps, location, music, etc. After all, this is HIS test, and he needs the correct variables and components to prove HIS contention.

No, I've never stated, assumed, or even thought that "all cables are the same." Where that strange notion came from, I cannot imagine. The factor of price, here, does not interest me. If fools want to spend fortunes, they have the right to do so; I'm ONLY interested in whether a person who claims he can differentiate between good-quality speaker cables and the Pear cables under discussion, can do so. The ludicrous gimmicks that Stereophile Magazine has endorsed in the past - for whatever reasons - Shakti Stones, magical CD enhancer-chips laid on the CDs momentarily, green markers for CDs, digital clocks, etc. - are not to be considered here; I'm only concerned with the present situation. And I don't care if - as some have said - Fremer is "in the Pear bag." THAT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, in a properly-designed test!

Randi

It is immediately apparent to me that if one wanted to get into the high end cable business that the proper product to produce would be very crappy cables built from some really exotic expensive shit. I say "crappy" but I mean very specifically that your cables should do things that normal audio cables should never do such as pass certain frequency ranges very poorly and others much better. Ask anyone in (not classical) FM radio how to EQ for your average listener and they will pretty much say the same thing: Boost the bass, drop the midrange, put a compressor on it and gain up. Now, you can't do all of this with a piece of speaker cable, but you can assuredly do some of it with some work and the proper materials such as attenuate the high end slightly and the midrange.. Or you might want to get a little treble heavy to give all that "transparency" that these idiots are so fond of raving about.

The real problem here is that when you are trying to measure something as subjective as whether or not a cable makes a recording sound "better" you have to realize that the average joe typically "improves" his sound by messing with bass and treble knobs foregoing the flat response curve that probably more faithfully reproduces the original sounds. If you make some cables that approximate these knob twists, market them for use on equipment that doesn't even HAVE EQ (it would screw up the "transparency" after all), and then charge $10k to these (spray painted) golden ear folks you have a winning business plan. Certainly you could likely make a cable that an average person, listening intently, could perceive to sound "better" than a nice piece of Monster cable or lamp cord or whatever else that is simply providing a great electrical connection.

John Laur

gundamsdontkillpeople

I didn't think so.

- An audiophile who knows better than to think any cables are worth $7,000.

patela

I personally would like to challenge anyone to prove that I am not omniscient. I am not as rich as Randi nor do I have a foundation backing me, but I think I could come up with a hefty sum for this challenge.

Are we all too dumb to figure out that it's all in the way you word the question? Randi puts up the million bucks because there is no way to beat his proposition!

patela

Well, they don't exploit *me*. I wouldn't pay more than $200 per set for speaker cables even if I hit the lottery. I've been down that road once and that was quite enough.

benenglish

johno10661

1) Expensive Pear cables.
2) Monster cables.
3) Premium store brand gold-tipped cables.
4) Inexpensive $4.99 for 50 feet cables.

Jordan Lund

BENENGLISH: But if this were strictly true, in every case, why would anyone need to buy a painting? After all, if you've seen it once, you've seen it. Repeated viewings don't reveal anything new, do they? Why would anyone buy a recording or go to the symphony? Once you're heard a piece performed once, you know what it sounds like, right? Hearing it again won't reveal anything more or anything deeper, will it?

We repeat that which gives us pleasure which, I suppose, has a certain evolutionary advantage. But while you may enjoy listening to the same thing twice, you don't hear anything the second time you didn't hear the first time. In that the greatest symphony ever written is no different from a chocolate bar: it tastes good so you repeat the experience.

You also store (musical) information in memory, and accessing that memory is pleasurable, and so repeated listening triggers that additional pleasure.

You also learn and analyze through repetition. I think that's what you mean by "notice." The clever creature that you are, you are the thing that changes. But the music, played through your stereo, stays the same.

BENENGLISH: Likewise, you really have to listen to "The Look of Love" sung by Dusty Springfield on the Casino Royale soundtrack (Colgems COSO-5005, and I have several copies) many times before you can get a good sense that she's in a small recording booth, before you understand the texture of the walls around her.

Unless she's in your living room, you hear the same thing the first time as the millionth time. As you listen to it repeatedly, you are able to analyze and learn more about it as well as concoct elaborate fiction. In your example, you concoct a fiction about the room based on subtle (and manipulated) cues of reverb, delay, and pre-delay interacting with your imagination. But while you can analyze the original recording based on repeated listening, and create stories about it, the physical experience of listening to it through your system hasn't changed. And that's what is at issue here since Pear isn't selling musical analysis or metaphors, it is selling a physical component that purports to improve the process of sound reproduction every single time it is used, not gradually over the course of multiple listenings. If it can be heard, it can be heard once.

BENENGLISH: In fact, I'll go further. What is being sensed is not just sound. It's reality. It's even, dare I say it, emotion. When you connect at some deeper level to great music, you feel emotionally moved. When you fail to make that connection because subtle errors induced by the playback system cause the experience to disconnect just a bit too far from replicated reality, then that emotional connection is frustrated.

I appreciate that reproduced sound is an illusion and that our emotional response can be more profound if the illusion is more lifelike. The question is what advances that illusion? I know of speaker technologies that are expensive and sound more real than cheaper faker alternatives. They are worth the money. But these cables do not enhance the illusion, and therefore do not enhance the emotional response. You might as well buy them and not plug them in and make the claim that simply having them in the room enhances audio performance and therefore emotional response…

BENENGLISH: Two systems may sound exactly the same by any objective measure. But it may be the case that one makes you feel better after you listen to it for a while. What are you sensing? I don't think anyone really knows. It's certainly true that the last 20+ years have been filled with audiophiles struggling to come up with (and mostly failing to) create a language to accurately describe this phenomenon. And if you can't describe it, you can't measure it and you can't convince the objectivists that it exists.

Professional audio engineers and producers make subjective opinions about equipment all the time and many have unlimited budgets. And yet, I would have a hard time finding a professional audio engineer or producer who would do anything but laugh at $7500 speaker cables. While it's one thing to hold subjective opinions that are not tethered to objective measures, it's another to make up stories in order to perpetuate a fraud. Bruce Swedien, one of the most successful recording engineers in the history of recording (from Duke Ellington to Michael Jackson) uses Monster cables. He could certainly afford Pears if they actually made a difference.

BENENGLISH: The reviewer called the cables "danceable." Most people are completely dismissing this as nonsense. Yet some of us understand that sometimes music makes us feel like dancing.

Music makes you feel like dancing, not cables. He is glorifying cables with meaningless metaphors to justify his day job.

BENENGLISH: That was what the reviewer was talking about. He got a feeling. He attributed that feeling, in part, to the cables.

Because his job is dependent on the same lie that the CEO of Pear Audio relies on. It's a lie and they use the subjective and emotional nature of music to advance the lie.

BENENGLISH: Feeling and emotion, then, are what audiophiles seek.

Which is why they are so easily duped. The feeling and emotion comes from the music, and is reproduced by the equipment. Can you not see the scam: sell do-nothing equipment at great profit by exploiting audiophiles' consumption with feeling and emotion. It is because you say that you are willing to believe anything as long as it is linked to "feeling and emotion" that the Adam Blakes of the world are happy to exploit you at 1000 percent profit.

frigg

Give that man a cigar. That may be the most insightful thing said in the last 100 or so posts.

As for me, I reached that point a long time ago. I like playing guitar and clarinet but I'm really lousy at both, so I get the most enjoyment from live performances. The symphony floats my boat. (I really wish I hadn't given up the bassoon, though.)

I reached that point, I think, when I found myself contemplating the purchase of a phono cartridge so expensive and so short-lived that, it was pointed out to me, it would be cheaper to pay Yo-Yo Ma to come sit in my living room and play for me than to purchase it. That really shook me and I pulled completely off the path I was on. Nowadays, my turntable is cheap and my whole system probably cost less than $5k, even if I went to the trouble of hooking up everything. $5k, you understand, is down in the "the salesman won't even bother to pour you a glass of wine" ghetto when it comes to high-end audio.

I'm now a believer that the obsessive pursuit of perfection gets in the way of the "plenty damn good enough" and is, for most people, just a pissing contest. Despite his poorly-thought-through insults, my attitude is remarkably similar to that of Skeptic in all this. High end audio is mostly a waste of money on unproven and often wacky theory.

Still, unlike those who religiously and thoughtlessly cling to their belief systems while brooking no dissenting viewpoints, I'm willing to cut audiophiles some slack. I know where they come from. I know that on enough occasions to keep things interesting, they've been proven right and embarrassed the hell out of the skeptical types. I know that even though obsessive perfectionism is an irritating disease that hurts many and creates unhappiness, real progress is usually made by the most extreme of irritating, obsessive perfectionists. (They not be able to relax and be happy, but they do advance the state of the art.)

But for now, everyone should just put their self-righteousness away for a while and see how this Fremer vs. Randi test comes out.

It's too bad, of course, that it'll never happen.

benenglish

xtc46

If any golden ears out there, whom the pear cables are being marketed to, can consistently and repeatedly distinguish the difference, and actually determine which one is pear cables, in this particular test, which I think would happen if it ever gets that far, than Randi will be out a cool million.

What nobody has mentioned so far, is that if Pear anjou cables were in the same magnitude of price as Monster (say twice as expensive) instead of a hundred times more expensive, than Randi would never have picked up on Pear's claim in the first place, and certainly would never have extended the challenge to them.

