A frantic objection was apparently hastily posted just now by Pear Cable, desperately trying to fend off the hail of criticism they’ve received by withdrawing their product from the proposed JREF test. Let’s just go over it in detail:

(1) By backing out of their own challenge [the James Randi Educational Foundation]…

No. we have not – ever – backed out of a challenge. Next:

(2) …but now apparently claiming that they just made an incorrect assumption…

No, we have never made that claim. Next:

(3) …the James Randi Educational Foundation has validated Pear Cable’s reasons for not participating.

No. Since those two cited claims were never made, still nothing by Pear Cable has been “validated,” though we are still ready and willing to validate their magic cables…

(4) 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.

No “magician’s tricks” were used, except perhaps a waved wand to make these folks try to stay with reason and sobriety – which I must admit, failed. As a magician, I am retired, but as a gadfly and rationalist, I’m more active than ever before, which annoys the woo-woo artists out there… No, I do not, and never have, reserved the right to change any of the rules; in fact I have clearly stated that no one has that right. Next:

(5) 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).

No. The use of Fremer’s “reference cables” was a matter that I could not bring to the attention of my advisors due to the interference of the weekend and to the fact that on Friday I was rushed to the local emergency hospital with what turned out to be a false alarm. And – since the grubbies will quickly and eagerly brand that as a “lie,” I post here the wrist-band that was attached to me on that occasion. I did not “suggest” that Fremer use these wondrous “reference” cables; it was his idea, and I opted to refer the suggestion to my advisors.

And, by the way, one such advisor is a person whose day-to-day work for the last 35 years has been in consumer and commercial electronics. He holds many patents, and his current position is as VP Marketing & Government Affairs for a billion-dollar plus electronic firm based in China. His position within the Consumer Electronics Association [CEA]: Currently he is the Co-Chairman of the Association – the "UN" of audio manufacturers and the sponsor of the Las Vegas Consumer Electronic Show – a technical working group setting audio wattage standards on amplification equipment, known as CEA R3 Working Group 8. Among approximately 2200 Consumer Electronic Association members he’s one of about 12 who hold voting rights on the full CEA Audio Committee, and last week he was in San Diego attending sessions, including his activities as Co-Chair, for the technical standards sessions. He was one of about 25 in the Audio Committee and works closely with many of the elite in engineering in the industry. He is very well known on both the audio and video and digital imaging sides, having worked for Eastman Kodak, Panasonic (and both their consumer Technics audio company and their professional RAMSA audio company), Thomson (parent of RCA, Technicolor and professional Grass Valley equipment), and Prima Technology. He is also the Chairman of the CEA Public Alert Technology Alliance, and a voting member on the Video Committee and a member of the TV Manufacturers Caucus, the CEA Government Affairs Council, and the CEA Environmental Committee.

For more of this man’s qualifications, a '”Google” of “John Merrell CEA” would bring something up, I'm sure. Of course, these qualifications may make this person far too down-to-earth to meet the standards of the audio fanciers’ world, but that’s for you to decide, of course.

(6) 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).

No. This is so very transparent, that it requires no attention. My correspondence with Fremer does not deny this, at all.

(7) Why is James Randi attempting to limit his thesis regarding audio cables to 2 specific models?

Why? Because those are the cables I’m questioning, dodo! I’ve clearly stated that speaker cables can vary widely due to resistance, impedance, orientation, insulation, spacing, configuration, etc., etc. Are you now suggesting that Pear cables can’t qualify for his golden ears…?

(8) Could it be that he knows it is highly unlikely that ANY manufacturer will participate in a challenge given by someone who is dishonest?

I would agree with such a decision. But, looking back over the foregoing 850+ words of this response, I’ll let the manufacturers – and everyone – decide who’s been “dishonest” here…

(9) Pear Cable stands behind the performance of its products and will continue to pursue its goal of building the most accurate audio cables available.

But they won’t participate in a test, even for a million-dollar prize…? I find that strange indeed…!

I could go on here, but I’ve not enough time to fritter away on juveniles. The rest, as the foregoing, is simply packed with misstatements and outright lies…

---

Comments (46)

Show/Hide comments

...
written by LizardPeople, October 22, 2007

I think both sides need to grow up a little. Are we really trying to reach the truth, or are we just interested in measuring the size of each others genitals? Also, the blind monkeys should be removed from all future web page layout decisions.

