It seems that people are always trying to change the parameters. It clearly did say that it was to be a test of the PEAR cables and now it seems Fermer wants to switch things around.

Also I thought Fremer was a professional but by reading these emails and seeing the words he is using he isn't being very professional.

Mr. Fremer is the reason I support higher education; he clearly has a reading comprehension problem and an issue with expressing himself in an adult manner. With that being said, and also referring to the offer he made in your previous news post regarding the changing of the parameters (i.e. using his own cables), would there be a serious issue with altering the cables for this experiment? I'm not well versed in all of this cable nonsense, since I've known for many, many years that the research indicates that above a given "quality", the human ear can tell no difference whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that the ability to differentiate between 18 and 24 gauge speaker wire is beyond most individuals.

Dear Mr. Wolford. I'm glad you support higher education. I have a degree from Cornell University. Where'd you get yours?

Mr. Randi ACCEPTED my offer to use my cables. YOU'RE THE ONE who can't read.

I posted Mr. Randi's acceptance of my request to use my reference cables in an email he sent me. Did you not read it? Would you like it forwarded directly to you so you can read it for yourself?

Let me repeat: the last correspondence I had with Mr. Randi, was his acceptance of my offer to use MY REFERENCE CABLE subject to advice from his "advisors."

I never heard back from him on that, and next thing I know, I am being accused of backing out because Pear has backed out... unless I buy a set of Pear cables????? and that the offer is moot because I will not be using Pear or Transparent AFTER MR. RANDI ACCEPTED MY OFFER TO USE MY CABLES?

Regardless of your opinion on whether cables matter or not (and you at least claim ignorance), Mr. Randi is obviously a LIAR.

Furthermore he is ignorant. He mocked me for claiming records can be demagnetized, without doing any research. He wrote that plastic can't be magnetized. Well, he's correct! But no one ever claimed plastic can be demagnetized.

Had he done a bit of research he would have found that it is the carbon black that makes records black that gets demagnetized. And if you don't think carbon is a magnetic material go here:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/20627

Where you will find: "Carbon is about to join the list of ferromagnetic elements....." and a long story on the subject.

Had Mr. Randi taken a minute to read my write up of record demagnitization or taken another minute to look up "magnetism and carbon" he would not have been able to post one of his typically nasty, derisive, corrosive, bitter and IGNORANT posts attacking me. But, clearly attacking others is what he's most interested in.

THE TRUTH DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO REGISTER ON HIS RADAR SCREEN...

By backing out of their own challenge, but now apparently claiming that they just made an incorrect assumption, the James Randi Educational Foundation has validated Pear Cable’s reasons for not participating. Using standard magicians tricks, the semi-retired magician James Randi focuses attention on 1 million dollars, which does exist, while hiding the fact that he reserves the right to change the rules of his contest so that no one can win. In his latest trick regarding this challenge, he has falsely blamed Pear Cable in an effort to divert attention from the fact that he has backed out of his willingness to allow Mr. Fremer to use his own reference cables for the test (after suggesting that Fremer do so, subject to his advisors say-so). James Randi now falsely claims that he has very clearly stated all along that the test is limited to 2 models of cable only (his email correspondence with Mr. Fremer disputes that). Why is James Randi attempting to limit his thesis regarding audio cables to 2 specific models? Could it be that he knows it is highly unlikely that ANY manufacturer will participate in a challenge given by someone who is dishonest? Pear Cable stands behind the performance of its products and will continue to pursue its goal of building the most accurate audio cables available.

Details of the original challenge negotiations follow:

At the beginning of negotiations between Mr. Fremer and James Randi to determine exactly which audio cables would be used, Mr. Fremer outlined 3 possibilities for the high-end cables, while allowing Mr. Randi to select any entry-level cable he desired. The 3 scenarios outlined for the high-end cable, were to simply use Mr. Fremer’s current $16,000 reference cables manufactured by Tara Labs, or to attempt to procure a loaned pair of either the Pear Cables or Transparent cables that James Randi had specifically challenged. Initially, Mr. Randi selected Mr. Fremer’s Tara Labs reference cables (subject to advisor’s approval), as everyone involved felt it was the simplest solution. Mr. Randi subsequently changed his mind, asking Mr. Fremer to attempt to procure Pear Cables for the test in order to avoid doing 2 tests, but did not exclude the possibility of using Mr. Fremer’s cables. After reviewing communications between Mr. Fremer and Mr. Randi, Pear Cable decided not to participate in the challenge, suspecting that the challenge was a hoax. As this would still leave Mr. Fremer with 2 other cable options, this decision should not have affected his ability to challenge Mr. Randi. Pear Cable notified James Randi directly that it would not be participating in the challenge. Following Pear Cable’s notification, JREF said they were deleting Mr. Fremer’s challenge (although they now state that this was simply a false assumption), erroneously attempting to blame Pear Cable.

