$1,000,000 cable challenge [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : $1,000,000 cable challenge



squeegy200
10-04-2007, 03:11 PM
After rave reviews in several publications and online magazines of the $7250 cables made by Pear, The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is offering a cool $1M to anyone who can prove the $7250 cables are better than any other cables such as the $80 Monster Cable.

See story:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

As yet, No one has stepped up to accept the challenge.

What do you think?

Smokey
10-04-2007, 04:35 PM
I personally don’t think that cable debate will ever go away. Even if one goes back to early days of cable debate Internet via rec.audio.high-end, one still see the same questions, debates and arguments that is going on today.

Which mean nobody seem to make any headway in this debate.....and you know why?Because what we are debating is not based on facts or figures, but rather on preferences of what one has heard. And the preferences and opinions are as diverse as the individual that said it.

It is like religion. One has to have faith first, because it can’t be proven right or wrong.

Sorry for ranting :D

PeruvianSkies
10-04-2007, 06:26 PM
After rave reviews in several publications and online magazines of the $7250 cables made by Pear, The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is offering a cool $1M to anyone who can prove the $7250 cables are better than any other cables such as the $80 Monster Cable.

See story:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

As yet, No one has stepped up to accept the challenge.

What do you think?

How about they pay me 1 Million dollars and I'll say whatever they want me to about any cable. lol.

jim goulding
10-05-2007, 06:07 AM
This whole cable thing is insulting to me. Mapleshade makes some novel cables that honor the music and they are very reasonable in today' cable world. What's novel about them is that they use air as the dialectic. That's right. There is a little tube so you can keep them blown up. And when your friends come over you can marvel them . . "Damn, man, what the f*** are you doing?".

Feanor
10-05-2007, 08:02 AM
After rave reviews in several publications and online magazines of the $7250 cables made by Pear, The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is offering a cool $1M to anyone who can prove the $7250 cables are better than any other cables such as the $80 Monster Cable.

See story:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

As yet, No one has stepped up to accept the challenge.

What do you think?

These from Blue Jeans cable: Belden 1694A with Canare RCAP connectors. 3' pair for $26.75. You won't hear the difference in a DBT.

E-Stat
10-05-2007, 09:17 AM
These from Blue Jeans cable: Belden 1694A with Canare RCAP connectors. 3' pair for $26.75. You won't hear the difference in a DBT.
Aren't those ICs? They are referring to speaker cables in this case. Then again, you could spend $20k on Nordost Odins. :)

rw

Feanor
10-05-2007, 10:44 AM
Aren't those ICs? They are referring to speaker cables in this case. Then again, you could spend $20k on Nordost Odins. :)

rw

Yep, my mistake: this is about speaker cable. And I suspect that speaker cable can make a bigger difference than interconnect. However I haven't heard a lot of difference here either.

Presently I use 4-wire Monster, (actually probably Canare), 14 gauge wire to bi-wire my Maggies. Cost me about $15 for the wire -- only 3 feet per side, though ...
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=100-656
... plus the connectors, 6 pairs, about $25 ...
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=091-1260

I can hear no difference from $250 Nordost Flatline Gold MkII, (single-wire), I was using before. Nor the 10 ga. low-oxygen wire I have also used.

I'm not saying speaker cable or interconnects can't make a difference, only that in the typicaly entry to midrange system they won't make very much difference. The guy with the $400 CD payer is a fool to spend $100+ on pair of ICs.

E-Stat
10-05-2007, 03:01 PM
Yep, my mistake: this is about speaker cable. And I suspect that speaker cable can make a bigger difference than interconnect.
I believe such questions, like all matters cable, are highly system dependent. With my electrostats, speaker cable choice is critical. Low inductance and low capacitance are both necessary to prevent an overly bright sound and to tame the already capacitive load to the amplifier. With the double Advents, it is less critical and I use separate runs of generic Philips 14 gauge wire.

FWIW, I just ordered a three foot pair of the Blue Jeans LC-1 ICs to test with the vintage system. Also bought a one foot run of1694 cable for the transport-to-DAC SP/DIF connection. It will be interesting to compare them with my reference JPS Labs ultraconductors and generic Monster, respectively. I will readily admit that the 0.5 meter run from the CDP to the attenuators in the main system is relatively cable insensitive. Although I currently use JPS Labs cable there as well, I have tried some cheaper stuff and don't find much difference. Originally, I purchased them for a different application and later moved them to that position.

rw

PeruvianSkies
10-05-2007, 03:55 PM
I believe such questions, like all matters cable, are highly system dependent. With my electrostats, speaker cable choice is critical. Low inductance and low capacitance are both necessary to prevent an overly bright sound and to tame the already capacitive load to the amplifier. With the double Advents, it is less critical and I use separate runs of generic Philips 14 gauge wire.

FWIW, I just ordered a three foot pair of the Blue Jeans LC-1 ICs to test with the vintage system. Also bought a one foot run of1694 cable for the transport-to-DAC SP/DIF connection. It will be interesting to compare them with my reference JPS Labs ultraconductors and generic Monster, respectively. I will readily admit that the 0.5 meter run from the CDP to the attenuators in the main system is relatively cable insensitive. Although I currently use JPS Labs cable there as well, I have tried some cheaper stuff and don't find much difference. Originally, I purchased them for a different application and later moved them to that position.

rw

Keep us posted on your results. I agree, highly system dependent. That's exactly why there is so much debate.