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 22, 2007

The use of Fremer’s “reference cables” was a matter that I could not bring to the attention of my advisors due to the interference of the weekend and to the fact that on Friday I was rushed to the local emergency hospital with what turned out to be a false alarm.

Ok, so it would appear that there was no misrepresentation of the EMail on Fremer's part.

But what has the above to do with anything? Was there some sort of explicit expiration date, apparently unbeknownst to Fremer as to when you would be able to bring this to the attention of your advisors? Why couldn't you bring it to their attention this week? Or next week even?

I did not “suggest” that Fremer use these wondrous “reference” cables; it was his idea, and I opted to refer the suggestion to my advisors.

Ultimately you did suggest them.

Let's be clear here. Unless Fremer's being disingenuous, you were presented with three options to choose from: One, use Pear cables. Two, to use Transparent cables (these first to being those originally intended), or three, to use Fremer's Tara Labs cables.

And what was your choice of these three options? According to Fremer's EMail:

I think I'd go with option 3, for simplicity...

So while Fremer using his own Tara Labs cables was his idea, it was offered to you as but one of three choices. And of those three choices, you picked number three, Fremer using his own cables, as being YOUR preference!

Yet here you're disingenuously trying to lay it all on Fremer's shoulders. Yes, it was his suggestion, but it was your choice.

And, by the way, one such advisor is a person whose day-to-day work for the last 35 years has been in consumer and commercial electronics. He holds many patents, and his current position is as VP Marketing & Government Affairs for a billion-dollar plus electronic firm based in China. His position within the Consumer Electronics Association [CEA]: Currently he is the Co-Chairman of the Association – the "UN" of audio manufacturers and the sponsor of the Las Vegas Consumer Electronic Show – a technical working group setting audio wattage standards on amplification equipment, known as CEA R3 Working Group 8... blah... blah... blah... blah...

And what the hell's this to do with anything? You're bragging about the accomplishments of some advisor you weren't able to get advice from because you had to go to the hospital Friday and there was some sort of expiration date as to when you could get advice from him which makes the whole thing moot in the first place?

What sort of nonsense is that?

se

...
written by Michael Fremer, October 22, 2007

Once again Mr. Randi refuses to acknowledge one simple truth: we were negotiating the details of the test when he posted his "news" that Pear had backed out, that "the matter was over," and that he was looking for other people to take the challenge.

We had clarified the particular Monster Cable to be used since there are many models. I requested that he consider allowing me to use my reference speaker cable and he provisionally accepted pending advice from his advisors. ALL OF THIS should have been noted in Mr. Randi's "news" that Pear had backed out. Instead? Well just go read what he originally wrote. I was engaged in good faith negotiations with him and he chose to ignore them and use the Pear back-out to attack me, and leave the impression that I too was backing out.

Really shoddy performance Mr. Randi. I am sorry you had a medical emergency but what does that have to do with your message. I mean this is an outright LIE:

"It’s either the Pear Anjou cables or the Transparent Opus MM SC cables – vs. a set of Monster Z2R ML-10/10 – conditions which Fremer has already agreed to! – or there’s no test…"

I agreed to the Monster Z2R. In fact I had to ask Mr. Randi to specify which Monster cable he was talking about. Then, at a time when Pear was still in the game I offered 3 possible cable choices. Randi didn't say "my way or the highway." He tentatively agreed to my reference... he failed to mention this in charging that the matter was closed and he was looking for someone else to take the test...leaving the impression that I'd backed out.....

...
written by Elaine Mae Estabrooks, October 22, 2007

Mr. Eddy, could you be any more of a tool? lol!

...
written by Chu Gai, October 22, 2007

Mr. Eddy is many things, but a tool he is not. He is simply looking for clarity amongst an unknown number of emails.

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 22, 2007

Mr. Eddy, could you be any more of a tool? lol!

Are you capable of using any other tool beside ad hominem?

se

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 22, 2007

Didn't think so.