Well Mr. Fremer, my PhD was from Capella University, where did you earn your doctorate? But I digress, Mr. Randi never said you backed out...ever. This is where your comprehension skills need to be refined as you don't seem to understand this. Blake and Pear backed out, since they are obviously scared to death of putting their money where their mouths reside. After all, an actual double-blind study would certainly lend credence towards the claims of either side. And I've readily asked as to whether or not the change of a parameter would seriously impact this study. I would posit that you've little experience putting together scientific studies, thus you may not understand that a slight variation can have drastic effects. Randi is well within his rights to inquire as to the impact of this change.

Also, I will not entertain your strawman of the demagnetized records; of course, you may wish to read that article a bit more closely. I see no mention of magnetic carbon in an LP. So please explain how this has any bearing whatsoever as to whether or not you can actually differentiate to a statistically significant level between two sets of cables?

Instead, let's drop the name calling and actually wait for the official response from Mr. Randi, shall we? His acceptance was pending review from his advisers, so I don't see how that actually indicates his actual acceptance.

Perhaps some patience and understanding on your part would be in order?

To Pear Cable...

Please, drop the nonsense, these are nothing more than red herrings. Mr. Randi is well known and there is nothing fraudulent regarding this challenge. All Mr. Fremer has to do is differentiate between two sets of cables; there were two options, Mr. Fremer has introduced, seemingly, a third option which is under examination by the JREF. Not supplying your cable is your choice, and I'm sure that Mr. Fremer and Mr. Randi will agree on a scientifically valid test without you, which you seem seem to agree with.

The truth is that if the two sides can agree on the proper high end cables, the dispute is over and the testing can begin.

Dear Mr. Wolford, Randi wrote that he was "sure I wouldn't provide the Pear cables and that CLOSES THE MATTER." Etc. Now you can say Randi never said I backed out, but please, that's the implication and guess what?????? The first posters responding said exactly that, didn't they????????? They called me "chicken," etc. So that's clearly what Randi wished to imply and he did, and it worked.

Furthermore, I never said the record demag issue had anything whatsoever to do with me being able to differentiate cables. I used it to indicate the man's ignorance and arrogance. You are correct in that you see no mention of magnetic carbon in an LP in Randi's nasty rant against me. That's because he was clearly IGNORANT of both the materials being in records and its being subject to holding a magnetic charge. Had he known, perhaps he might not have written such a nasty, dismissive, IGNORANT attack upon me. But then again, he probably would have.

Speaking of straw men, Wolford, I NEVER CLAIMED THAT CHANGING A PARAMETER MIGHT NOT SERIOUSLY IMPACT THE STUDY, so spare me the gratuitous conclusion that based on your straw man, I probably have little experience putting together scientific studies.

And to claim that changing one brand cable to another "can have a drastic effect on a study..." when Randi's claim is that they're all B.S. is ridiculous on its face, especially since Randi HAD ALREADY AGREED TO the CABLE SUBSTITUTION SUBJECT TO ADVICE FROM HIS ADVISORS. SO ALL OF YOUR BLATHER ABOUT SCIENCE AND DOUBLE BLIND, ETC IS ALL STRAW MAN. Had Randi rejected my offer to use my reference cable and i then backed out, yes he could have written what he wrote. But I DIDN"T BACK DOWN

WHAT RANDI SHOULD HAVE ORIGINALLY POSTED WAS THAT PEAR BACKED DOWN, BUT THAT I PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE CABLE AND THAT IT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY JREF. THAT'S WHAT A REAL HONEST MAN WOULD HAVE POSTED. THEN HE COULD HAVE AT PEAR AS HE SAW FIT. INSTEAD HE BUNDLED ME WITH PEAR IN ORDER TO PUT ME IN THE WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT, AND UNFAIRLY SO. AND YOU'RE ON HIS SIDE HERE? Take another sip.

I don't represent the other posters; I will only call you "chicken" if the test is agreed to and you don't show up. I attempt to remain unbiased as best to my ability and treat others with respect. You, however, seem to enjoy playground insults and such.

Regarding the parameter change, you directly offered this third option which included such change, never once questioning whether it would be acceptable, yet when Randi states he's going to ask his advisers, you jump all over it. So by way of inference, you've not accepted this to be a possibility. Instead of waiting to see what the official response from the JREF is, along with their reasoning, you use it as a base of attack.

And the strawman was on you my friend. If the LP issue had no bearing, why mention it? Randi agreed pending advice, that is not an agreement made in absolute. It is pending an analysis of what impact this would have. It is not a strawman, it is a statement of the basis of the response from James. And again, neither James nor I say you backed out; I will continue to believe that, once a protocol is established, that you will submit to the test.

Now, let's get a bit technical on why "all cables are B.S." does not constitute a "any cable switch is fine" mentality. Randi is clearly biased, warranted or not, as are you; Randi believes that these particular cables are B.S., you believe they are not. As such, neither you nor Randi may create this experiment because the goal of science is to minimize bias (note I don't say eliminate, as this is impossible, the very act of choosing the experiment is bias). As such, it is imperative that James contact the folks putting this experiment together to advise them of a change in the parameters so that they may, objectively, determine if there is a significant change to be created. My talk about science and double-blink studies are the heart of this; you don't seem to understand that for this to be a scientifically accurate experiment, it must adhere to the scientifically rigorous method. It must have internal/external validity, reliability, rigor, and objectivity.

