Pear Cable CEO Calls James Randi's $1 Million Offer a Hoax

jhuntington

Thinker
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
151
Location
Brooklyn
Pear Cable CEO Calls James Randi's $1 Million Offer a Hoax

A friend of mine is giving a talk on RFI on Monday at the Audio Engineering Conference, I'll ask him about this.

Anyway, this was on gizmodo today, and linked from Museum of Hoaxes where I saw it:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/double-b...ames-randis-1-million-offer-a-hoax-307473.php


... Yes, by now we have heard about this challenge (although we were never contacted directly). Unfortunately, like most offers of $1 million this one is a hoax. While James Randi is claiming to offer a $1 million dollar prize to differentiate between these speaker cables, by reading the official rules of the challenge, it becomes immediately clear that the offer is not valid. One must be able to "demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability" in order to qualify. Since there is a wealth of scientific information explaining the differences between speaker cables, the offer is not a valid one (and James Randi knows it).

While we publish a frequency response plot demonstrating the differences between cables on our own website here: http://www.pearcable.com/sub_product...cyresponse.htm, there are also independant measurements and data that can be found for example here: http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto...leID=201807390 In addition, the High School eductated James Randi who claims to have consulted unnamed experts on the matter makes unsubstantiated claims that our science is junk. Unfortunately true experts do not agree. For example, despite his claims that RFI is not a problem in speaker cables, according to publications by the Amateur Radio Relay League, RFI has been documented as a known problem that can exist in speaker cables.

In addition, according to the editor of Stereophile magazine John Atkinson, James Randi has completely fabricated the statements about Atkinson made in this "challenge". Furthermore, another audiophile who goes by the moniker "Wellfed" on the AudioAsylum forums, says he tried to take the challenge twice for what I consider a more dubious audio tweak (the GSIC chip), but was denied the opportunity and was lied to by the Randi Foundation. Finally, according to these forum posts: http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/...es/719041.html at least one person has tried to take the "challenge" previously to show that they could differentiate between loudspeaker cables and they were denied by Randi who said "Wire is not wire. I accept that".

So, at the end of the day we have claims made by a high school educated retired magician, which are refuted by independent studies and publications conducted by experts. Most importantly, James Randi's "challenge" is backed by nothing. Many audiophiles have already expressed interest in taking the challenge, but they are barred by the contest rules unless they are part of the media. And, in the past, Randi denied audiophiles the chance to take the "challenge" with regard to differentiating between speaker cables.

At Pear Cable we publish objective measurements to demonstrate the improved fidelity of our cables. In addition, we publish reviews and opinions that are based on both blind and non-blind testing. In fact, the comments made by Richard from the Bay Area Audiophile Society on the Comice Silver Interconnects were the result of a blind test he conducted.

We have not yet put together an official response to this joke of a "challenge", so we are not currently participating in the many conversations going on in audio forums as we speak. In any case, I hope you find the above to be informative.

Sincerely,

Adam Blake
 
Last edited:
Dear Pear Cable,

Here's how you prove your allegation: Take the Challenge! There are three possible outcomes.

1) Randi is a fraud. In which case you will have bragging rights forever, and a big put-down for Randi.

2) The challenge is real, and you pass it. In which case you will have bragging rights forever, a big put-down for Randi, and US$1,000,000 in the bank.

3) The challenge is real, and you fail it.

Care to put your product where your mouth is?

cheers
Zep
 
What Zep said.

Also what you said needs to go into quotes as you are quoting from the link and it is not your opinion.

This is one area where the prize can be won. If James thinks that something cannot work, yet it does.
 
Dear Pear Cable,

Here's how you prove your allegation: Take the Challenge! There are three possible outcomes.

1) Randi is a fraud. In which case you will have bragging rights forever, and a big put-down for Randi.
Not to mention a legal claim for at least a million dollars. Fraud is illegal, and JREF's assets are the sort of "deep pockets" any lawyer would work very hard to get into.
 
Not to mention a legal claim for at least a million dollars. Fraud is illegal, and JREF's assets are the sort of "deep pockets" any lawyer would work very hard to get into.
I think we will classify that as "a put down"! ;)
 
... Yes, by now we have heard about this challenge (although we were never contacted directly). Unfortunately, like most offers of $1 million this one is a hoax. While James Randi is claiming to offer a $1 million dollar prize to differentiate between these speaker cables

While we publish a frequency response plot demonstrating the differences between cables on our own website here: http://www.pearcable.com/sub_product...cyresponse.htm, there are also independant measurements and data that can be found for example here: http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto...leID=201807390

I don't think James Randi ever said that the CEO of this company is lying about the test results obtained with FINE INSTRUMENTATION and that there aren't differences between the cables. In fact, having long experience in laboratory measurements of all sorts I can confidently say that any change in the object tested WILL result in measurement differencies. What Randi did state is that a person (person's ear as the instrumentation - my addition for clarity) cannot distinguish between audio sounds connected through this or that cable.
It's too bad that the CEO is misleading his readers.