And another Randi sycophant crawls back into the woodwork.

se

...
written by mcg, October 22, 2007

I'm have to say while the behavior of both personalities at the top of this challenge (Mr. Fremer and Mr. Randi) leave a lot to be desired, the evidence thus far suggests favors Mr. Fremer here. Clearly, Mr. Randi provisionally accepted the idea of using a 3rd set of cables, even before Pear Cable announced that they were pulling out of the challenge. In his haste to trumpet Pear Cables' pullout he did suggest that the challenge was over, despite the fact that he hadn't apparently ruled officially on this "third cable" option. Had he already rejected it, then he might have been right to assume the challenge over---but he had not

I for one am glad that Mr. Fremer is still interested in pursuing the challenge. I think that Mr. Randi would do well to dispense with the provocation at this point. He named his organization an *e*ducational foundation, not a *r*idicule foundation.

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 22, 2007

I for one am glad that Mr. Fremer is still interested in pursuing the challenge. I think that Mr. Randi would do well to dispense with the provocation at this point. He named his organization an *e*ducational foundation, not a *r*idicule foundation.

Well, perhaps the "educational" part is about how to ridicule others for fun and profit.

Anyway, it's good to know that there are others who weren't blinded by the smoke screens Randi has been throwing up trying to cover his tracks and his ass.

se

...
written by Pear_Cable, October 22, 2007

In yet another attempt to correct the record:

Pear Cable statement: "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."

James Randi (above): "No. we have not – ever – backed out of a challenge."

James Randi (previous post): "this retreat by Adam Blake effectively closes the current challenge, much to the relief of both Fremer and Blake, of course. Actually, I must admit that this was a rather clever way of squirming out of the huge dilemma in which these two blowhards found themselves."

NOTE: MICHAEL FREMER NEVER DECLINED THE CHALLENGE AND PEAR CABLE NOT PARTICIPATING SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED FREMER'S CHALLENGE AS 2 OTHER CABLE OPTIONS WERE STILL ON THE TABLE. HENCE, BY CLOSING THE CHALLENGE, JREF ATTEMPTED TO BACK OUT. THE FACT THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO BLAME PEAR CABLE FOR THIS, IS VALIDATION OF THE DOUBTS THAT PEAR CABLE HAS ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CHALLENGE, WHICH PROMPTED OUR DECLINING TO BE INVOLVED.

Pear Cable (snippet of above quote): "...but now apparently claiming that they just made an incorrect assumption…"

James Randi (above): "No, we have never made that claim."

James Randi (previous post):"It appears that Michael Fremer took exception to our just-posted assumption that the Fremer/Blake acceptance of the JREF challenge was now moot..."

NOTE: THE PRIOR POSTING BY JAMES RANDI CLEARLY STATES THAT YOU ARE NOW CLAIMING TO HAVE MADE AN ASSUMPTION WHICH WAS INCORRECT.

James Randi (above): "I do not, and never have, reserved the right to change any of the rules"

Official Rules for Contest: "This offer is administered by the JREF, and no one may negotiate or make any changes, except as set forth in writing by James Randi (JR)."

NOTE: YOUR RULES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT YOU MAY CHANGE THEM (WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS). FURTHERMORE, IT IS STATED "test protocols must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place." THIS IS A MECHANISM WHICH ALLOWS JREF TO ADD CONSTRAINTS TO THE TEST PROTOCOL INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE PARTICIPANT NO LONGER AGREES, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL BE DECLARED THAT THE PARTICIPANT BACKED OUT.

WE CONTEST THE ACCURACY OF OTHER STATEMENTS MADE ABOVE BY JAMES RANDI, BUT SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS SIMPLY REDUCE TO A "HE SAID, SHE SAID" ARGUMENT.

AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY JREF TO CLOSE MICHAEL FREMER'S CHALLENGE (ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW CLAIMED TO BE OPEN AGAIN) AND ERRONEOUSLY BLAME PEAR CABLE, VALIDATE THE REASONS WHY PEAR CABLE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO PARTICIPATE.

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

FURTHERMORE, IT IS STATED "test protocols must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place." THIS IS A MECHANISM WHICH ALLOWS JREF TO ADD CONSTRAINTS TO THE TEST PROTOCOL INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE PARTICIPANT NO LONGER AGREES, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL BE DECLARED THAT THE PARTICIPANT BACKED OUT.

Well, yes, that can indeed happen. But to be fair, there's nothing preventing the participant from playing the same game. So it ain't exactly a one-way street.

se

...
written by Pear_Cable, October 23, 2007

Steve Eddy,

While the provision that both parties must agree to the protocol of the test is a fair and perhaps necessary prerequisite, it becomes problematic if it is deemed that one side is not acting in good faith. James Randi attempting to erroneously blame Pear Cable exhibits precisely the type of behavior which makes the provision a problem.