And again, Randi did not say you backed down, and neither have I. If other posters have been rude and crude with you, I will apologize. However, your tone and demeanor are not civil. I have been very polite with you, yet you continue to post as someone who is not a Cornell graduate. Professionalism would do you well. If you feel James is a jerk, try even harder to be civil, it will raise you above his level if you feel he is behaving inappropriately. I feel he is not doing so, but in any case, you do not help yourself resorting to name calling and such. It shows that perhaps you are not a reasonable person; if you are truly an educated man, behave that way.

Provided that the Tara Labs cables don't have any sort of 'network box', I don't see why that couldn't be accomodated. It'd still be interesting to have Pear Cables loan a set of their danceable speaker wires for Mr. Fremer to evaluate. Based on prior reviews by him, it seems that he invariably finds a way to attribute different characteristics to cables he reviews.

I never trust anyone who calls me a "friend" while attacking me with a series of dishonest, nonsensical, illogical and conveniently incomplete arguments. You're the one who began the dialog with me with an obnoxious comment about supporting higher education, remember? So spare me your claims of good manners and treating others with respect.

I "jumped all over" Randi for mischaracterizing Pear's withdrawal as having anything whatsoever to do with me and for not informing people like you that we are negotiating a possible change of cables. I did not "jump all over" Randi for wishing to go back and ask his advisors. HE told me he would do so. Check the date.

Had I not responded immediately no one on the site would know we were supposedly negotiating for another brand of cable. You consider that fair? Gentlemanly?

He posts this business about "the matter being over," without ever telling readers that were in negotiations on using a different cable. Go back to his original post. Where's the part about us being in negotiations about using a different cable? It's NOT THERE is it?

Of course i understood that Randi might reject my offer to use my reference, but he accepted it provisionally (READ HIS EMAIL) subject to revision.

I heard NOTHING from him until his post today that WENT BACK TO EITHER THE PEAR OR TRANSPARENT WITHOUT TELLING ME. He BLINDSIDED ME and tried to make me look like I'd backed down. And you're on his side?

AGAIN you simply ignore anything that makes my case while twisting the facts to suit your needs.

LOOK: I wished to take this test to TEST MY BELIEFS. AND IF I COULDN'T DISCERN THE DIFFERENCES I WAS PREPARED TO ADMIT IT, LEARN FROM IT AND MOVE ON. and if I could make correct identifications I expected the same from Randi.

I was being straightforward with Mr. Randi and once I asked him to please stop insulting me in his emails and begin negotiating in good faith he did. He was reasonable. The last email was the one that said he'd accept my offer subject to....

That's the last I heard from him until the blustery post today IMPLYING (AND TAKEN AS SUCH BY THE READERS) that I'd backed down.

Finally have you ever read transcripts of (educated) Presidents? All of your talk about being civil is really a smokescreen. Randi has been taking CHEAP, MOCKING, totally unprovoked PERSONAL SHOTS at me for months so spare me talk of civility... he lost the right to that quite some time ago.

Well, this is interesting.

I see no mention in Randi's above screed of the alleged EMail from Randi to Fremer telling him he'd go with option 3 (Fremer using his own Tara Labs cables) pending consulting his advisors.

I think Randi needs to answer some questions here.

First, was the EMail quoted by Fremer genuine?

If so, was Fremer ever notified that option 3 had subsequently been taken off the table?

If not, how can you possibly justify this:

No, Fremer. You told me you’d like to use your “reference” cable, but the test is as I very clearly stated, more than once:

…to significantly differentiate between a set of $7,250 Pear Anjou cables and a good set of Monster cables, or between a set of $43,000 Transparent Opus MM SC cables and the same Monster cables – your choice of these two possible scenarios… This would have to be done to a statistically significant degree, that degree to be decided.

So which is it? Was Fremer misrepresenting your EMail communication with him, or are you just throwing this up as a smokescreen in order to try and impugn Fremer?

se

Dear Steve Eddy. Finally some reasonable questions and yes of course, Mr. Randi conveniently fails to mention the option 3 email. Was the email genuine? If you contact me via my website www.musicangle.com, I'd be happy to forward it to you with all headers attached.

When Pear told me they were backing out, I specifically asked them to tell Mr. Randi directly so it wouldn't appear as if I was backing down and they did so. I can send you that email as well. Nonetheless, Randi chose to make it appear as if the choice was between Pear and Transparent and that we didn't have an agreement to use my reference subject to the approval of his "advisors."

How can anyone, even the biggest Randi fan, not see that I an the aggrieved party here, never mind in all of his other unprovoked attacks upon me?

You will see that I was clearly misrepresented in order to make me appear to have backed down, even though those exact words weren't used. Randi's success in misrepresenting the situation can be seen in the repsonses to his original post.