Regards,
Yair
 
Maybe this is a case James and JREF need to go after. Either they go for the bait or be exposed as a fraud.

It would be a good practice run. JREF will learn how to get the maximum effect.
 
There has been quite a large response to the cable challenge. We are slowly working through all of the e-mails regarding it, and will have more information soon. We are also in contact with Michael Fremer. We hope to develop a test for the cable challenge sometime in the near future.
 
We hope to develop a test for the cable challenge sometime in the near future.

The protocol for such a test would take less than 2 mins to write up. This clown has called James Randi a liar and has made personal attacks on Randi's character.

Stop faffing about by spending your time preaching to the choir and get after this pompous ass immediately. The JREF has no teeth and many of us are a bit narked now. How long has it been since Randi sat with Penn and was telling us how the MDC was changing on April 1st (over 6 months ago!) and the Foundation would be pro actively going after people? pffft...

Here's a perfect opportunity, and the mousy squeak from the JREF is that they hope to develop a test sometime in the near future?? Sounds like a Sylvia Browne prediction to me. Just like she thinks something bad will happen somewhere sometime in the near future.
 
What RemieV and Reno have said is not much different from each other. Just from different angles. Is this the test that leaves JREF $1m poorer?
 
The protocol for such a test would take less than 2 mins to write up. This clown has called James Randi a liar and has made personal attacks on Randi's character.

Stop faffing about by spending your time preaching to the choir and get after this pompous ass immediately. The JREF has no teeth and many of us are a bit narked now. How long has it been since Randi sat with Penn and was telling us how the MDC was changing on April 1st (over 6 months ago!) and the Foundation would be pro actively going after people? pffft...

Here's a perfect opportunity, and the mousy squeak from the JREF is that they hope to develop a test sometime in the near future?? Sounds like a Sylvia Browne prediction to me. Just like she thinks something bad will happen somewhere sometime in the near future.

I completely agree with Reno.

This Fraudio File presents an excellent opportunity for the JREF to show what they are about.

Get Pear Cable to make one specific claim and challenge them on it, if enough experts have verified beforehand that a challenge on said claim is sensible.



This is like going for a 1-1 fast break, only that your defender has his arms tied in the back, one leg in a cast and a blindfold over his eyes: Score on him.

That is, after all, why you got in the game, right?



(If you want a movie analogy rather than one from sports: Pear Cable is Col. Jessep from "A Few Good Men" and JREF is the three-headed Lt. Kaffee/Lt. Cdr. Galloway/Lt. Weinberg.
In case you need me to spell it out: Both sides have excellent cases.

Only if Col. Jessep can be pinned on one specific verifiable claim - the two different orders - JREF can prove the nonsensical nature of said claim via an invitation to a properly designed and properly advertised(!) double blind test.

We should not forget, though, that most audiophiles are believers. And, as we know, a believer needs his belief to be true.)
 
Last edited:
The protocol for such a test would take less than 2 mins to write up. This clown has called James Randi a liar and has made personal attacks on Randi's character.

Stop faffing about by spending your time preaching to the choir and get after this pompous ass immediately. The JREF has no teeth and many of us are a bit narked now. How long has it been since Randi sat with Penn and was telling us how the MDC was changing on April 1st (over 6 months ago!) and the Foundation would be pro actively going after people? pffft...

Here's a perfect opportunity, and the mousy squeak from the JREF is that they hope to develop a test sometime in the near future?? Sounds like a Sylvia Browne prediction to me. Just like she thinks something bad will happen somewhere sometime in the near future.

Who instigated the challenge to Pear Cable?
 
Perhaps he meant the American Radio Relay League, which is amateur. That, or he concocted the title to avoid legal issues. Regardless, there seems to be a lot that is wrong with this issue to me:

i) Cables on all sorts of devices pick up noise. Cables can act like antennas... people make antennas out of cables for crying out loud!
ii) Audiophiles have too much money anyway.
iii) How did this ever get to be a JREF issue? Is JREF going to take on every idiotic marketing scam? What about Bling H2O? It costs $50 for a bottle of water!