Mr Peabody
10-05-2007, 05:15 PM
Geez, I thought they were talking about HDMI cables. I wouldn't bet the farm on huge differences in HDMI since the signal is all digital. I used a Transparent and Zu coaxial digital cable between DAC and transport and couldn't tell a difference. The Transparent was even quite longer. I could easily tell sonic differences in my systems between different brands of IC's and speaker connects. A friend who is an EE sent me a pair of IC's he built to evaluate. This was a blast and comparing to various other cables I had around showed a lot of differences. The system dependency is very very true. His cables were pure silver and I forget what the stranding and structure was. Anyway, these cables sounded alright with my Conrad Johnson but I preferred my Siltech. However, putting the homemade cables between my Krell cdp and amp, I was amazed, they were the best I had ever heard there. I preferred the sound of the homemade cables even to my Transparent XLR's. It was also fun to use each pair between cdp and my Musical Fidelity X-can headphone amp. What was noticeable besides just sound was the width and positioning of the soundstage through the headphones.

Air is a very good insulator for cables. This is something my friend mentioned. It was difficult to figure out a way to make that work though.

jim goulding
10-05-2007, 08:17 PM
I used to use a Canare digital cable between my transport and DAC for a long ass time but I replaced it with some sexier stuff but, you know what, over the weekend I'm gonna swap it out with the Canare and have a listen. Belden cable is the standard in the recording business. It does have a lotta cred.

musicoverall
10-11-2007, 12:52 PM
After rave reviews in several publications and online magazines of the $7250 cables made by Pear, The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is offering a cool $1M to anyone who can prove the $7250 cables are better than any other cables such as the $80 Monster Cable.

See story:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

As yet, No one has stepped up to accept the challenge.

What do you think?

I think that if someone offers you a million dollars if you can prove something, they're going to set up the test in such a way to make sure you can't prove it. It's hard to beat someone at their own game and I think Randi is about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake in your pocket.

PeruvianSkies
10-11-2007, 10:24 PM
I think that if someone offers you a million dollars if you can prove something, they're going to set up the test in such a way to make sure you can't prove it. It's hard to beat someone at their own game and I think Randi is about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake in your pocket.

Hisssssss hisssssss. lol.

Feanor
10-12-2007, 03:02 AM
I think that if someone offers you a million dollars if you can prove something, they're going to set up the test in such a way to make sure you can't prove it. It's hard to beat someone at their own game and I think Randi is about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake in your pocket.

But Randi's rigging of the terms, conditions or outcome is something that could be demonstrated. I'd like to see a few people step up and take the challenge instead of just poo-hooing the man without analysis or evidence.

It won't be me though, because even though I've thought I heard cable differences on various occassions, the differences were minute and could well have been my imagination.

musicoverall
10-12-2007, 03:39 AM
But Randi's rigging of the terms, conditions or outcome is something that could be demonstrated. I'd like to see a few people step up and take the challenge instead of just poo-hooing the man without analysis or evidence.

It won't be me though, because even though I've thought I heard cable differences on various occassions, the differences were minute and could well have been my imagination.

No one should make a determination without analysis or evidence. Read the rules and regs of the test and then ye, too, shall "poo-hoo". It's a no-win situation - which makes sense because who wants to get shown up AND be forced to pay a million dollars? Not Randi. Not me, either! :)

At any rate, I've analyzed the deal and I've spoken to a few people that have had dealings with Randi. Waste of time dealing with him, IMHO.

musicoverall
10-12-2007, 03:40 AM
Hisssssss hisssssss. lol.

Well, I've got to pick on someone! George W is just too popular a target! :D

E-Stat
10-12-2007, 02:14 PM
I'd like to see a few people step up and take the challenge instead of just poo-hooing the man without analysis or evidence.
Poster "Wellfed" over at AA did just that. Twice. The "facilitator" denied his offers. John Atkinson of Stereophile has caught The Amazing Randi in lies and asked for him to retract them on his site. He refused. Says plenty to me.

rw

Feanor
10-12-2007, 03:23 PM
Poster "Wellfed" over at AA did just that. Twice. The "facilitator" denied his offers. John Atkinson of Stereophile has caught The Amazing Randi in lies and asked for him to retract them on his site. He refused. Says plenty to me.

rw

Has Wellfed detailed his findings on AA or anywhere?

I have let doubt, though, that Randi isn't going to make it easy.

E-Stat
10-12-2007, 03:56 PM
Has Wellfed detailed his findings on AA or anywhere?
At length. Back in 2005 when this was actually news.

rw

Feanor
10-12-2007, 04:23 PM
At length. Back in 2005 when this was actually news.

rw

Assuming it's stil around.

Of course, Wellfed is an arch-subjectivist and tweak lover. I guess if you can hear the difference that the Intelligent Chip or Brilliant Pebbles or little clocks or green felt markers make, you're bound to hear the differences between cables.

Feanor
10-12-2007, 06:05 PM
At length. Back in 2005 when this was actually news.

rw

I recall those going on now that you remind me. You must recall that it wasn't about cables but the GSIC, a.k.a. "intelligent chip".

A reminder to folks that that was a small IC chip enclose in a small plastic case and without a power supply that, when placed on top of as CDP for 20 seconds or so, supposedly permanently improves the sound of the CD being played. Interestingly, the chip was somehow charged to fix only so may CD, as I recall ten, for about $20; you could buy a thirty disc chip for about $30, (bargain!).

It didn't follow all the goings on in detail because I wasn't that interested -- let's say I was skeptical (understatement) of the merits of the GSIC. It seems Wellfed when quite far along the way to an actual test with Randi's group, but he backed out because, as it seems to me, they wouldn't accept his frivolous test condition stipulations. (He then accused them of lying, deceit, etc.) I for one was less than astonished that the thing didn't go down, but I don't necessarily blame Randi for that.

I've never met Wellfed face-to-face; he might be an intelligent, amiable, and sincere person, however going by his AA posts pertaining to various tweaks, he is self-deceiving fool.

musicoverall
10-15-2007, 04:15 AM
I recall those going on now that you remind me. You must recall that it wasn't about cables but the GSIC, a.k.a. "intelligent chip".

It didn't follow all the goings on in detail because I wasn't that interested -- let's say I was skeptical (understatement) of the merits of the GSIC. It seems Wellfed when quite far along the way to an actual test with Randi's group, but he backed out because, as it seems to me, they wouldn't accept his frivolous test condition stipulations. (He then accused them of lying, deceit, etc.) I for one was less than astonished that the thing didn't go down, but I don't necessarily blame Randi for that.

I've never met Wellfed face-to-face; he might be an intelligent, amiable, and sincere person, however going by his AA posts pertaining to various tweaks, he is self-deceiving fool.

You might want to go to the source to update your facts on the Wellfed/Randi fiasco. You seem to have them bass-ackwards at the moment. I won't comment on the tweaks or the concept of self-deceiving foolishness but so far as I've seen, only those with an unshakable-by-faith objectivists agenda could miss the backpedaling and backsliding the JREF did back in 2005. Their may be missing facts (after all, only the two parties involved know the full story) but there has been a lot of it posted on AA and on the JREF site. It does help to prove the old saying that "It's hard to beat someone at their own game".

But do look into the facts if you're truly interested. They were quite eye-opening for me. I thought Randi was eccentric but sincere and honest until I was shown otherwise.

Feanor
10-16-2007, 12:33 PM
You might want to go to the source to update your facts on the Wellfed/Randi fiasco. You seem to have them bass-ackwards at the moment. I won't comment on the tweaks or the concept of self-deceiving foolishness but so far as I've seen, only those with an unshakable-by-faith objectivists agenda could miss the backpedaling and backsliding the JREF did back in 2005. Their may be missing facts (after all, only the two parties involved know the full story) but there has been a lot of it posted on AA and on the JREF site. It does help to prove the old saying that "It's hard to beat someone at their own game".

But do look into the facts if you're truly interested. They were quite eye-opening for me. I thought Randi was eccentric but sincere and honest until I was shown otherwise.

I went back a few days ago and reread most of boop on AA. I posted my conclusion above. I didn't say JREF is altogether blameless in this, only that Wellfed asserted unreasonable and/or frivolous testing conditions and provided JREF as least an "out" which they chose to use. OK, so do you suppose they were afraid they'd actually have to pay the $1M as a result any reasonable test? Oh, please!

PeruvianSkies
10-18-2007, 01:46 PM
who ni their right mind would spend that much on a pair of cables? I felt guilty for spending $300 on these

http://discharges.org/h/0608/

Wow, this is one sneaky spammer!

Mr Peabody
10-18-2007, 05:58 PM
Bummer, just when you think there might be another female around.

Bad! Suzie

PeruvianSkies
10-18-2007, 06:46 PM
Bummer, just when you think there might be another female around.

Bad! Suzie

It's interesting how this spammer had intelligence enough to know how to pose a legitimate post, yet lace it with poison.

musicoverall
10-19-2007, 04:53 AM
I. OK, so do you suppose they were afraid they'd actually have to pay the $1M as a result any reasonable test? Oh, please!

The JREF has no intention of paying anyone $1M and will go to great lengths of dishonesty to make sure that it never happens.

And I'm not Wellfed posting under another moniker. :)

Feanor
10-19-2007, 05:43 AM
The JREF has no intention of paying anyone $1M and will go to great lengths of dishonesty to make sure that it never happens.

And I'm not Wellfed posting under another moniker. :)

That Randi is a slimmy fraud and Wellfed was the soul of reasonableness, it would still bother me that you might think that the GSIC could really do anything but sucker people.

Regarding the present topic, cables, it is possible that they might make a difference, so I guess Randi is really put his "reputation" at risk this time.

musicoverall
10-19-2007, 11:21 AM
That Randi is a slimmy fraud and Wellfed was the soul of reasonableness, it would still bother me that you might think that the GSIC could really do anything but sucker people.

Regarding the present topic, cables, it is possible that they might make a difference, so I guess Randi is really put his "reputation" at risk this time.

Sorry if I was confusing there. Let me clarify. In my opinion, the GSIC is snake oil of the worst sort. However, my opinion is not a learned one. I have no science background and, worse, I have no experience with the product. I think all audiophiles have built in BS meters. The only difference is how we calibrate them. But when the meter runs in the red, we stop believing and therefore, we don't expend the effort to test the product. The GSIC, as well as many other tweaky items, push me well into the red, as it obviously does you. Likewise, I don't put little pieces of paper under the corners of my coffee table, nor do I concern myself with photos in the freezer or other ridiculous endeavors. But the ridiculousness of those endeavors is, at this point, only in my mind and only my opinion - nothing more.