Mr. Fremer, I for one am willing to accept on your word that the copy of the October 15th email you posted was genuine. No need to produce the headers. What I'd like to see is Randi's response to Option 3. Would you be willing to post it here?

Alright them Mr. Fremer, I will test you. I can't offer $1M, but I will gladly test you. I've never called you a liar, a fraud, nothing, so would this be acceptable? And yes, you may use your cables. I will actually propose that we use ten sets of cables, including your high end cables. We will do ten sets of ten tests; each set will utilize some different type of sound. During each set of tests, one of the ten will be guaranteed to be your cable; the other nine are guaranteed to be one of the other nine cables.

Would this be acceptable? This is not a hollow offer, it is genuine.

ten sets of cables? How about a blind kissing test: your wife and 9 other gals. I bet you couldn't tell your own wife. Ten is simply a number designed to confuse. I will do an A/B/X test where in each identification it can either be A, B or X. Your proposal is ridiculous and anti-science.

As for mcg's request:

Here is Mr. Randi's response to my email further down. Keep in mind there was no further communication from him (say, with his advisors' response) until I read that that Pear's withdrawal "CLOSES THE MATTER," as I was not likely to go out and buy a set of Pear cables.... I was led to believe I was in the middle of a good faith negotiation with Mr. Randi and I felt blindsided. No, I felt he lied in that post because he failed to reveal our negotiaton.

On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:53 PM, James Randi wrote:

I think I’d go with option 3, for simplicity, but I’ll have to consult with my advisors, first…

And perhaps the Z2R ML 10/10 – if a 10’ cable is okay with you.

All subject to advisors…


James Randi.


From: Michael Fremer [mailto:.....@musicangle.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:27 PM
To: James Randi
Subject: Re: BTW



I don't mind being quoted or having my words excerpted fairly. I prefer not to have them contorted or mischaracterized.

You have made the challenge somewhat clearer, offering a specific choice of two expensive cables versus a "good set of Monster Cables."


1) Please identify which of these constitutes a "good" set of Monster Cables so I understand which you intend to use as a baseline for the comparison:


http://www.monstercable.com/home_av/speaker_cables/stereo_and_surround.asp

Since I have not heard either the Pear Anjou or the Transparent Opus, and since I don't necessarily think that "expensive equals better," there are three options:

1) I request a set of Pear Anjou cables to hear what they sound like and then decide whether i can hear the difference between them and whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."

2) request a pair of Transparent Orpheus cables to hear what they sound like and then decide whether i can hear the difference between them and whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."

3) have you sign off on okaying me to use my reference TARA Labs Omega cables ($16,000 pr.) versus whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."

Once this is clarified we will take it the next step and I will state clearly what abilities I intend to demonstrate.

Dear Steve Eddy. Finally some reasonable questions and yes of course, Mr. Randi conveniently fails to mention the option 3 email. Was the email genuine? If you contact me via my website www.musicangle.com, I'd be happy to forward it to you with all headers attached.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not really looking for you to prove to me that you received it. I'm looking for Randi to deny that he sent it.

And if he can't do that, I'm looking for him to say that his advisors had pooh-poohed option 3 and that you were sent notification of this.

And if he can't do that, I'm looking for him to justify what he says above.

When Pear told me they were backing out, I specifically asked them to tell Mr. Randi directly so it wouldn't appear as if I was backing down and they did so. I can send you that email as well.

No need for that, thanks.

Nonetheless, Randi chose to make it appear as if the choice was between Pear and Transparent and that we didn't have an agreement to use my reference subject to the approval of his "advisors."

Yes. Which is why I want to see Randi deny that he'd sent the EMail.

How can anyone, even the biggest Randi fan, not see that I an the aggrieved party here, never mind in all of his other unprovoked attacks upon me?

Well, in my opinion, it's seemed to me that being a Randi fan isn't so much about getting at the truth so much as it is having your mind already made up and just having some yuks mocking and impugning people.

You will see that I was clearly misrepresented in order to make me appear to have backed down, even though those exact words weren't used. Randi's success in misrepresenting the situation can be seen in the repsonses to his original post.

Well, bottom line is that only you and Randi know what went on in EMail between the two of you. Which is why I think Randi's feet need to be held to the fire on this one to either confirm that the EMail is genuine or deny it, instead of ignoring it completely and impugning you.

se

note: the various question marks are some kind of computer coding error (Mac vs. Wintel?) and are not part of the text... in addition note that this was before Pear chose not to participate.

SteveEddy. Yes, I'd be curious to see if Mr. Randi will just admit that we were in the midst of negotiating an expensive cable substitution and that he'd accepted my offer subject to his advisors when he posted his message about Pear backing down and "that closes the matter" (etc.)

Pear, this is embarassing. You just lost a customer.

I own two double biwire 12 foot bosc cables and two 8 footers, and a 2 meter bosc interconnect. They'll be up on Craigslist shortly.

