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

[MRC_Hans]

Not only that: Each guess must be recorded outside the claimant's room, and later compared to the claimant's own list.

I suppose one could make a voting button system, so that his votings were recorded directly, but anyway, as long as he doesn't get any clues from the test set-up, there is nothing he can do to improve his score.

Because the goblins got mad at the extra electronics. Because the ley lines were interrupted. Because there was interference.

Who cares? They will sign the protocol. If they invent silly explanations later, they will look silly. Their loss.

It is not just a good idea, it is vital: It establishes that the claimant can perform without the controls.

Agreed. and will weaken any later claims of goblins. No need to do 100 baseline listenings, though. Ten or so should do.

I would not suggest a computer. You can write all sorts of stealth programs that will override any results that the computer will under normal circumstances produce.

Well, the listener would have to memorize a sequence of 100 shifts. Also, I mentioned that the program should be validated. But by all means, any other method could be used. We could have Randi roll a dice.

It has to be binary. Either he can decide which is which, or he can't.

Absolutely.

Another thing that hasn't been addressed in the protocol: What about the incidents where the claimant can't decide which is which? What happens to those data?

They count as misses. As you say, either he can, or he can't.

Yeah, which is why the vendor can't be the claimant doing the testing.

Think he can't make a special cable that will alter the sound in a way so only he knows what to listen for?

The cables should be delivered from a third party (but the vendor has the option of reimbursing them). It should be ensured they are stock cables.

You gave the answer yourself:

I, in collusion with one or more of the controllers, can simply set up a system where our watches are synchronized. The controllers will stall or hasten when the sample is being played, depending on which cable it is.

Point is, this wasn't in the protocol. It's not a 6 minute walk in the park.

Ahh, well I wasn't the one who said that. Protocols are NEVER a 6 minute walk in the park.

Hans

 

[Cuddles]

There should be no reason for double blinding. As long as the listener is effectively blinded to which cable is used, that is sufficient. Double blinding is for removing reporting bias, but since the tester cannot improve skew the result by false reporting (and the recording would disclose any attempts of this), there is no reason to blind him.

Hans

But the tester can give away concious or subconcious clues to the testee as to which cable is currently plugged in. Double blinding isn't for removing reporting bias, it is for removing any possible information leakage between the experimental setup and the subjects.

 

[CFLarsen]

There should be no reason for double blinding. As long as the listener is effectively blinded to which cable is used, that is sufficient. Double blinding is for removing reporting bias, but since the tester cannot improve skew the result by false reporting (and the recording would disclose any attempts of this), there is no reason to blind him.

You can't be sure that the recording would disclose all attempts of false reporting - especially if it is done after the experiment is over.

I suppose one could make a voting button system, so that his votings were recorded directly, but anyway, as long as he doesn't get any clues from the test set-up, there is nothing he can do to improve his score.

Yes, there is: He can alter it after the test, once he knows the correct results. Or someone else can.

Check the Soal-Goldney experiment.

Who cares? They will sign the protocol. If they invent silly explanations later, they will look silly. Their loss.

Could be. But it is necessary to establish beforehand if there are problems with recording the test.

Agreed. and will weaken any later claims of goblins. No need to do 100 baseline listenings, though. Ten or so should do.

Or, until they have confirmed that their abilities are still there.

Well, the listener would have to memorize a sequence of 100 shifts.

Not that hard, mate. Think you can learn that, if you would win a million bucks?

Also, I mentioned that the program should be validated. But by all means, any other method could be used. We could have Randi roll a dice.

Randi is the worst one you could choose! You clearly haven't seen Randi doing sleight-of-hand, even up-close!

They count as misses. As you say, either he can, or he can't.

No, that's not fair. It could be that the claimant got a coughing fit during a piece of music, or was otherwise distracted.

The cables should be delivered from a third party (but the vendor has the option of reimbursing them). It should be ensured they are stock cables.

But there aren't any third parties. The cables come from one vendor only.

Ahh, well I wasn't the one who said that.

I didn't say you said that.

Protocols are NEVER a 6 minute walk in the park.

More like a marathon, against a hurricane...