Wellfed would not have won the money. That isn't the point. The point is that Randi's goons refused to play fair. If they had, they could have posted all over their website that they bent over backwards to give the testee everything (that's Randi-speak. To you and I, it means they played by their own damn rules or their rules were too vague!) and he STILL failed. That would have garnered a fair amount of street cred. The JREF panicked and cracked. They are not to be taken seriously. I think Fremer is off his nut to even think Randi won't weasel out of paying off should Fremer win. Waste of time. Let's just say that Wellfed isn't the only person I know that has tried to deal with them and been shown what they're really about.

emorphien
10-21-2007, 11:01 AM
The JREF has no intention of paying anyone $1M and will go to great lengths of dishonesty to make sure that it never happens.
Same can be said for many proponents of overpriced snake-oil cables. Ultimately good DBX testing would be wonderful, however people will misinterpret results to their hearts content. I can easily see how a good test would be interpreted all wrong.

Assuming no difference between cables the chances are 50/50 of getting it right. And depending on the # of tests it's going to take quite a few runs to get a significant result out of this if the difference between cables is not blatantly obvious.

I would love to see average 10 guage pitted against the most expensive and "well reviewed" 10 gauge available and have it tested on a variety of systems (covering all types of speakers and amplification, tube and SS). The actual gauge is less important than the cables being compared are of the same gauge just to eliminate one extra possible bone of contention.

musicoverall
10-22-2007, 08:37 AM
Same can be said for many proponents of overpriced snake-oil cables. Ultimately good DBX testing would be wonderful, however people will misinterpret results to their hearts content. I can easily see how a good test would be interpreted all wrong.

Assuming no difference between cables the chances are 50/50 of getting it right. And depending on the # of tests it's going to take quite a few runs to get a significant result out of this if the difference between cables is not blatantly obvious.

I would love to see average 10 guage pitted against the most expensive and "well reviewed" 10 gauge available and have it tested on a variety of systems (covering all types of speakers and amplification, tube and SS). The actual gauge is less important than the cables being compared are of the same gauge just to eliminate one extra possible bone of contention.

Well, your first comment *should* be testable, but won't be until the audio world can agree on who the "many proponents of overpriced snake oil cables" might be. As of now, who belongs in that group is as subjective as anything could possibly be.

I don't think people "misinterpret" such ABX tests, per se. I think they simply take them for what the tests mean to them. A null result on a cable test is fairly close to meaningless but, to an objectivist, its close to proof in many cases. Whatever makes people feel better. A correct interpretation of a null result is, quite simply, "the testee was not able to distinguish the two devices under test on this day, with this system, with the music chosen, with the system used, and with the testee's particularly state of mind at the time". It doesn't mean the two devices sound alike, no matter how many trials were involved. It's hard to read much into that.

The problem as I see it is that there isn't a universally accepted testing methodology for cables. I'd like to believe in ABX tests but I cannot. If Fremer passes his Randi challenge (as if the test will ever happen!), that would help.

Feanor
10-22-2007, 11:03 AM
... A correct interpretation of a null result is, quite simply, "the testee was not able to distinguish the two devices under test on this day, with this system, with the music chosen, with the system used, and with the testee's particularly state of mind at the time". It doesn't mean the two devices sound alike, no matter how many trials were involved. It's hard to read much into that.

....

In essence a DBT/ABX cannot prove that the tested components sound identical.

emorphien
10-22-2007, 12:10 PM
In essence a DBT/ABX cannot prove that the tested components sound identical.
If the success of detecting one cable over another was close to the rate for random chance, then the test indicates there is no audible difference between the two cables.

It's very easy for someone to willingly misrepresent or misinterpret data even from this kind of test, although not as easy as other testing methodologies. And people will believe it, even if the conclusion is completely made up.

musicoverall
10-25-2007, 08:41 AM
If the success of detecting one cable over another was close to the rate for random chance, then the test indicates there is no audible difference between the two cables.
.

Respectfully... no, it doesn't. It indicates that the person under test could not determine differences at that particular time. Another time, he might. Another person might. Any inferences or decisions made on one particular test (regardless of the number of trials) MUST relate only to the testee and not the devices under test. Most of the DBT's I've read about are woefully devoid of details regarding the test methodology. Reading anything into these tests is done at the reader's own risk.

musicoverall
10-25-2007, 08:48 AM
In essence a DBT/ABX cannot prove that the tested components sound identical.

Since DBT talk is so boring, I'm going to change gears a bit and say that your system is about the nicest "down to earth" audio system I've seen among the posters here. I'd be willing to bet you get a tremendous amount of enjoyment out of it, and don't waste much time worrying about little ancillaries like cables.

I don't see many of the Monarchy monoblocks around - how do you like them? Interestingly, the last pair I saw was driving Maggie 1.6's. Killer combo. Anyway, congrats on what appears to be an extremely well thought-out system. And it's mostly "down to earth", although I think that preamp has tubes in it! LOL!

emorphien
10-25-2007, 10:46 AM
Respectfully... no, it doesn't. It indicates that the person under test could not determine differences at that particular time. Another time, he might. Another person might. Any inferences or decisions made on one particular test (regardless of the number of trials) MUST relate only to the testee and not the devices under test. Most of the DBT's I've read about are woefully devoid of details regarding the test methodology. Reading anything into these tests is done at the reader's own risk.
That's exactly what it says, but yes it is for that person and the equipment used in the test. For this reason, a test like that needs multiple test subjects and as many combinations of speakers and amplification as possible in order to strengthen the clarity of the results. In reality the number of speaker-amp combinations really necessary to pretty much settle the issue likely isn't that high. Sure you'd want to cover solid state and a couple tube amp designs, as well as the varying planar speaker designs, etc. But I think a pretty good results could be had with 5-8 setups and a handful of listeners (experienced and not) through a series of trials.

Many DBTs I've read about in the audio world are devoid of details because the results are not what the tester wanted. This is true in any field where DBTs might be used, warping the results or hiding details is a skill in and of itself, even if not the most virtuous of skills.

The problem with a DBT like this is there are many people both selling and buying these products who don't want to be proven wrong and even if the testing methodologies and results speak for themselves, these people may never believe them.

Feanor
10-26-2007, 01:44 AM
Since DBT talk is so boring, I'm going to change gears a bit and say that your system is about the nicest "down to earth" audio system I've seen among the posters here. I'd be willing to bet you get a tremendous amount of enjoyment out of it, and don't waste much time worrying about little ancillaries like cables.

I don't see many of the Monarchy monoblocks around - how do you like them? Interestingly, the last pair I saw was driving Maggie 1.6's. Killer combo. Anyway, congrats on what appears to be an extremely well thought-out system. And it's mostly "down to earth", although I think that preamp has tubes in it! LOL!

My system is necessarily down-to-earth given my limited funds. For a lower-mid-range system, you will note the balance amongst equipment fit the profile speakers-first profile pretty well. 3 of 4 reviewers at The Absolute Sound choose the MG 1.6QRs as their choice under $2k. The Monarchy's are outstanding value at under $1k, (a price you can or used to be able to get from the factory on, let's say, "refurbished" units). The Sonic Frontiers LINE 1 MSRP was $2.5k, but I got mine 2nd hand for $900. I wasted the most money on the modified Assemblage DAC in whose sound improvement over my Sony SACD or my M-Audio external sound card is very, very slight to say the most.

Since you ask about the Monarchys, I think they're really nice and I'm totally satisfied, though if I played at higher volumes I'd probably like more power. They are a high-bias, low-feed back design and are, IMO, detailed, dymamic, and very musical (to borrow that over-used cliche).

No, I haven't lavished a lot of money on cables. Many of my interconnects are Blue Jeans which I highly recommend to sensible people. My speaker cables are actually 4-wire, 14 ga. Monster used in biwire configuration; theyt cost me <$60, and are absolutely indistinguishable (by me) from the $250 Nordost Flatline Gold MkII I used previously.

But, heck yes, I have one indulgence. I have rolled several sets of tubes through the LINE 1. Yes, I believe the ones I use now, (Amperex USA white label PQ's in the gain slots), sound significanty better than the stock Sovteks. But could I distinguish the PQs from the Sovteks in a DBT? Let's just say I wouldn't bet a $1M on it.

Here's a link to my configuration ... http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/StereoDiagram.jpg

Feanor
10-26-2007, 02:02 AM
After rave reviews in several publications and online magazines of the $7250 cables made by Pear, The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is offering a cool $1M to anyone who can prove the $7250 cables are better than any other cables such as the $80 Monster Cable.

See story:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

As yet, No one has stepped up to accept the challenge.

What do you think?

I don't follow the Randi details, but AA threads report that Michael Fremer has backed off Randi's challenge -- or Randi has reneged, depending on your point of view. I'm not sure which because I haven't read all of the 100,000 or so lines of thread at the Randi website.

The usual Randi scenario goes something like this ...

Randi posts a challenge with various conditions stipulated.
A challenger accepts and Randi acknowledges the challenges subject to conditions to be negociated.
The challengers proposes conditions that are slightly or substantially different from Randi's original, but "reasonable" from his/her own point of view. Audiophiles (or whatever community it is) rush to agree that the challengers conditions are indeed reasonable.
Randi declines saying the conditions aren't what he originally offered.
The challenger declares that Randi is, variously, a fraud, liar, and/or POS. Audiophiles (or whoever) rush to agree with one of their own.
Randi declares that that particular challenger isn't serious but he will keep the challenge open.The Wellfed and Michael Fremer instances illustrate this scenario fairly well. If I have my facts right, Fremer originally proposed to do the trial with Pear cables supplied by the manufacturer. However the maker backed out, (some said wisely so). So Fremer proposed that he use his own, non-Pear cables; this Randi declined.

Sorry, audiophiles, although Randi is aggesive and tends to respond in kind to the aggrevated criticism he gets, we need to remember that he isn't offering a wager, but instead a reward from his own pocket, and he wants to make darned sure it is earned. He is under no obligation to make it easy for challengers.

Mike Lavigne, associated with Positive Feedback, owns a pair of Pear cables, (and a famous listening room and system worth well north of $500k), said at one point that he was considering taking up the challenge, so we might hear more.

musicoverall
10-26-2007, 04:02 AM
I don't follow the Randi details, but AA threads report that Michael Fremer has backed off Randi's challenge -- or Randi has reneged, depending on your point of view. I'm not sure which because I haven't read all of the 100,000 or so lines of thread at the Randi website.

The usual Randi scenario goes something like this ...

Randi posts a challenge with various conditions stipulated.
A challenger accepts and Randi acknowledges the challenges subject to conditions to be negociated.
The challengers proposes conditions that are slightly or substantially different from Randi's original, but "reasonable" from his/her own point of view. Audiophiles (or whatever community it is) rush to agree that the challengers conditions are indeed reasonable.
Randi declines saying the conditions aren't what he originally offered.
The challenger declares that Randi is, variously, a fraud, liar, and/or POS. Audiophiles (or whoever) rush to agree with one of their own.
Randi declares that that particular challenger isn't serious but he will keep the challenge open.The Wellfed and Michael Fremer instances illustrate this scenario fairly well. If I have my facts right, Fremer originally proposed to do the trial with Pear cables supplied by the manufacturer. However the maker backed out, (some said wisely so). So Fremer proposed that he use his own, non-Pear cables; this Randi declined.