After looking at the TARA Omega's, there does NOT appear to be a network box. I don't see why the test can not move forward with the Omega's. I can tell you that if this test goes forward and Mr. Fremer wins, I will be ordering Omega's immediately. If Randi backs down on using the Omega's I may still buy the Omega's immediately. But PEAR cables not only won't get my money soon, I can guarantee they will NEVER, EVER get a penny from me and I'll make sure all my friends looking at cables go else where. If Randi did one good thing it is exposing Pear as snake oil salesmen. Imagine trying to sell $16k cables and not giving a loaner pair - if that isn't the essence of sleaze I don't know what it.

Randi I hereby call you a liar. Post proof that Mike is not telling the truth or you are the one that has backed out of the challenge. You will have no credibility until you do this.

I would like to know, from JREF or Randi, what specific Monster cable is being used - item # would be appreciated.

As for Dave Ert - the challenge is still on. JREF is trying to determine if the Omega's Mr. Fremer wants to use some type of network box or other equipment to alter the sound. No one has backed out of the challenge - yet.

I have found the truth to be rather easy.

It seems to me that the fundamental proposition made by the JREF has been satisfied.

A high-end cablemaker and a "professional ear" got cold feet.

I'd like 20 feet of zip cord please!

One more thing:

I would "invest" $7,500.00, to receive a guaranteed million.

Wouldn't you?

Unless ....................

OK - so much hubub. But I want to call attention to something: Ben Underwood. The story here on the site acknowledges the real possibility that this blind 14 year old boy uses echolocation to move throughout the world, have pillow fights, play foosball, video games, and navigate the world. And yet when Fremer implies that he (also) has superior hearing capabilities and can hear the difference between certain speaker cables - the whole of Randi World is up in arms and ready to start swiping scimitars at Fremer's head.

Yikes.

And I have no idea why Randi won't accept Fremer's offer to use his Tara Labs cables instead of the Transparent or Pear cables. WHat's the difference? Fremer seems comfortable with being able to identify the Tara Labs things - what's the biggie? The Transparent cables us some massive huge ridiculoso network box - you'd think they were altering something important and that Randi would want to disqualify them.

I've learned something very instructive in my life: Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it universally incomprehensible.

Anyway - looking at this from the outside I can make an argument that there are lunatics inside AND outside the asylum here. I'd like to see Fremer do the test with his Tara cables and whatever cable Randi chooses to match it up against. Those of you insisting that lampcord is the same ... I'd say that using lampcord would utterly guarantee a Fremer victory. Randi better choose something at least a little bit better than 16awg tinned stranded tough pitch copper.

a question.

has anyone noticed that the Monster speaker cables designated by Randi, the Monster Z2R ML-10/10, has a "Patented Monster Lock-Notch® Pin" and is designed to be used with a spring-loaded speaker and amp terminal. you can also unscrew this 'Pin' and use the bare wire.

i apologize if this sounds elitist; but no decent speaker or amp uses spring loaded terminals so i assume that for this test bare wire would be used.

comments?

" And yet when Fremer implies that he (also) has superior hearing capabilities and can hear the difference between certain speaker cables - the whole of Randi World is up in arms and ready to start swiping scimitars at Fremer's head. "

It takes "superior hearing" to tell the difference between a $100.00 cable and a $7,500.00 cable.

I agree ......... YIKES

Hi Paul,

For the purposes of this Randi inquisition, it's important simply to note that Randi on the one hand acknowledges the possibility that Ben Underwood is some kind of human dolphin with echolocation abilities, but disdains to acknowledge that other people in the world may have excellent hearing AS WELL.

He seems to me to be talking (blogging) out of both sides of his mouth - I would suggest that BOTH abilities are equally likely or unlikely, depending on your angle of approach to the subject - but neither are paranormal. Extranormal, maybe ... but that's why niche markets exist to begin with.

Not everyone can appreciate a gourmet meal with wine pairings ... my dad is one: "What have you got to spend $300 on meal for? Just to eat? You know how many filet mignons I can buy for $300?" But for some, the experience is a mesmerizing journey of pure indulgence. The hoi polloi may order their wagyu beef done well ... for the connoisseur, "cooking" is merely a formality of grammar.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it universally incomprehensible.

Hi Chris:

I have no doubts that there are special people in this world.

To be fair, this cable controversy has a context. The sellers of exotic stereo cable tell of the warmness of copper, the harsh clarity of silver and the exotic twisting of cables that produce stereo magic. The cablemakers also inform the buyer that any fool can readily tell the difference between a copper, copper mix, silver and .......

Put a million dollars and a half dozen cold beers on the table. I will readily tell you which is which. Within the hour, I will have a belly-full of beer and a million dollars in my pocket. I would also be more than willing to pay for the beer.

I rip a lot of music and lossy and lossless formates have been debated. In this debate, there is always the person with the "golden ears". Test after test, few, if any, can constantly tell the difference between lossless and a HIGH QUALITY lossy rip.

I constantly hear about the person with the "golden ear". He must be very shy, because he never seems to show-up for the party.

(i posted this on "the latest pear cable challenge"; i wonder why jref has three threads about the same topic?)

first of all, let me state that i am a shill for no one here. i am yust an audio hobbyist. i have never heard of pear cables, & i think it ludicrous to pay more than a few hundred bucks for any single pair of cabling. and, i never heard of randi until i read about the "cable challenge" over at audiocircle.com. as far as michael fremer goes, i think arthur salvatore has an interesting take on the man.

but, as far as this cable challenge goes, it is certainly clear that randi is completely full of it. first of all, it's completely reasonable, imo, for mikey to want to first audition a cable completely unknown to him, (the pear cable), to see if it compares to another cable (the monster cable), also likely unknown to him. it's extremely possible that these two cables, in fact *DO* sound so similar as to be completely indistinguishable - i'd certainly wanna run a pre-test first, before i would agree to a test of whether or not i could discern any differences. secondly, since randi is setting up the "challenge", imo, it is 100% up to randi to provide the cables, if the agreed-upon cables are in fact going to be the ones randi chooses, & not some other cabling of mikey's (or any other challenge acceptor's) choosing. who cares if pear (or monster or any other cable mfr) wants to be inwolwed or not? randi has a challenge? then he can prowide the cables. period. certainly, no acceptor of the challenge should be required to prowide any cables, unless it's agreed that randi will allow a challenge acceptor's cabling to be used.

score: mikey 1, randi 0, w/a penalty for bad behaviour. (pear or monster shouldn't even a player in this game, imo)

ymmv,

doug s.

There are several issues at play here complicating the thinking involved here - in my opinion.

1) The audible difference between cables. Either these differences are audible to someone, or to everyone, or to no one. I would discount the use of cables employing filter networks, since they seem obviously to be actively altering the signal.

2) The perceived value of cables. This is abstract. Regardless of whether or not one person would not pay more than $x.xx for a cable because they do not perceive a value to the investment, that doesn't necessarily mean that other adults would not perceive a value. In fact - they seem to perceive the value and invest their money of their own accord, without harassment or coercion.

3) The population of people with sensitive hearing or more focused attention. There may in fact be a certain percentage of the human population that is more sensitive to sound - whether that sensitivity be physical (that is, demonstrably measurable in terms of received frequency response), or emotional (unmeasurable effects in terms of emotional perceptions). Regardless - and I may be f*cking up the million dollar challenge here - I sincerely doubt that such an ability could ever be considered paranormal. Extranormal, extra sensitive, etc. But any claim for paranormal ability here, at least as far as I understand the connotation, is an over the top reaction.

If Ben Underwood can navigate his world by echolocation, then I believe it is possible that the ability is inherent and possibly dormant in all people to some extent - and more sensitively tuned in fewer people to a greater extent. It is my opinion that we have not yet discovered every possible capability of our species, and any new capability (no matter how significant or insignificant) that may crop up will at first be met with disbelief and criticism before being explored and accepted.

Randi: Put up your million dollars, let Mr. Fremer use his cables versus your Monster cables, and let's have a fair test - and then let's put this matter to rest. There's no shortage of opinion here, but - as they say - opinions are like bung-holes: everyone's got one and they all stink.

Chris

Transparent Opus MM SC seem to be complicated by some sort of network. As someone else said "I would discount the use of cables employing filter networks, since they seem obviously to be actively altering the signal." and that might cause an audible difference. If I were Randi, I wouldn't test anything except an all conductor type cable without a network in the line.

My full support to maryyugos statement here. The Transparent Opus MM SC has a filter (dubbed "network" on the official Transparent site), and any unspecified filter may audibly alter the signal.

We seem to have strayed from the subject. If the Pear (or other) cables' superior performance cannot be demonstrated, why would anyone pay such an exorbitant amount for them?

I thought my "user name" would be shown. And no, I'm not trying to spam.

PS Monster cables are also a ripoff, but not to such a great degree.

Why is 300 in semi-quotes in the spam message? '300' ??

Did a google today for Michael Fremer. Came up with a stereo cable (interconnect) review by Mr. Fremer in the December of 2006 issue of Stereophile.

Mr. Fremer in his article of 2006, in part states: "Here at my place, I have enough cables to build a suspension bridge." Any Pear cables in that bridge to nowhere?

Mr. Randi has made the test way too easy. Mr. Randi only requires an A/B test. This is far too simple for Mr. Fremer. In fact, a simple A/B test should be an insult to Mr. Fremer.

According to Mr. Fremer, "[E]very one of the higher-quality interconnects I've tried has imparted a slightly different "flavor" to the sound: a bit off brightness here, a smoothness there, a full bottom here, lean but detailed there, etc." Mr. Fremer digs further "I told him (person looking for Mr. Fremer to review the cables) he'd be better off finding a reviewer new to the job who had never experienced what a well-designed cable can do for a system."

If I were Mr. Randi, I would find what Mr. Fremer considers bright cables, smooth cables, full bottom cables, lean cables, fat cables, lean but detailed cables and put them all to the test.

Mr. Fremer's article also discloses that "the average high-end audio retail markup being fivefold", i.e., the Pear Cables can be had for around $1,500.00.

I would be more than willing to put Mr. Fremer's prose down to fiction, but the crap he is hyping cost thousand, if not tens of thousands of dollars. This is more than flowery prose - This is stealing!

Hey, did anyone notice this Wolford character bragging about his PhD from CAPELLA UNIVERSITY? Anyone check that out? It's an online diploma mill!

Ooooh, I'm impressed! (not)

Jim (who has a real PhD, in physics, and thinks--no, KNOWS--that Randi and his cronies are embarassing themselves)

Hey guys, I've just read through this thread for the first time. The issue is REALLY simple. The question at issue is whether all cables sound alike or whether they don't. If Fremer can distinguish between two sets of cables in a statistically significant blind test--and they're verified as being nothing but cables--then Randi is wrong. What difference does it make whether they are Pear cables or some other kind of cables (FWIW, those "filters" on the Transparent cables filter out sounds IN THE MHZ RANGE; I've seen it on a scope--does Randi REALLY think that difference would be audible? If so, he's well on his way to being a cable believer).

If Randi believes that all cables sound the same, he should accept any legitimate cables. He's backing out because he lost his nerve. He thinks he's gonna lose and he ain't got the cash. Which, btw, makes him a fraud.

Jim

Paul, You write this:

I would be more than willing to put Mr. Fremer's prose down to fiction, but the crap he is hyping cost thousand, if not tens of thousands of dollars. This is more than flowery prose - This is stealing!

So I imagine you must think that people reading Fremer's article buy cables costing thousands of dollars without first trying them and finding out whether or not their experience matches up with what he has written?

What is more likely in your opinion:

(1) An industry-wide conspiracy to hypnotize masses of people in order to push them to part with thousands of dollars for products that do not perform as reported.

(2) That there is a group of people generally categorized as audio lovers that number at least in the tends of thousands that can (a) afford to buy incredibly expensive audio systems and (b) spend thousands of dollars willingly on things like cables because they perceive value in the purchase.

It seems to me that people like you (and like Randi) must insist that tens of thousands of fairly accomplished people from all professions and walks of life must be idiots, easily fooled rubes that can be conned out of their hard-earned money by the mere suggestion that cables can make a difference.

And while I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy (can ANYONE please tell me why Building 7 fell?), it seems to me that you're obsessed with the wrong things. What guys like you should be asking, IMHO, is why hasn't science been able to measure what so many people have independently observed and reported?

Why do you think so many mastering studios use exotic cables in their systems? Why do producers like Rick Rubin, mastering engineers like Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman, Bob Ludwig, Stan Ricker and the like also use better-than-Monster cables in their critical listening and mastering systems?

Why do you insist you know so much about something you know so very little?

Chris

Hi Chris:

My position, for the most part, is rather straight forward - All that is needed to connect an amp to a pair of speakers are two well made and insulated copper wires. A pure copper cable is as good for sound quality as a pure silver cable or one of pure gold. I should note that materials do act differently and may need special handling. Nonetheless, once those issues (if any) are address, the cables will sound the same. Electrons have no imagination, they go with the flow!

I would assume that your position is that of Mr. Fremer's - The metal, pure or in a mix, well create changes in the sound of the music that are perceptible, repeatable and readily discernible. Just like Italian sausages, regular, hot or garlic are available at a cost.

I neither share your opinion nor believe that I do not know of what a speak. The idea that I don't know because I don't have "magic ears" is the reason for this forum and challenge. Sorry Chris, no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or "magic ears".

Why do so many smart people believe your position to be true? This is a great question and I do not know the answer. I would remind you that 10% of the population believes in alien abductions.

It does seem curious to me that the more expensive the metal (gold is better than silver and silver better than copper) the more magic the cable possesses.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the Oct 12 SWIFT again, it seems that the issue has more to do with "paranormal" hearing abilities rather than cable qualities. Why hasn't a protocol been written for that??

Quoting (or attempting to quote with some bold in this text box, anyway):

... He states – again, much to my surprise! – that he is “willing to participate in a double blind, scientifically designed cable test.” I would – contrary to his stated dread – insist that the tests be designed “to see if an individual might be able to hear differences and reliably identify them as opposed to a test designed to ‘prove’ that there are no differences.” That latter notion never occurred to me, since I cannot imagine having to design a protocol to establish such a strange idea, but it was his invention, not mine. We are in total agreement in that respect.

I assure him that I would never retreat to re-designing the rules of any tests, as he suggests was done previously after a test of audio components in which he took part. (I must say, in passing, that a test of differences in audio amplifiers could surely be winnable, since there obviously are audible differences between different designs and different combinations of audio components. I think that even I – inexperienced as I am – might be successful in such a test.) All the protocol in any tests in which I’m involved, is stated in advance, clearly, and is followed scrupulously, Mr. Fremer. Be assured of that.

In accordance with Fremer’s suggestion, I’m sure that we can agree on a “high resolution audio system set up in a good room,” and we can agree on the test protocol. Also, the choice of cables will be both his and mine, as he suggests. ...

Jim the PhD wrote:
"The issue is REALLY simple. The question at issue is whether all cables sound alike or whether they don't.'

Not, that's not the question, and as Randi has found, it's not quite that simple. Clearly two cables with large differences in R/C/L can sound different (said differences can be achieved e.g. by large differences in length and gauge, or the addition of inline filters) The real question is really whether two cables with similar R/C/L, connected to well-designed amps and speakers (i.e., ones that do not 'require' cabling with peculiar frequency response characteristics), can sound different. There are plenty of instances where 'hi end' reviewers, Fremer included , have claimed they do, so it would be nice to see at least one of these claims tested properly.

Lily wrote
"It seems to me that people like you (and like Randi) must insist that tens of thousands of fairly accomplished people from all professions and walks of life must be idiots, easily fooled rubes that can be conned out of their hard-earned money by the mere suggestion that cables can make a difference."

This is an argument from incredulity, but it also makes a false assumption. The 'tens of thousands;' are not necessarily idiots, but all of them presumably are human, and thus subject to the same 'inevitable illusions'
of perception and judgment as other humans. These annoying mistakes and biases are perceptual 'noise' that obscures the signal, and they're why double blind protocols are the norm in studies of audio perception and discrimination, and why any cable listening comparison MUST employ some sort of DBT to be scientifically credible.

There are audiophiles, as well as professionals in audio and the music biz who don't believe properly-functioning cables should sound different, by the way. Are they idiots?

krabapple, actually Chris wrote that, not me. I just want to see this test get underway with the correct focus, which seems to be on the hearing abilities instead of cables!

Sorry for my attribution mistake, Lilly.

No worries. :)

Hi Paul,

YOU WRITE:

Why do so many smart people believe your position to be true? This is a great question and I do not know the answer. I would remind you that 10% of the population believes in alien abductions.

It does seem curious to me that the more expensive the metal (gold is better than silver and silver better than copper) the more magic the cable possesses.

While 10% of the population believes in alien abductions, they are not actively participating in those abductions daily (to my knowledge, at least). It would be more accurate to say that 10% of the population believe in Echinacea's ability to help ease certain kinds of illness, or that 10% of the population believe in the effectiveness of accupuncture, or that 10% of the population believes that Al Gore could actually become President.

And as for the expense of the metal equating to better sound (curiously), it is not always the case. One of the highest rated cables uses only silver plated copper (not so expensive vs. silver or gold in terms of materials costs).

LILY:

There are audiophiles, as well as professionals in audio and the music biz who don't believe properly-functioning cables should sound different, by the way. Are they idiots?

No, they aren't idiots. They might not have the same hearing acumen or sensitivity as the professionals who DO use special cables in their studios. I don't think that you can turn the argument into an "IF-THEN" statement.

Fact is, tens of thousands of people in the USA, and likely hundreds of thousands of people the world over vote with their checkbooks in favor of the audibility of cables. These things get REALLY EXPENSIVE ... you would think that they might be a little more careful than to get hypnotized by the audio media and advertising over and over again, buying various cables throughout the history of their involvement with the hobby.

The argument here seems to be made that these people are rather altogether stupid, rubes taken advantage of by a conspiracy of magazine reviewers and manufacturers to churn the fraud machine. Cynical, sure - but equally unlikely to be true, it seems.

written by Chris, October 30, 2007from the other board

Ben Roberts writes:

I believe the Tara Labs product has a suitably ludicrous price to fit within the spirit of the challenge.

I often find it incredibly entertaining when the minions crawl out of the wormholes to criticize something based upon its price. News for you Ben - some things are very expensive, and they do not have "commodity" value. Among them are million dollar cars, half million dollar watches, any property on the coast of California, soda pop, french fries, coffee, etc.

If you mean to make a challenge that will save the world from companies that seem to overcharge for their products - I would suggest taking a swipe at bigger fish in order to do more good. If you're like many, commuting to work and stopping for your $4.00 latte on the way, grabbing a $1.50 soda with lunch, etc - you're pissing away (literally) almost $1,500 a year with nothing to show for it. At the end of the day, you can wag your finger at luxury acquisitions but your finger has to stop short a moment ... because at least once you have purchased them, you still have them.

Once you drink your Crappacino, you no longer have it.

So this is not nearly an argument about money, even though it may suit the Marxists among us to make it so. This is an argument about legitimacy. Regardless of price, do the items in question perform as advertised or do they not? If they do perform as advertised, even if only for a small niche of people who may be sensitive to the alleged spectrum of performance, it becomes the responsibility of the person considering the purchase to determine the value of the performance. That determination is made with the checkbook.

Randi chose to pick out Pear cables for some reason, and then clearly indicated in his email to Fremer that he would prefer Fremer to use his own cables for the test - pending approval by his advisors.

If his advisors advised against it, then let him say that. If they accepted it, then let him say THAT. But for G*d's sake let's get some manner of closure on this.

Chris