...
written by Ben Roberts, October 23, 2007

I agree with Randi. Mr Fremer had a clearchoice between using either the Pear cables or the Transparent cables. The Use of the Tara Labs cables was never agreed upon even though it may have been considered. The reason that James Randi declared the challenge dead was that Mr Blake who owns the Pear cable company reniged on his commitment to supply cables for the challenge. Unless the manufacturers of the Transparent Opus cables choose to supply a set of their ridiculously priced product to the challenge, it's dead. At least the original one is.
I think that Michael Fremer could simply re-apply for the challenge and I dont see why the challenge couldn't be re-jigged to be a contest between the Monster and Tara Labs cables. I believe the Tara Labs product has a suitably ludicrous price to fit within the spirit of the challenge.
Then we could get back to testing magic cable and golden ears.

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

While the provision that both parties must agree to the protocol of the test is a fair and perhaps necessary prerequisite, it becomes problematic if it is deemed that one side is not acting in good faith.

Certainly. I was simply pointing out that Randi doesn't have the exclusive when it comes to that.

James Randi attempting to erroneously blame Pear Cable exhibits precisely the type of behavior which makes the provision a problem.

Yes, I agree that Randi is not acting in good faith here.

And his posting a scan of his wrist band and going on for nearly 20 lines about the accomplishments of some would-be advisor who, because he went to the hospital on Friday, for some strange reason can no longer seek the advice of making this would-be advisor irrelevant anyway is... bizarre.

I see someone who appears to be on the defensive and is desperately scrambling to try and cover their ass.

se

...
written by Ben Roberts, October 23, 2007

Having considered this more carefully I think that the Transparent Opus cables don't qualify for this challenge. They have an enclosure built into them which may contain passive resistive, capacitive, or inductive components. If so, they cease to be "cables" they're more of a component or assembly. You have to compare apples with apples. So the cables tested must be simple conductors.

...
written by jfd, October 23, 2007

Pear Cables,

While I agree that Randi's behaviour recently has been a bit dissappointing, and it is very noble of you to try to defend Mr Fremer, why don't you just cough up a damn set of cables? You guys are pathetic!

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

I agree with Randi. Mr Fremer had a clearchoice between using either the Pear cables or the Transparent cables. The Use of the Tara Labs cables was never agreed upon even though it may have been considered.

Excuse me, but are you not reading any of this? You're leaving out the salient fact that Randi had the same clear choice!

Fremer EMailed Randi with three options to choose from. Option one being the Pear cables. Option two being the Transparent cables. Option three being Fremer's own Tara Labs cables.

There was nothing at the time preventing Randi from choosing option one or option two and being done with it. But he didn't. Instead, Randi chose option three, "for simplicity," pending the approval of his advisors.

The reason that James Randi declared the challenge dead was that Mr Blake who owns the Pear cable company reniged on his commitment to supply cables for the challenge.

You're missing something very important here too.

Randi stated his preference for option three (using Fremer's cables) a full week ago back on the 15th, before Pear ever withdrew their offer. Which means that unless Randi's advisors gave option three a thumbs down, the Pear cables wouldn't even be used for the test!

Did Randi's advisors give option three a thumbs down? No. Did they give it a thumbs up? No. Why? Because he hadn't brought it to their attention between the 15th and the 18th, and for some utterly bizarre reason known only to Randi, because he was in the hospital on the 19th, he wouldn't be able to bring it to their attention on the 20th or later and apparently he took option three off the table, without bothering to let Fremer in on the joke.

So as far as Fremer's concerned, Randi's busy consulting his advisors on option three and patiently waiting for him to get back to him. Next thing he knows, he's reading Randi's "BLAKE WITHDRAWS FROM PEAR CABLE CHALLENGE" where Randi is calling Fremer a blowhard, saying that Fremer's challenge has been closed, and talks of how clever Fremer cleverly managed to squirm out of a "huge dilemma."

There was no dilemma, huge or otherwise. Randi was supposed to be consulting his advisors on option three, which again, if they had given it a thumbs up, would have made Pear Cable's offer, as well as their withdrawal of that offer completely moot. Randi simply used the Blake withdrawal as an opportunity to try and smear both Fremer and Blake and get all his drooling sycophants grunting and howling.