I hope it is publicly shown out that this CEO is a liar, but JREF shouldn't be involved in this in the first place... :(

Back to challenges on psychics, ghosts, etc.

ETA: I'm surprised this isn't even about instrumentation. Is Randi betting the $1M on something that essentially amounts to an opinion poll? Seriously, just as there are 'tasters' in the world with more educated pallets, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there are some out there who can tell the difference in audio quality, all other things being equal (perhaps even in a blinded test). Does it matter simply if most people can't tell the difference?
 
Last edited:
While I fail to see how this falls into the normal 'paranormal' charges that the JREF prize is supposed to apply to (by my understanding), now that the JREF has laid down the gauntlet, I think they are obligated to follow through. You don't go about making public accusations of fraud, offer the million dollar prize, then later back off.

To me, this seems a question of "Can tiny differences that are detectable with sensitive equipment also be detected by the human ear?". Nothing paranormal about it. And I would suspect that there are individuals who -- either through training, or genetic bias -- are able to detect subtle differences that most of us would not notice (similar to those with "super noses" who can pull of feats of olfactory brilliance that would be beyond the ability of most of us).

So...is James Randi claiming that the "benefits" of these cables are impossible to discern by anyone? Or that only a small number of people would be able to discern the difference? If they were able to produce one sound-sensitive technophile who actually could discern the difference, would the million dollars be paid out? Or would they have to prove that the difference can be detected by the average consumer?

Personally, I think that Pear's claims fall under the category of fraud; albeit a relatively harmless fraud (come on, I don't see the issue of buying over-priced cables as being one that is destroying homes and corrupting society). Even if Pear could prove that some tiny number of people could discern a difference, it wouldn't mean that the cables are worth the cost to the vast majority of consumers who would never be able to hear the difference.

So, in the end, what's the purpose of this mini-campaign? If James Randi wins, and they cannot in fact discern the difference in sound quality, it will be a tiny victory that will not change the opinions of the vast majority of dedicated audiophiles who believe it does make a difference; it might mean that, at best, a few less people waste their money on the cables.

On the other hand, if they can get even one person who is able to detect the difference, not only does JREF fork over one million dollars to them, but they then get to use that as "proof" of the value of their cables, getting even more people to waste money on them, even though they are of no practical value to the vast majority of consumers.

I think this is a waste of time and energy, expended on a subject that is of little or no importance; but, having made the challenge, I don't see how JREF has any choice to get out of this gracefully other than to follow through on their challenge, come what may.
 
Well, we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these “no-compromise” cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables. While Pear rattles on about “capacitance,” “inductance,” “skin effect,” “mechanical integrity” and “radio frequency interface,” – all real qualities and concerns, and adored by the hi-fi nut-cases – we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation. That said, we offer the JREF million-dollar prize to – for example – Dave Clark, Editor of the audio review publication Positive Feedback Online, who provided the above rave review.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4
 
we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

What an interesting claim. Quality shouldn't be determined by hi-tech instrumentation, but by ... by ... well, by what? Who determines the difference between two sets of cables???

I'm starting to wonder if this isn't a reason for science and scientist to dismiss the paranormal challenge. If we are not going to use advanced scientific tools and methods to measure the difference between two technical items, then what the hell??

Opinion counts more than scientific measurement? What? What?

Did Randi really write that?
 
we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

What an interesting claim. Quality shouldn't be determined by hi-tech instrumentation, but by ... by ... well, by what? Who determines the difference between two sets of cables???

I'm starting to wonder if this isn't a reason for science and scientist to dismiss the paranormal challenge. If we are not going to use advanced scientific tools and methods to measure the difference between two technical items, then what the hell??

Opinion counts more than scientific measurement? What? What?

Did Randi really write that?

I'm sure that I could scientifically demonstrate the difference between Kraft cheddar cheese and Borden cheddar cheese. Cheese, however, is designed for human consumption. And keep in mind that the claim is that the cables are "better" and therefore worth the money, not "different" and therefore worth scientific study.
 
Last edited:
I think we will classify that as "a put down"! ;)

:)
Not at all! In this case, the fact that we can count on the greed of lawyers to pursue even a dubious case makes Mr. Blake's position, that the MDC is fraudulent (or, to use his term, "a hoax"), really difficult to believe.

If I believed it, I'd put in my application right away and call a lawyer (not necessarily in that order).
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom