$1,000,000 cable challenge

[PeruvianSkies]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...

1. Randi posts a challenge with various conditions stipulated.
2. A challenger accepts and Randi acknowledges the challenges subject to conditions to be negociated.
3. 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.
4. Randi declines saying the conditions aren't what he originally offered.
5. The challenger declares that Randi is, variously, a fraud, liar, and/or POS. Audiophiles (or whoever) rush to agree with one of their own.
6. 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]

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 ...

1. Randi posts a challenge with various conditions stipulated.
2. A challenger accepts and Randi acknowledges the challenges subject to conditions to be negociated.
3. 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.
4. Randi declines saying the conditions aren't what he originally offered.
5. The challenger declares that Randi is, variously, a fraud, liar, and/or POS. Audiophiles (or whoever) rush to agree with one of their own.
6. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

...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]

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]

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.

[Feanor]

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]

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]

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.