If you don't agree with this, then just give me one plausible explanation as to why Randi's spending Friday in the hospital should somehow put the kaibosh on option three and why he would not be able to consult his advisors.

Just one.

se

...
written by Kender, October 23, 2007

Mr Randi; in the context of this challenge we are not interested in your medical problems nor in the curriculum vitae of your advisers. Mr Fremer is the challenger, so I suggest you try to work out a testing protocol with him. Pear cables is not a party in these negotiations. If you are strapped for time or your health or emotional state do not permit this, please let one of your experienced associates conduct this negotiation.
Mr Fremer; please don't shout or resort to name-calling. Stating simple facts without such an emotional charge would get your points across much better.

At the moment it seems that neither one of you trusts the other enough to be able to achieve an acceptable test-protocol. If that is the case perhaps a neutral third party can be found to help you in this process.
If both of you are determined to distrust each other I don't see how a protocol that both parties agree on can ever be achieved. In that case it would be better to mutually agree to let this matter rest and apologize for the misunderstandings.

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

While I agree that Randi's behaviour recently has been a bit dissappointing...

"A bit disappointing"?

Randi says he'd prefer option three, using Fremer's own cables, but that he'll have to consult his advisors, but he never consults his advisors, never tells Fremer that he's taken option three off the table, and then publicly calls Fremer a blowhard, and how he cleverly squirmed out of a "huge dilemma" that he was never in to begin with and you call this just "a bit disappointing"?

...and it is very noble of you to try to defend Mr Fremer, why don't you just cough up a damn set of cables?

Whoa. Back up there. Need I remind you that when presented with the option of using the Pear cables, the Transparent cables, or Fremer's own Tara Labs cables, that Randi opted for the latter, which if his advisors had approved, would have made the whole Pear Cable issue moot?

Instead of asking Pear Cable to cough up a set of cables, why don't you ask Randi to just ask his advisors about option three instead of giving us these dog-ate-my-homework excuses as to why he hasn't.

se

...
written by Johann, October 23, 2007

I have never had reason to doubt the JREF $1M Challenge before and I still believe it is in essence a valid & thoroughly worthwhile initiative, however at this point in proceedings nothing less than a full and frank apology from Randi for his apparent mishandling of events (if not intentionally disingenuous), is required. Steve Eddy has accurately presented the situation as it appears to the general public and unfortunately Randi's conduct requires explanation or his reputation, and the reputation of the JREF will suffer.

Randi, I am a long time follower of your activities, I read SWIFT weekly and have pointed more than one woo-believer towards the JREF website -- if you have made an honest mistake I believe well enough of you to expect an apologetic clarification. If there is a medical reason for why your normally clear and straightforward writing style seems to have lapsed last week, we will be understanding, but you will need to tender this excuse. If there is legal reasoning behind your behaviour please make this clear. Either way, please, please explain. For the sake of the JREF & your personal supporters this needs urgent clarification.

--johann

...
written by baron samedi, October 23, 2007

The way I read it, it looks like Randi might have been considering using -the brand- Tara Lab cables. I do not see his email as a sign off in using any already been used cables, and especially Fremer's personal use cables -- there's absolutely no way anyone would allow that for a real test, since it is just too easy an invitation for fraud.

...
written by Reverend Chu, October 23, 2007

Mr. Eddy, if as you say,

Fremer EMailed Randi with three options to choose from. Option one being the Pear cables. Option two being the Transparent cables. Option three being Fremer's own Tara Labs cables.

suggesting that all three options were acceptable to Mr. Fremer, then why does Fremer say,

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."

Regardless, I offer my encouragement for Randi to accept the use of Mr. Fremer's Tara Labs cables so that the testing can move forward. Even with their substantial size (6 gauge), given a nominal length of 3-4 meters, any number of Monster cables or for that matter 12 gauge from Home Depot should be more than acceptable. Perhaps Mr. Randi is of the personal opinion that the substantial gauge difference confers a signficant audible advantage to the Tara offering. If so, he may benefit from consulting with his advisor(s).

...
written by Dave Ert, October 23, 2007

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.

...
written by mistagenki, October 23, 2007

This is beginning to sound like a bunch of girls on the playground. I especially am fond of how Randi has to say so little to elicit such long-winded and angry responses. I also think it is especially nice how Pear and Fremer have gotten others to write for them here, so that they have some allies, which they rightfully need - it is their job to explain the cables and challenge - not Randi's.

I'll accept the test. Give me a set of Pear cables, and I will test them against any cable, as a good average listener (I have audiophile tastes, but not budget, but probably have more audio experience than the average non-audiophile). I'm willing to be extremely open and non-biased, and hey I got nothing to lose. I think if we had more people accepting the challenge and less people bashing it, we may actually find out if these cable are truly better or not, and stop all this childish "he said / she said".

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

The way I read it, it looks like Randi might have been considering using -the brand- Tara Lab cables. I do not see his email as a sign off in using any already been used cables, and especially Fremer's personal use cables...

This is what Fremer offered (option three):

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."

This is what Randi replied:

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

That clear enough?

se

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

Mr. Eddy, if as you say,

Fremer EMailed Randi with three options to choose from. Option one being the Pear cables. Option two being the Transparent cables. Option three being Fremer's own Tara Labs cables.

suggesting that all three options were acceptable to Mr. Fremer, then why does Fremer say,

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."

Not sure exactly what you're asking here. Can you elaborate a bit?

Thanks.

By the way, I'm not sure if you can nest quotes here and this software doesn't allow you to review your post or edit it after posting so if the quoting gets all screwed up, my apologies.

se

...
written by Michael Fremer, October 23, 2007

Kender is exactly correct. I overrreacted. Though Randi called me a "blowhard" and used Pear's backing out to basically say (in so many words) that I'd weaseled out of the test and said the matter was closed and he was looking down his list for the next challenger, and all of this was posted while I awaited Mr. Randi's advisors to rule on my using my reference cables, which he's provisionally agreed to, and even though I was blindsided by all of this, I should have remained calm and not been outraged. I shouldn't have called Mr. Randi a liar and a SoS, though he is clearly a liar. However, when one looks at the scenario, that there are still Kool-Aid drinkers who don't see me as the aggrieved party here and see Mr. Randi as a knight in search of truth, justice and the American way, I'm left to conclude that name calling was justified. Furthermore, let me ask anyone who goes back and looks at Randi's mocking me for suggesting that LPs can be demagnetized and then follows through on my subsequent posts proving why that is indeed possible, and sees that Randi has not addressed and apologized for an egregious attack upon my reputation based upon his ignorance of a subject I've been involved in for decades, why I should remain in "professional mode?" The guy has attacked me without merit repeatedly. He's lied, ok "mischaracterized" our ongoing negotiations etc. conveniently leaving that out of his rant about me being a "blowhard" etc. And I'm supposed to lie back and take it? No way. And you know what? Had I agreed to using the Transparent, with its network, as a poster noted, that makes it more than cable and I'd bet dollars to donuts that would have been Mr. Randi's out for not paying up had I gotten a statistically significant outcome. That's why using TARA Labs Omega, which is straight forward cable, made sense in the absence of Pear. Now I was prePEARed to shoulder the costs of this test, as called for in Mr. Randi's conditions, but no, I am not prepared to buy $7000 cables I've never heard. And I also was prepared to possibly FAIL the test. I wouldn't have gone into it 100 percent confident of success. I looked upon this as an important challenge to assumptions I hold that may or may not be true. Certainly I believe them, but this kind of cold shower wake up call can either prove them or disprove them and I was prepared to either be humiliated or proven correct in public. However, looking at some of the posts here, even had I won the challenge there would be people snarking at me anyway.....oh well. I'll still go ahead with my reference cables if Mr. Randi's advisors give the go ahead.

...
written by Michael Fremer, October 23, 2007

BTW why, as one poster suggests, would using my reference cable be in invitation to "fraud?" Because I am familiar with its sound? You bet I am. And Mr. Randi suggests there's no difference between it and "Monster Cable" for $200, so where's the potential for "fraud." As Mr. Randi says " be sure you can accomplish what you claim before signing up." I was going to get the Pear cable and compare to Monster before signing anything. I had already gotten Monster to agree to send me the cable Mr. Randi and I had agreed upon. One of us isn't taking this challenge seriously and it's not me.

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

I also think it is especially nice how Pear and Fremer have gotten others to write for them here, so that they have some allies, which they rightfully need...

Just for the record, neither Fremer nor Blake got me to write here and I am not personally acquainted with either of them. This may not be what you meant by "gotten others to write for them here" but I just want it made clear that I wasn't enlisted by anyone to post here.

se

...
written by Steve Eddy, October 23, 2007

It seems Randi has no interest in addressing the valid points made here on his own website where all of this has been initiated. Instead, he throws up another smoke screen and passes off comments made over on Gizmodo as "the general reaction to the present status of the Pear/Fremer/challenge situation..."

CURRENT COMMENTS ON CABLE CHALLENGE

se

...
written by Reverend Chu, October 23, 2007

Not sure exactly what you're asking here. Can you elaborate a bit?

Thanks.

What's perplexing me is that in the first case, Mr. Fremer specifically indicated that Option #1 - Pear Cables - was one of the acceptable options to him, according to what you'd posted earlier. The second case has Mr. Fremer stating that Option #1 - Pear Cables - would only be acceptable if he were able to obtain a set and determine for himself if he could establish audible differentiation. One or the other version is correct. As to why Pear Cables appears to no longer willing to provide a loaner set, well that's unclear too. One story has Pear Cables backing out on their own. One story has Pear Cables backing out at Mr. Fremer's urging. It's just a matter of clarification at least for me which way the whole thing went down, Steve.

Myself, I can do with more of a Jack Webb, just the facts, approach and leave the mutual backbiting out of this. And again, personally speaking, I think that using the Tara Labs product is perfectly acceptable. I'm sure one can find glowing reviews for it.

...
written by Michael Fremer, October 23, 2007

Dear Reverend Chu, both versions are correct, sort of. Mr. Randi is extremely fair in that he suggests challengers test themselves before signing on the dotted line and actually participate. With that in mind I set about "rehearsing" to see if I could hear the differences. That required getting the Plear cables in house and I was certainly prepared to do that since at the time Pear was still participating.

However, since I'd never heard their cables and since as you say TARA should be acceptable, I offered the choices just to speed the process along.

This was all for the REHEARSAL part of the process. Had I not been able to detect differences under "blind" conditions, with either Pear of my references and the agree upon Monster Cable, I would have reported that honestly to Mr. Randi and backed down and eaten lotsa crow. Cynics here might not believe that, but I was prepared for it. However, if I heard differences between Pear and Monster, I would have signed on the dotted line. If I didn't but heard differences between Monster and my TARA Labs reference, I would have then suggested that....it's as simple as that.

...
written by Chu Gai, October 23, 2007

Thank you Mr. Fremer. Rather a pity that a set of Pear's wasn't forwarded along to you under separate cover stipulating a mutual non-disclosure agreement. I do endorse your ability to use your current cables and assume, rightly or wrongly, that they're not gimmicked up in some fashion that is unknown to anyone. Although you're not a measurements kind of gentleman, do you happen to know what their R, L, C values are?

...
written by joe, October 24, 2007

are you the Living Myths steve eddy?

...
written by photon, October 24, 2007

BTW why, as one poster suggests, would using my reference cable be in invitation to "fraud?" Because I am familiar with its sound? You bet I am. And Mr. Randi suggests there's no difference between it and "Monster Cable" for $200, so where's the potential for "fraud."

Objectively I believe it's a simple matter that if they are cables that you have access to prior to the test, the potential exists for those cables to be tampered with in such a way that it would be easy to hear a difference.

Not saying that you would do such a thing, but that you COULD do such a thing makes a huge hole in the protocol that needs to be addressed (either through prior testing of the cables, or whatever). That's why getting a new set of cables would have been nice, as in theory it removes that factor (though if I were Randi I'd still want a new set of cables to be tested to make sure they aren't defective in a way that would alter the sound).

By the same token you'd want to make sure that when they're doing the test that their record of what set of cables is in place for which test is actually correct; if they wanted to be unfair they could actually say the monster ones were in place when the other ones in fact were, making the test results meaningless.

...
written by marco, October 24, 2007

Pear and Fremer can try to obfuscate the matter as much as they want, it was clear from the beginning that such a thing would happen. There's no way that Pear could agree to a fair scientific test. They had to withdraw now, because having to refuse later a perfectly fair and scientific protocol would have been even worse. Now even without knowing what the rules would have been they can shout that they were unfair and go on with selling snake oil.

Of course Fremer claims he still wants to be tested. Maybe he is a fool (a strong possibility judging from his posts) or he's just trying to milk that cow a bit more and will back out later.

My only problem with all that is that Monster comes out looking good when they are just a less expensive scam. Oh, and Pear and Fremer COMPLAIN TOO MUCH IN ANNOYING ALL CAPS.

...
written by doug sedon, October 24, 2007

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.

...
written by maryyugo, October 25, 2007

Look, this isn't rocket science. It doesn't require Randi's time and talent. Someone should simply borrow a couple of Pear cables, and, using a decent audio system and a panel of a few professional musicians with good ears, do a double blind test against some heavy duty copper battery cable. It would take less than a half a day and I betcha nobody could tell the difference. These guys at Pear are such obvious con men, scammers and phonies, it's disgusting. Do they have double blind testing of their own products? Of course not.

...
written by doug sedon, October 25, 2007

hey maryyugo, if what you say is true, then how come randi is weaseling out of mikey's challenge offer? i am not saying it's not ridiculous to pay $7k for a pair of speaker cables. but the disgusting con/scammer/phony i see here is named... randi...

doug s.

...
written by Richard B. Martin, October 26, 2007

Well I'd say that it is time for something other than a bunch of words. Perhaps it is time for some cable testing.

...
written by grizzlyjohnson, October 26, 2007

A lot of you are choosing to ignore Mr. Fremer's principle objection: he says he has not heard Pear cables and is not going to spend $7,200 to see whether or not he can hear a difference just to take the JREF challenge. It's easy to say "someone should borrow" a set of cables. Folks should leave that one alone unless they're willing to provide the cables first to Mr. Fremer to test if he remains willing, and then to the JREF for the testing. How long will that take? Do you think that someone that spends that kind of money for cables has two sets laying around, or wants to lend you their one set for a month or two or three?

You say Pear should provide them? What exactly would be their motivation for lending a seven thousand dollar item for days, weeks, months, to test whether someone associated with a magazine can hear the difference between their cables and some other cable yet to be determined? You want them to put their reputation on the line to prove Mr. Fremer has good ears?

Wake up. This challenge has been botched beyond hope. It's time to drop it.

...
written by Bren B, October 27, 2007

This is yet another damning indictment of the '$1m Sideshow' ruse of an an ex-carnival showman - the tactic is known as 'Bait and Switch'.
The result is more publicity for someone who makes a living out of being a 'media skeptic'. An inherently biased starting point IMO.

Would the JREF be interested in allowing an independent adjudicator oversee the whole process - from application to test? A 'challenge' is, like trying to beat a huckster at cards - it is not Science, and therefore can only be rationally decided under the auspice of an independent adjudicator to ensure the challenger and challengee are 'playing fair'.

...
written by krabapple, October 28, 2007

It looks like some of you have never followed a challenge before. For example what part of the 'application' do you want overseen by 'an indepedent adjudicator'? The formal applications are made public. (AFAIK there has been none here.) After that, JREF/Randi works with the applicant to develop a mutually agreed upon protocol (including 'third party' oversight). As Fremer noted, JREF/Randi had no problem with Fremer auditioning the cables beforehand (a 'pre test') to see if he thought he heard a difference. But it's not up to JREF/Randi to provide the magic cables -- any more than it's up to JREF to supply a dowsing rod for those challenges -- and it does not appear that Fremer thought it was, either. (Randi did agree to supply the 'generic' Monster cable, though). Originally, Adam Blake of Pear Cables said it welcomed the challenge, but then declined to lend a pair of Anjous.

...
written by ASH, October 30, 2007

Pear has made a claim about a physical thing that can be tested by anyone with the proper equipment. Maybe even using Pear cables already purchased by an audiophile who would be willing to give them up for a while. It really isn't necessary for Fremer or Pear to be involved at all as it would not be necessary for Watson or Crick to be present anytime DNA research was done. (plus only 50% plausible)If Pear or Fremer wished to negate the results (which they almost certainly would,) they could perform the experiment again themselves. Of course under double-blind conditions.

...
written by Chris, October 30, 2007

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

...
written by tim howell, November 19, 2007

Well I will save you all alot of time and words, anyone who would pay this idiot 1 cent for cables or anything else for that matter e mail me so I can sell you some "magic beans"