Sorry, audiophiles, although Randi is aggesive and tends to respond in kind to the aggrevated criticism he gets, we need to remember that he isn't offering a wager, but instead a reward from his own pocket, and he wants to make darned sure it is earned. He is under no obligation to make it easy for challengers.

Mike Lavigne, associated with Positive Feedback, owns a pair of Pear cables, (and a famous listening room and system worth well north of $500k), said at one point that he was considering taking up the challenge, so we might hear more.

Randi certainly isn't obligated to accept a challenge that differs from the original; hence, the non-use of the Pear cables means Randi isn't reneging. However, consider that Randi thinks all expensive cables are part of the paranormal. Why should he then care which cables are used? Methinks he's found a way to back out that, while perfectly legitimate from the standpoint of the original offer, greatly reduces his credibility in the audiophile circles... if he had any to begin with!

But I think he *should* back out for the sake of his pocketbook. There's no doubt in my mind cables can have a sound and I think both Fremer and Lavigne (as well as many, many others) would walk away with the money (assuming Randi doesn't pull out some other excuse... which he would). There are bigger fish to fry that fry up a lot easier that cables!

musicoverall
10-26-2007, 04:10 AM
The 1.6's are my choice as well. As a longtime owner of the 20.1's until a year or so ago, I think Maggie's are the way to go. I sold them, not because I found something better, but because I needed the money to finance a very large estate purchase of several thousand LP's and 78's. I'm making do with a much lesser system and, you know what? I kept telling myself I'd have an expensive system again by now but I'm enjoying the music so much that I haven't upgraded one piece of the hardware. To tell you the truth, when I do rebuild, my system will be a lot more like yours than it will be like what I used to own.

Since you mention CDP's, I'd have to say they are a lot like cables to me. Is there a difference? Yes. Would I bet my life on it? No. My favorite CDP is the one that navigates scratched CD's the best and my old Sony XA20-ES sails through damaged discs. The unit is 12 years old but was little used for half that time. It works wonderfully and sounds just fine.

musicoverall
10-26-2007, 04:43 AM
That's exactly what it says, but yes it is for that person and the equipment used in the test. For this reason, a test like that needs multiple test subjects and as many combinations of speakers and amplification as possible in order to strengthen the clarity of the results. In reality the number of speaker-amp combinations really necessary to pretty much settle the issue likely isn't that high. Sure you'd want to cover solid state and a couple tube amp designs, as well as the varying planar speaker designs, etc. But I think a pretty good results could be had with 5-8 setups and a handful of listeners (experienced and not) through a series of trials.

Many DBTs I've read about in the audio world are devoid of details because the results are not what the tester wanted. This is true in any field where DBTs might be used, warping the results or hiding details is a skill in and of itself, even if not the most virtuous of skills.

The problem with a DBT like this is there are many people both selling and buying these products who don't want to be proven wrong and even if the testing methodologies and results speak for themselves, these people may never believe them.


I'm not so quick to state unequivocally that Testee A scored only 10 of 20 on Tuesday and is therefore labeled as someone who cannot hear differences in the DUTs. I think that's a conclusional leap of faith, and I'd prefer to see how he does over time - at least 2 more tests on 2 other days. I've had several days myself where my state of mind was not conducive to hear much in the way of subtleties. For this and other reasons (mostly due to lack of detail), people tend not to believe DBT results.

I also don't agree that non-experienced listeners should be used, unless the goal is to show how listeners of different experience levels score on DBT's. Most inexperienced listeners I know do fine on the overall sonic picture but can't focus on certain "audiophile" things like imaging and soundstaging, etc. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; hell, a lot of inexperienced listeners I know enjoy music more than a lot of audiophiles I know and can get to the nitty gritty of the music, if not all the subtle aspects of the sound.

I guess our disagreement is at the heart of a lot of people's problem with DBT's as a testing mechanism. Opinions on how and who to test, and what to make of the results, differ. I think most people wouldn't mind too much being proven wrong but rarely do the tests "speak for themselves", as you posted. They might if they provided more detail but the ones I've seen are lacking and, as such, are easy to disbelieve.

emorphien
10-26-2007, 05:08 AM
I'm not so quick to state unequivocally that Testee A scored only 10 of 20 on Tuesday and is therefore labeled as someone who cannot hear differences in the DUTs. I think that's a conclusional leap of faith, and I'd prefer to see how he does over time - at least 2 more tests on 2 other days. I've had several days myself where my state of mind was not conducive to hear much in the way of subtleties. For this and other reasons (mostly due to lack of detail), people tend not to believe DBT results.

I also don't agree that non-experienced listeners should be used, unless the goal is to show how listeners of different experience levels score on DBT's. Most inexperienced listeners I know do fine on the overall sonic picture but can't focus on certain "audiophile" things like imaging and soundstaging, etc. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; hell, a lot of inexperienced listeners I know enjoy music more than a lot of audiophiles I know and can get to the nitty gritty of the music, if not all the subtle aspects of the sound.

I guess our disagreement is at the heart of a lot of people's problem with DBT's as a testing mechanism. Opinions on how and who to test, and what to make of the results, differ. I think most people wouldn't mind too much being proven wrong but rarely do the tests "speak for themselves", as you posted. They might if they provided more detail but the ones I've seen are lacking and, as such, are easy to disbelieve.
If testee A only scored 10 out of 20 on one day, that means on that day he could not discern a difference. If on days two and three the scores were similar, I'd say you've got some pretty conclusive evidence. If I were setting it up, I'd have people test over two or three days because there are plenty of people who share your opinion (and i have days where my listening just doesn't seem right as well). The cable mania has gotten to the point that good sound practice isn't enough, overkill would be necessary to convince anyone of anything. I'll get back to your comment about why people don't believe DBTs later though.

I think non-experienced listeners should be used, but not exclusively. It will be interesting to compare their results against the so-called "golden ears."

The problem is many people don't understand the mechanics of DBTs, both those performing them and analyzing the results, and people out in the world reading about the results. Whether different systems will really benefit from anything more than changing gauge is questionable, but the need to test on various types of systems is real because people believe it depends on the system. Any existing belief shared by enough people needs to be tested to see if it holds water.

The biggest problem with DBTs as a testing method, and any other human trials is that it is easy for people to discount, however the interpretation of the test results is clear. Whether or not it holds a global truth depends on how the test was performed. A success rate of half absolutely means no statistically significant difference, but if the listeners ears were clogged or if he was tired, then that only says that given those conditions he couldn't tell. Hence the need for both multiple listeners and a few days in order to perform the trials.

After a while though, enough experimental care has been taken and there will still be naysayers who will never believe it. You yourself stated something that hints at your own opinion on the matter:


I'm not so quick to state unequivocally that Testee A scored only 10 of 20 on Tuesday and is therefore labeled as someone who cannot hear differences in the DUTs.
You are suggesting that if the difference can't be heard, that it is the listener's fault. However it is just as likely that it means there is actually no audible difference that a human can detect. However to be able to confirm one or the other multiple subjects are needed.

musicoverall
10-26-2007, 06:45 AM
You are suggesting that if the difference can't be heard, that it is the listener's fault. However it is just as likely that it means there is actually no audible difference that a human can detect. However to be able to confirm one or the other multiple subjects are needed.

I wasn't clear. Of course if might mean that there are no audible differences. I've found as much to be true with respect to cables during my own auditions. Naturally, I have no need of further investigation in these cases since it's a local rather than a global test. Had I, I would require multiple subjects, as you stated.

Feanor
10-26-2007, 07:30 AM
...

But I think he *should* back out for the sake of his pocketbook. There's no doubt in my mind cables can have a sound and I think both Fremer and Lavigne (as well as many, many others) would walk away with the money (assuming Randi doesn't pull out some other excuse... which he would). There are bigger fish to fry that fry up a lot easier that cables!

Randi could be on thin ice in the cables instance.

Wellfed
10-29-2007, 10:01 PM
...Wellfed would not have won the money...

Who's to say I wouldn't have won the prize money, somebodies imagination?

You obviously have a good head on your shoulders, but without JREF having agreed to either of my two proposals we cannot know whether I would have won the prize money or not. All we know is that I agreed to testing, and that they didn't. We also know that they were prone to lying which definitely isn't a good quality for an educational foundation of any sort.

musicoverall
10-30-2007, 06:01 AM
Who's to say I wouldn't have won the prize money, somebodies imagination?

You obviously have a good head on your shoulders, but without JREF having agreed to either of my two proposals we cannot know whether I would have won the prize money or not. All we know is that I agreed to testing, and that they didn't. We also know that they were prone to lying which definitely isn't a good quality for an educational foundation of any sort.

My personal belief says you wouldn't win on the GSIC. 20 of 20 corrects? People can miss one on things less subtle than the chip is purported to be. Neither you nor anyone will ever win nickel one from Randi on anything audio. That's my belief. And it has nothing to do with my beliefs about the effectiveness of the chip. You got jerked around by the JREF - no question. I should think that you would be the first to believe that you'd never have gotten anything from them. But I still applaud your attempt because it brought to the forefront the dishonesty within their organization. Only a diehard believer would question it.

Feanor
10-30-2007, 06:22 AM
Who's to say I wouldn't have won the prize money, somebodies imagination?

....

Welcome to AR and I hope we'll see you around here

... Of course we're going to need a "Tweaks" forum. :cornut:

Feanor
10-30-2007, 06:35 AM
My personal belief says you wouldn't win on the GSIC. 20 of 20 corrects? People can miss one on things less subtle than the chip is purported to be. ...

To require 100% distinction of "A" versus "B" is unscientific if you're purpose is to establish that there are perceptible differences between them. If Randi is insisting on 20/20, it's unreasonable and unfair. All you need demonstrate a difference is that the correct distinction exceeds pure chance on a statistically valid basis.

My problem with the GSIC was and is that there is absolutely no rational or scientific reason to believe it could work, (and many why it would not). If its effect is to improve the sound as perceived by some listener, the most parsimonious explanation is that it is the listen's imagination.

Were I to try the chip and hear a difference, I would not "trust my ears", I would ascribe it to my imagination.

emorphien
10-30-2007, 08:39 AM
To require 100% distinction of "A" versus "B" is unscientific if you're purpose is to establish that there are perceptible differences between them. If Randi is insisting on 20/20, it's unreasonable and unfair. All you need demonstrate a difference is that the correct distinction exceeds pure chance on a statistically valid basis.
Agreed, I did not realize he was demanding such a result. While that would certainly "prove his point" it's not necessary to prove there is a significant difference.

Of course, I can kind of see the point of his demands, many of the audiophiles who make extravagant cable claims say they can always tell quite easily that one cable is superior. That doesn't mean it is a scientifically valid expectation to prove a hypothesis.

musicoverall
10-30-2007, 10:40 AM
Agreed, I did not realize he was demanding such a result. While that would certainly "prove his point" it's not necessary to prove there is a significant difference.