So I'll repeat, the mistake Randi has made is over-confidence, because he's the only one insisting that there is something paranormal about Pear's claim. The fact that anjou's are priced way over the top blinded him to the reality that while the average listener would gain no benefit, and the cost/benefit analysis is nothing short of criminal, the audiophiles just may have a real chance to win the challenge if Fremer can discover one distinguishable sound characteristic of the stupid pear cables.

Fierock

A Lawyer

A Lawyer

BY SKEPTIC AT 03:28 PM

The basic underlying premise isn't that no cable can make an audbile difference but that once you get above a certain level of quality no cable can make an audible difference.

Ah, but that goes back to my original point: if the underlying premise is that both cables have to be above a certain level of quality, how can Randi be sure that both of the cables in this particular test meet that fundamental premise. First, he boldly offered Monster Cable as the control sample, by which one must conclude that he believes that Monster cables meet that minimum criterion. But how can we be sure that the high-priced cable also meets that minimum standard. Perhaps the manufacturer is not selling a product with arguably superior (but also arguably unaudible) properties, but, in the spirit of true snake-oil salesmen, the product doesn't meet the minimum standard of quality and is, in fact, audibly inferior to the Monster. I know that it would be useless and fraught with danger, but surely there must be some minimum objective threshold that must be met for the test to have any validity.

And that's the point. We have no way of knowing if the high-priced cable isn't, in fact, a "ringer" with demonstrable and audible problems, that even the most tin-eared subject could detect.

A Lawyer

BY A LAWYER AT 02:59 PM
I don't agree. If what you say were true, then the basic underlying premise has to be that there are no audible differences between any cables under any circumstances.

Not at all. The basic underlying premise isn't that no cable can make an audbile difference but that once you get above a certain level of quality no cable can make an audible difference. It is a little like altitude. Once you get above a certain altitude you won't be able to brethe, it won't matter to you whether you are 100, 000 feet or 1,000, 000 feet above the earth even though there is a machine measureable difference in atmosphere because your body won't be able to detect the difference. Or purifying water. Once you reduce contaminants to an un-tasteable level reducing them more is machine measurable but not tastable by humans.

As to formatting, Giz really should add some shortcuts, but I think they skip them because people tend to over use tools for emphais:
To quote use the <blockquote> tag like this:
<blockquote>

Quoted material here

Skeptic

Would that soundstaging improvement be at least 2.049Λ soundstaging improvements better? Or could soundstaging improve all the way to 2.07Λ? Like it's even possible to make soundstagings improve higher than 2.08Λ! As if!

nikko1221

A Lawyer

I don't agree. If what you say were true, then the basic underlying premise has to be that there are no audible differences between any cables under any circumstances. This is clearly not the case and that is a fact well known to science (forget about audiophiles on this). It is simple to demonstrate: just get 5,000 feet of any cable you wish to name. Cut off 10 feet from that cable and compare the 10 foot length with the 4,990. For virtually all cables irrespective of make, there will be an audible difference, simply because the differences in electrical properties won't be minute, but huge. Indeed, forgetting about the challenge, per-se, that would be the basis of a very interesting experiment: to determine at what point do the differences between the electrical characteristics of cables actually become audible.

Phrased differently, my concern is that what I would have hoped Randi was proposing was a test to see if anyone could tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. What I fear he has proposed is a test to see if anyone can tell the difference between Coke and any potable beverage. I think that the latter is a challenge he is likely to lose.

A Lawyer

slapBOXmaster

BY BENENGLISH AT 01:34 PM
That sort of thing does not reveal itself in a "listen to these three things in quick succession" test.
In fact, I'll go further. What is being sensed is not just sound. It's reality. It's even, dare I say it, emotion. When you connect at some deeper level to great music, you feel emotionally moved. When you fail to make that connection because subtle errors induced by the playback system cause the experience to disconnect just a bit too far from replicated reality, then that emotional connection is frustrated.

Yeah, that disconnecting from reality can be a problem causing emotional frustration. I'm glad you pointed it out so I didn't have to. :-)

When you go to an optometrist they don't give you a random pair of glasses and tell you to go try them out for several months, wait a few weeks and then give you another pair. Instead the use a test machine called a refractor which allows you to compare two settings back and forth--you know, like a blind AB test. If anything, vision is just as complex as hearing, so the idea of long subjective tests being "more accurate" is just bunk--and easily disproved bunk at that.

Of course, a refractor's different diopter settings make real repeatable and human testable differences, unlike super premium speaker cables. In the case of speaker cables it's like giving someone two pair of plano-plano lensed glasses and having that person claim one pair makes the world look more danceable and gives his vision more "pace" and "swing."

Super premium cables don't make an audible difference over regular high quality cables. You know it. That's why you've decided to admit that only way to "hear' such differences would be through ESP--if it existed.

Skeptic

Well, yes and no. We certainly don't need to look twice at a wall to see if it's painted red or white. We certainly don't need to hear a train whistle twice or for very long to understand it's not a violin playing. So, in that rather broad sense, you're certainly correct. Pretty much all sensory inputs are quickly and crudely discernible.

But if this were strictly true, in every case, why would anyone need to buy a painting? After all, if you've seen it once, you've seen it. Repeated viewings don't reveal anything new, do they? Why would anyone buy a recording or go to the symphony? Once you're heard a piece performed once, you know what it sounds like, right? Hearing it again won't reveal anything more or anything deeper, will it?

Well, it just might. So that's my first point. Repeated viewings or listenings can reveal things you didn't notice before. Hearing through the melody to what's behind it isn't done instantly. I looked at Moonrise Over Hernandez, New Mexico plenty of times before I thought I'd even begun to see everything there is to see. Likewise, you really have to listen to "The Look of Love" sung by Dusty Springfield on the Casino Royale soundtrack (Colgems COSO-5005, and I have several copies) many times before you can get a good sense that she's in a small recording booth, before you understand the texture of the walls around her.

That sort of thing does not reveal itself in a "listen to these three things in quick succession" test.

In fact, I'll go further. What is being sensed is not just sound. It's reality. It's even, dare I say it, emotion. When you connect at some deeper level to great music, you feel emotionally moved. When you fail to make that connection because subtle errors induced by the playback system cause the experience to disconnect just a bit too far from replicated reality, then that emotional connection is frustrated.

Two systems may sound exactly the same by any objective measure. But it may be the case that one makes you feel better after you listen to it for a while. What are you sensing? I don't think anyone really knows. It's certainly true that the last 20+ years have been filled with audiophiles struggling to come up with (and mostly failing to) create a language to accurately describe this phenomenon. And if you can't describe it, you can't measure it and you can't convince the objectivists that it exists.

The instant case is illustrative. The reviewer called the cables "danceable." Most people are completely dismissing this as nonsense. Yet some of us understand that sometimes music makes us feel like dancing.

That was what the reviewer was talking about. He got a feeling. He attributed that feeling, in part, to the cables.

Feeling and emotion, then, are what audiophiles seek. It may be that they're nuts. I know after spending a long time pursuing such things, I gave up. I couldn't reliably tell that this was better than that when it came to components above a certain quality level. And my tinnitus certainly didn't help. But I don't condemn those still pursuing more than just an objectively measurable sensory input, those pursuing an evocation of emotional content.

Hearing that sort of thing isn't really hearing at all; it's an extrasensory perception. (There, I've said it. Fire up your flamethrowers.) And that sort of perception takes a great deal of time to so repeatedly experience that it can, with some semblance of certainty, be identified.

benenglish

Not true. Hearing is a sense, not a rumination, and is immediately engaged. No one buys an expensive component to hear an improvement a year after playing a piece of music. You buy a component to hear an improvement at the speed of sound.

:-)

Another reason reviewers need to listen to review equipment for a long time (besides the free loan of ego inspiring, show-offable goodies) is the same as why people who like to see fluffy bunnies in the clouds stare up to the sky for a long time.

Skeptic

BY FIEROCK AT 10:50 AM
Randi's costly mistake, and fundamental assumption error, has been claiming that the cheap high end cables (like monster) exceeds the capabilities of the human ear...
Unless he has already performed extensive testing at determing the limits of human ear against comparative specs amonst the high end speaker cables, then he is wrong to simply define Pear's claim as paranormal.

Cable BSers and self-deluded audiophiles have been touting the magical improvements they think superduper ultrapremium speaker cables make for years. Such ridiculous claims were neatly sumiarized by the Dave Clarke "review" that called the $7,250 Pear cables "danceable" and having great "swing" and "pace"--to which even people on all levels though "WTF???"

There are many double blind tests that show audiophiles can't hear the difference between high quality cables and super premium magic BS cables. Randi isn't making an "assumption error."

Hearing is highly subject to suggestion so many audiophiles start to think they can hear a difference. That is what the long open subjective tests are for--to allow their imagination to run wild. In fact, one test where the operators merely pretended to replace ordinary 12 gauge wire with fancy cables resulted in oohs and ahhs by the audiophiles who commented on how much better the sound was, and in no uncertain terms.

Skeptic

He has made a gamble, since it does not seem disputed that the pear cables can perform better in terms of signal/noise or whatever other factors audiophiles are up on using an oscilliscope.

Unless he has already performed extensive testing at determing the limits of human ear against comparative specs amonst the high end speaker cables, then he is wrong to simply define Pear's claim as paranormal.

But it is his money. I doubt that these parties will ever even come to an agreement about the testing protocol, so I don't see this going anywhere.

Fierock

JIMK is also right: the audio signal travels through a great deal of wire, and the relatively small journey through speaker cable is undermined by the greater journey through internal circuitry and wiring. It is hopelessly optimistic to believe that external cable can make an improvement in an audio signal that must also travel through internal weaker links.

BENENGLISH is mistaken about time. Hearing is immediate and doesn't require reflection or cocktail parties or a great deal of time to hear differences. In fact, the more time that goes by after a sound is heard, the more one's memory of it degrades. The reason reviewers hold on to amps for a year or so is not to better evaluate them, it's because they like them and the company's want to keep the reviewers happy.

BENENGLISH says "To do a cable review, with the more subtle changes involved, would minimally take months

Not true. Hearing is a sense, not a rumination, and is immediately engaged. No one buys an expensive component to hear an improvement a year after playing a piece of music. You buy a component to hear an improvement at the speed of sound.

frigg

Y'all completely missed the bus. Randi set the terms in the first place. "James Randi Educational Foundation promised $1 million if anyone could prove the difference between Pear cables and their Monster Cable equivalent."

He said *ANYONE*. Presumably that includes Fremer. If Fremer, in double blind testing conducted a sufficient number of iterations to ensure statistical meaning, can successfully identify one from the other, he should win. Frankly, that does PROVE there is a difference between the two cables.(*)

BTW, as long as the rest of the system is the same (i.e., you have isolated difference to Pear v. Monster cable), who the heck cares what the other components are? Fremer is saying there is a difference that can be detected, but the audiophile premise is that if you hook really "good" cables up to a POS stereo, you won't hear it. Let him pick his most revealing components and interconnects. As long as its the same machinery in front of and behind the cables for both the Pear and the Monster, it is a valid test.

(*) I'd never claim that difference is worth $7K to me, but that isn't the point of Randi's challenge. Frankly, I'm happy to believe that the human ear could outmeasure some vector analyzer or whatever. The human machine can be a pretty highly accurate instrument.

Thud

I wouldn't call that pre-emptive spin. I'd call it keeping an open mind. Thank you. Your attitude is pretty refreshing in contrast to all the bullheaded blustering and poorly disguised backpedaling going on around here.

What was that quote I used once before? Carl Sagan, from The Dragon in My Garage ( [www.godlessgeeks.com] ):

"Imagine that ... you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. ...(when) "evidence" ... is far from compelling. ... the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the ... hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."

Reject the assertions of the cable believers and consider them deluded, if you wish, but keep an open mind. That's all I've ever advocated. You seem to be doing so.

Thanks, again.

benenglish

Toober

Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality.

Note that there is one and only one reason to try and add interconnects: because Fremer knows he can't hear the difference between speaker cables.

It isn't up to Randi to "conceede" that interconnects affect sound quality just because Fremer knows he's going to fail the speaker cable test. That is a red herring. The the challenge was to prove that Pear uber premium speaker cables make an audible difference between regular high quality cables. Period.

If Fremer wants to talk interconnects he is welcome to make a separate application--unless Fremer wants to concede that Pear speaker cables don't " affect sound quality."

Clearly, Pear and Fremer are planning their escape route. What a bunch of BSers.

Skeptic

JordyT

BY BDKENNEDY1 AT 01:37 AM
This test is already screwed. First of all, one person should not be the sole judge of this contest and Randi is an idiot if he allows it. Different people hear things differently.

Not at all. The test is for anyone who meets a minimal qualifying hurdle to prove claims of the paranormal. In this case a person who already claims he can hear the difference between super premium speaker cables and to prove that he can under a proper controlled test. The test won't be judge by a single person but by the statistical analysis of the results and whether or not they meet the standard of proof previously agreed upon by both JREF and the applicant. All standards will be worked out in advance.

Skeptic

Second, the 1 million shouldn't have even been mentioned to the judge.

This is so screwed up already, I still will won't believe the winner.

bdkennedy1

BY PIPPER AT 10/15/07 08:54 PM
Scientifically, just hook it up to a VNA (Vector network analyzer) and measure the characteristic of the transmitted signal and the reflected signal, versus frequency range that human can detect and hear.
A good pair cable should offer uniform low loss performance across the span, and same phase shifting... forgot the right term...

While that would be an interesting test and could be a good general predictor for what people can't hear it wouldn't be a test for what people can hear. The physiology and psychology of the perception of hearing is complex and can't be summed up by mere frequency response charts.

The only test for whether a person can hear a sonic difference is to use people--especially people who claim they can hear subtle sonic differences. And to account for the psychology of perception and judgement you need to use a double blind testing methodology.

Randi's test is for a person to prove he can hear an audible difference. It cuts through all the unnecessary BS about irrelevant differences in minute electrical properties. If you can't hear the difference between speaker cables the electrical properties are irrelevant.

Skeptic

BY EDNONYMOUS AT 10/15/07 07:18 PM
1. Why would Fremer get the $1 million?

Because the test is for proof of claims of the paranormal by people not for devices. Randi isn't Consumer Reports, he challenges people to prove paranormal claims they make. The writers at Stereophile regularly make claims that are at odds with known science, like that they can hear the effects of Vinyl record demagnetizers.

Skeptic

BY DCULBERSON AT 12:38 AM
I could be wrong, but I believe Randi's challenge will require the listener to identify which cable is better, not just whether there is a difference between them.

No, the only requirement is that the applicant be able to tell the difference. That's the point. All these claims of cables sounding "better" ignore whether any difference can actually be heard, let alone one that is preferable.

Randi would never ask someone to decide whether something sounded "better" since better is entirely subjective. However, whether Pear sounds "better" than Monster is not like whether Coke tastes better than Pepsi its like whether $7,250 distilled water tastes better than $80 distilled water.

Skeptic

Palestina

BY A LAWYER AT 10/15/07 11:00 PM
I actually think that Randi has set himself up for a fall here. This is because the sole test question is whether or not there is an audible difference between Monster Cable and some cable supplied by Pear. This is a much too simple a test. Clearly two cables will sound different if they have different electrical characteristics. I could design a cable with a 100 Ohm resistor in series across one of the leads, and it would absolutely, positively sound "different" from any other cable. It would also sound like shit.

You could design a cable to sound like crap. What you can't do is design a cable that sounds better than a regular high quality cable. Your suggestion is one I fear, which is that Pear could sabotage their cable to degrade it and make it sound audibly different. This is one of the reasons that I, too, am wary of this challenge.

Pear should not be allowed to supply the cables. They must be supplied from regular stock. However, one of Randi's great talents is spotting fraud so hopefully he is more than prepared for such shenanigans.

Skeptic

BY BENENGLISH AT 08:13 PM

My take on your assertion is that if Fremer and Randi agree on a protocol and Fremer passes the test, then Randi has no standing to refuse to pay off.

Yes, that is your take. And as usual, it is wrong. I never said that Randi shouldn't pay off on the test--as long as no fraud was involved.

Skeptic

Though I will go ahead and repeat what many has said that it may be possible to differentiate two cables sonically, though I suspect that given the pear cables and a cable of similar gauge and materials, I'd be surprised if one can reliably differentiate two cables on a regular basis (Resistance is futile?)...

Damage

So Fremer can't just say "different" every time. He has to say "better" or "worse." In effect, he has to identify which cable he thinks is the Pear.

I would place my bets on Randi.

dculberson

doctorSpoc

bobdobbs

derek168

Component cost is also usually not a good indicator of quality either. Finding the right price/performance ratio is tough, though in my experience you can generally get better value from independent makers than big brand names.

Brandson

And that's the problem. So long as Fremer can hear a difference, he wins, even if the Monster is more accurate. The real test ought to be to see whether the test subject can hear a difference between two cables with essentially the same electrical properties. That would then test the real proposition: whether or not the exotic materials and design of the audiophile cables make any audible difference.

A Lawyer

o0adam0o

Absolutely right. Keep in mind that the conditions for winning the $1mil are set in stone before the test proceeds. If Fremer passes then Randi had better pay up or he'll be in for a serious lawsuit.

@Skeptic: science is built on evidence and all studies must be repeatable. If the Randi test cannot be verified and repeated then the results are not considered valid.

That is a fair point... however, if Fremer passes the test with a high confidence then frankly that means that he is quite likely to be able to repeat the test himself. Then I suspect it won't take much to bring other listeners in to repeat the same results. Fremer could train them on what to listen for, and that wouldn't invalidate the testing (assuming it ultimately remained blind).

Then, of course, the search for an explanation would begin. My suspicion is that a positive result will ultimately be verified as due to variations in the frequency response of the overall system that occur when the cables are swapped---nothing more complex than that. (No strand jumping, no "speed" differences, etc. etc.) We'll simply find that some people can detect finer FR variations than was previously understood.

Is that pre-emptive spin, as benenglish would put it? No, just a prediction on how things would evolve after a positive result. If it evolves differently, so be it. But what seems clear regardless is there will be just an incremental evolution in our understanding of hearing.

mcg1969

A good pair cable should offer uniform low loss performance across the span, and same phase shifting... forgot the right term...

pipper

benenglish

Who the hell needs that much of a subtle difference. That's like saying that you bought a Bugatti Veyron because you NEEDED the 252 mph top speed. You don't need it, and you'll never make use of it. The only point is so that you can SAY your car is the fastest, and yet you'll never be able to actually go faster than the guy next door with the Ford Taurus.

Stang70Fastback

You're not from around here, are you? ("Here" being audiophile-ville, of course.)

This is one of the most basic reasons that audiophiles have never agreed to/never done well at double-blind, ABX testing. They say that it takes time to hear subtle things. Amplifier reviewers for the subjectivist magazines often hold onto an amp for the better part of a year before they will pass judgement. (And keep in mind that even Randi said, in his comments, that it should be possible to hear differences between amps.) To do a cable review, with the more subtle changes involved, would minimally take months.

In the instant case, speed should not be an issue. Randi has flatly said that it is not possible to tell the difference. Period. He placed no time limit on that statement. Randi is proved wrong if just one person can reliably, repeatedly tell the difference between two different sets of cables, even if that person has had the cables in his possession for familiarization purposes for a very long time.

The sort of level-matched, mechanically switched, "listen-to-this-now-this-now-this-in-very-quick-succession" protocol that typically passes for audio discernment testing is *exactly* the sort of testing that audiophiles say defeats all efforts, even by the golden ears, to hear the differences between components.

If Randi wants to be intellectually honest, he'll give Fremer all the prep time Fremer wants. If Fremer wants to be intellectually honest, he won't throw up any unreasonable roadblocks.

The problem with all this is that it's not in *either* of their interests to be intellectually honest. I'll repeat: I predict they won't agree on a testing protocol.

benenglish

JimK

Now, who wants to guess how many components out there are actually produced with huge, exotic wiring all along the signal path?

JimK

Ednonymous

slapBOXmaster

Settled. Can we move on to powerline conditioners now?

[ducking]

bobdobbs

And now others (who have no real interest in audiophile pursuits), have now contracted:

Audiophile Nervosa.

As far as IF the cables are worth it.. that rather depends on your means, interest in the hobby, and if YOU hear OR *think* you hear a meaningful difference in your audio system. Really, it is far less a "faith" based pursuit (even down to audio cables) than any given religion.. and probably costs a lot less too.

As for the test..

I think BENENGLISH is likely to be correct - they won't agree on a test.

If however they DO agree, then..

If Fremer hears a difference then cool - he wins a million (assuming payment is made).

If he doesn't, thats cool as well. Both sides have gotten press (good or bad doesn't matter - its still press ..Gizmodo's time to snicker, snicker). And don't think that Fremer won't "own" up to it. Having read a fair bit of material over the years - one thing is certain, he has a very low threshold for BS (..he does over and understate positions, but has also "owned up" to such soon after making such).

ScottG

His_Shadow

slapBOXmaster

Attrition

I can't speak for my fellow objectivists but I will tell you that if Fremer wins I will definitely be forced to tone down my anti-cable rhetoric, and I will encourage others to do so as well.

Skeptic

mcg1969

To date, James Randi has provided no scientific evidence of any kind to support his accusations.

That's funny. It's not Randi who makes the claim that Pear Cables make an audible difference over regular high quality cables, it's Pear and Pear-enablers who do that. Randi just says "OK, prove it. And I'll give you $1,000,000 if you can." Pear are being deliberately obtuse and trying to discredit Randi in advance of their inevitable failure to demonstrate any audible difference by use of their cables.

As to Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine, he's already started backtracking, saying he wants to add interconnect cables, among other things, to the test. Sigh, already trying to muddy the waters. I'm sure Fremer and Pear are working on their post test failure excuses.

Skeptic

Yes, it's only one person, but it is multiple trials---enough into insure a statistical certainty high enough for James Randi (which would be high enough for me, too). So if he passes, then it basically does establish that the ability to hear small cable differences does exist. What it doesn't establish is how prevalent that ability is.

I can't speak for my fellow objectivists but I will tell you that if Fremer wins I will definitely be forced to tone down my anti-cable rhetoric, and I will encourage others to do so as well.

mcg1969

DataScream

It's my hope than Randi will avail himself of the many professionals who work for a living designing experiments that detect audibility. I can think of a few who would gladly volunteer their services to make sure this gets done properly.

Oh -- and my two cents: if the Pear cables are measured and found to not produce any frequency response (magnitude or phase) anomalies or any nonlinearities, Fremer will not be able to detect differences between the Pears and lamp-cord.

turbo.satan

Seriously though, I have a decent sound set-up and it's totally wasted on me because my hearing is pretty much crap. I'm the guy who has his car stereo cranked up not to show how awesome his subwoofer is, but because he can't hear the mumblings on the news without the volume being maxed.

xenothaulus

cobbe1

Lots of folks are missing the point, however. (And Randi is intentionally confusing things by continuing to toss into his comments various jibes about demagnetizing vinyl records.) The point is: Is there a difference?

The point is not: Is the difference worth the money? Is the difference audible to normal people? Is the difference good or bad?

All you need is one person who can reliably tell the difference to prove the theory. We don't have to know how he manages to succeed. We don't have to know what, exactly, he's listening for. To win the money, he simply needs to reliably differentiate between setups. Then we'll know there IS a difference. We may not know what it is or how to measure it, but we'll know it exists.

Randi says it does not. If Fremer succeeds, Randi loses a million bucks.

That being said, this is a lose-lose proposition for Fremer. If he wins, people will say he was a sample of one and the phenomena still doesn't really exist. (In the posts above this, there are already folks talking about how Fremer must be planning on cheating. Laying groundwork now to justify disbelieving future test data is intellectually dishonest, at best. It borders on religious adherence to a position, a position that must be held even if facts inconveniently get in the way.) If he loses, he loses credibility to a wide audience. And, if the two parties fail to arrive at an agreeable testing protocol, he'll be viewed as a scam artist who just wanted publicity.

I'm not sure I'd risk my career, even for a million bucks. That's what Fremer is doing. (Of course, if he wins and Randi actually pays off, maybe it won't be such a lose-lose after all.)

My prediction: There's no way in hell that they'll agree on a testing protocol. I've been way, way down the audiophile road before. I know that reliably hearing differences between subtle components requires a huge level of comfort that you know your system. Fremer will have to listen to both testing setups for weeks (if not months) before he'll be prepared to go forward with the formal test. I consider the chances that Randi will agree to that to be vanishingly small.

Besides, who's going to pay for this thing? I outlined in my comments to a previous story what would be necessary to do legit testing, satisfactory to both sides. (See here: [gizmodo.com] ) Even in truncated form, does anybody really believe that both sides are going to come to agreement on any sort of testing protocol remotely resembling what I've outlined? I don't think so.

benenglish

I'm still waiting for Radio Shack to have the "listeners challenge" and have the battle of the low-priced vs. high-priced cables. But then again, they wanted to charge me $40 for a firewire cable.

Mayor McRib

[www.theaudiocritic.com]

docthemoose

Does that answer whether the average Joe can hear the difference? No, just that Fremer can. Heck, if Fremer can, its likely some other people can too. Remember, FBOW, Fremer has a ear theoretically trained to listen for audio cues that you or I may not notice. There are people who think that is fun and have trained their ears the same way.

Does that answer the question of whether $7K cables are worth it? No. Assuming that there is some difference, the question of whether someone will pay $7K for that difference implicates a whole host of other factors. Would you? Maybe not--$7K may be a significant percentage of your salary and you may not give a flying hoot about the particular difference this cable makes. Would someone else? Well, the fact that Pear stays in business suggests either that there are a lot of people for whom $7K is a negligible amount of money, or people who believe that difference is really, really significant.

So, no, the test isn't fixed. This is what Randi asked for--can *someone* tell the difference. We'll all see whether Fremer can. It is pretty easy to develop a test that would accurately measure whether Fremer was randomly guessing or whether he is reliably detecting a sonic signature of some kind. I kind of think Randi may lose his $1M, frankly.

Thud

From what I know and have experienced with speaker cable, I doubt you could tell the difference between these and a semi-decent length of 14 gauge braided copper cable that you could get for $20 or less.

The Monster cables are probably not worth the price either. However to be certain there's a good margin of safety, he's offering the challenge vs standard-overkill cables.

drbuzz0

Of course anybody is free to spend whatever amount of money they want on any cable. But whether or not the human ear can detect differences between standard (quality) cable and the crazy high-end cables available on the market today isn't opinion, it's measureable fact. The reason he's involved is the same reason he issues challenges to those who offer miracle cures for cancer... he's challenging those who fraudulently profit on the ignorance of their buyers. Now, in this case, maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. I'm neither an audio engineer nor an audiophile, so I'm in no position to say. He's simply saying that those who claim they can hear the difference are either A) mistaken or B) lying, and he's offering a million dollars to anybody who can prove otherwise. If you're confident in your ability to tell the difference, there's a million dollars in it for you. Prove him wrong.

Dmnkly

Once did a blind listening test of a $10,000 CD player Vs a $5,000 CD player - same music, same system, switch back and forth between the two with the same interconnects etc etc

I could hear a difference, but I couldn't say that one was 'better' than another.

So different may be detectable, better is a whole different ball game of course...

MINI Driver

"we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these "no-compromise" cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables."

Do you think he would make this challenge if these cables claimed to be better than Monster, yet only $50 more expensive?

bobdobbs

Or, maybe he has to notice the change more than 50% of the time. But, what is the criteria for success?

Something is definitely rotten in Denmark on the choice of reviewer. While Fremer may have contacted Randi first, there's no way that it wasn't at the request of Pear.

Elvisisdead

IrisMR

greeneggsnsam

There are MANY ways to skew the test. Hopefully it will be fair and perhaps supervised by someone like Ken Pohlman who could make sure no Fletcher-Munson nonsense gets in the way.

frigg

Chalkperson

bobdobbs

Steel_Pelican

If so, there's a cool million in it for you... go for it!

Dmnkly

IrisMR

CubFan81

Steel_Pelican

Did Pear name itself that because it wants to be thought of as the "Apple" of stereo cables?

EBone