Of course, I can kind of see the point of his demands, many of the audiophiles who make extravagant cable claims say they can always tell quite easily that one cable is superior. That doesn't mean it is a scientifically valid expectation to prove a hypothesis.

If someone takes the cable challenge and scores 19 of 20 correct, Randi is free to keep his money - which is fine... he sets the rules. But my strong hunch is that Randi would then proclaim to the world that the testee "failed" the test. The concept of good faith is foreign to the man. And as you said, 19 of 20 (or more likely a few 19 of 20's) is scientifically sufficient to show validation of a hypothesis.

Randi needs to stay away from audio. He doesn't know squat about it and he's liable to lose... not that he'd ever pay up, of course.

emorphien
10-30-2007, 11:20 AM
I'd love to see someone perform a proper test though, and see whether the cables really do prove themselves beyond random chance. I have my own opinions based on auditioning and scientific background, however I think a good test would be fun. It'll at least end the debate (well no, not really, some will never believe).

musicoverall
10-31-2007, 03:55 AM
I'd love to see someone perform a proper test though, and see whether the cables really do prove themselves beyond random chance. I have my own opinions based on auditioning and scientific background, however I think a good test would be fun. It'll at least end the debate (well no, not really, some will never believe).

There would be no reason for any one test to end the debate. One test would prove nothing, except that one listener passed or failed on one particular day. What's funny about it is that when either happens, the opposing sides blame the tests. Subjectivists say the tests are too "stressful" or "not calibrated for subtle differences" and objectivists claim the tests weren't carried out properly because they couldn't have been if a difference was heard. The belief systems on both sides approach the religious.

A proper DBT would be very difficult to do in the home... and by "proper", I mean one that would satisfy both sides. You'd need a totally objective proctor to monitor the results, multiple trials over several days, etc etc. So it boils down to who thinks a proper DBT is worth the hassle. My own DBT confirmed my sighted listening results, except at a lessened degree of significance. Quite honestly, I have much bigger fish to fry than cables these days. My goal is to experience every recording ever made that I would consider worth hearing. I'll never reach that destination but man, is the ride ever enjoyable! :)

emorphien
10-31-2007, 05:31 AM
There would be no reason for any one test to end the debate. One test would prove nothing, except that one listener passed or failed on one particular day.
I'm not sure why you keep assuming I only mean one listener! I've already told you how I would like to see the testing done.

musicoverall
10-31-2007, 06:05 AM
I'm not sure why you keep assuming I only mean one listener! I've already told you how I would like to see the testing done.

Doesn't matter. If it doesn't include the people whose beliefs/experiences you're trying to change, it's meaningless to them. Or are you simply seeking validation of your own beliefs?

emorphien
10-31-2007, 08:11 AM
Doesn't matter. If it doesn't include the people whose beliefs/experiences you're trying to change, it's meaningless to them. Or are you simply seeking validation of your own beliefs?
I'm seeking scientifically significant proof based on human trials. It's a purely academic endeavor, I'm not looking to convince anyone of anything. I already have a hypothesis and a pretty good idea of the result, but if I'm wrong I'd accept it. It shouldn't be meaningless to anyone, but the reality is it's pretty easy for people to be stubborn, lose their objectivity, and ignore the results of a perfectly valid test.

musicoverall
10-31-2007, 08:54 AM
I'm seeking scientifically significant proof based on human trials. It's a purely academic endeavor, I'm not looking to convince anyone of anything. I already have a hypothesis and a pretty good idea of the result, but if I'm wrong I'd accept it. It shouldn't be meaningless to anyone, but the reality is it's pretty easy for people to be stubborn, lose their objectivity, and ignore the results of a perfectly valid test.

Would you agree that if even one person in the world can reliably determine sonic differences between two cables, that the hypothesis that all cables sound alike fails (assuming proper guage, length, etc)? If you do, you can find "scientifically significant" evidence on the tests you've outlined but never proof. So these tests might convince you, but the results would likely not cause others to do much of anything but ignore your results. Everyone believes that if they were tested (and the tests were valid in their minds) they would blow the null hypothesis to shreds. No one ever doubts the outcome of null results in tests, just the relationship of those results to themselves. At least that's my experience with audiophiles.... a group of which I'm still a member, at least marginally.

emorphien
10-31-2007, 10:06 AM
Would you agree that if even one person in the world can reliably determine sonic differences between two cables, that the hypothesis that all cables sound alike fails (assuming proper guage, length, etc)?
Generally speaking, yes. The purpose of the test is not to confirm that they sound the same or that they do not, but to determine what the actual truth of the matter is.

If there's an exception for one person, as you'd say, and it were to be evidence for either hypothesis, we'd have to rule out any other conditions that might affect the test results.

emorphien
11-06-2007, 02:52 PM
something I just saw today, about wine, but equally applicable here:

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/the_subjectivity_of_wine.php?

Rock&Roll Ninja
11-10-2007, 06:53 PM
I think a test should involve hundreds of A/B tests done over a period of many days, if not weeks on multiple loudspeakers in a variety of rooms at varying volume levels.

If you can accuractely pick the Pear or Monster 100 times out of 100 on all every loudspeaker tested then its fairly obvious to anyone that there is a difference.

It may seem like unreasonable overkill.... but if it were my money I'd like to keep it.

emorphien
11-10-2007, 07:47 PM
As has been said multiple times, requiring 100 out of 100 would be foolish and unnecessary. It speaks to a lack of understanding for how to interpret results from a test like that.

johnny p
11-27-2007, 10:58 AM
I was considering new cables..... this thread has opened my eyes.