 

[The Atheist]

Yes, indeed. "He'll...sooner or later" is not future tense, but past tense. Always listen to the Grammar Stalin....

Dear oh dear, Claus. You misunderstand completely, I really had over-estimated your English ability based upon others around here - my apologies I will make myself far clearer when typing with you in future.

Regarding my comment you quoted, it has nothing at all to do with tenses, I was talking about you arriving and saying nothing, obscuring the point and avoiding a stance you have taken in past occasion when Randi wasn't involved.

And guess what - that's exactly what you've done since as well!

Now, all this talk of protocols is a little premature, but I'd be surprised if you weren't used to being a little premature.

It's quite handy to talk about protocols, because it enables you to wriggle around the fact that you're being completely two-faced here.

I shall ask again:

Why are you not demanding immediate action, given that this whole sorry saga has the ability to damage credibility of the JREF and James Randi?

Do your own rules of not allowing the "woo" any means of attack not apply to JREF and Randi?

If that isn't plain enough English for you, please let me know and I'll get someone to ask you in Danish.

Cheers

 

[RemieV]

TA,

What type of immediate action do you mean? And what makes you think there isn't any action?

 

[CFLarsen]

Dear oh dear, Claus. You misunderstand completely, I really had over-estimated your English ability based upon others around here - my apologies I will make myself far clearer when typing with you in future.

Regarding my comment you quoted, it has nothing at all to do with tenses, I was talking about you arriving and saying nothing, obscuring the point and avoiding a stance you have taken in past occasion when Randi wasn't involved.

And guess what - that's exactly what you've done since as well!

Now, all this talk of protocols is a little premature, but I'd be surprised if you weren't used to being a little premature.

It's quite handy to talk about protocols, because it enables you to wriggle around the fact that you're being completely two-faced here.

I shall ask again:

Why are you not demanding immediate action, given that this whole sorry saga has the ability to damage credibility of the JREF and James Randi?

Do your own rules of not allowing the "woo" any means of attack not apply to JREF and Randi?

If that isn't plain enough English for you, please let me know and I'll get someone to ask you in Danish.

Cheers

You are working under the false assumption that my participation on this forum is the only interaction I have with JREF.

Do you acknowledge that your protocol is so full of holes that it is worthless?

 

[Inkler]

Perspective

Hello,

I’m new here.

I admire what James Randi has crusaded for (and against) for years. I’m definitely on the side of debunking claims of the paranormal, especially when they are made by people who prey on the credulous.

This is why I very much wish he had stayed in that field, instead of straying into something very different. The mere fact that this kind of “can they or can’t they” discussion is going on shows that this is different.

Here is something I haven’t seen really brought out clearly on this thread: If James Randi is made to look like a fool or worse, then all the psychics can come out of their closets and sing glory hallelujah, and that would be a sad thing indeed.

To illustrate how this could go: there has been a bit of a feud in the field of sociobiology, with the “Marxist biologists” vs those who attribute “too much” of human behavior to DNA. In this “nature Vs nurture” debate, with its social context, scientists sling ugly terms like “eugenics” around. People make mountains out of what others call mole-hills: “Punctuated equilibrium is really important!” say some, while others say, “so?” Someone poured a pitcher of ice water over one distinguished scientist’s head at a symposium, for being the founding father (E.O.Wilson) of sociobiology. This sort of brawl is like mother’s milk to the creationists. They love it! The “Intelligent design” people have said, “See, there are biologists fighting about the meaning of Darwinism. We win!”

I wrote to Mr. Randi asserting that he has crossed a line he should have recognized, and explained a little about why he should stand down. His answer was a very strong exclamation that he NEVER stands down.

I have spent years involved in countless hours of listening tests of various kinds, in the course of a career in the “audiophile” sector. Here are a couple of items to help put things in perspective.

(1) In order to discern the differences in cabling between Monster Cable and something a lot more exotic, you want to have a very VERY revealing system, from speakers (absolutely critical to get these right) to everything else on back in the chain.

(2) Given the highest caliber setup and a fair test, there are probably millions of people who could discern the differences in cables, including most children.

Most people never experience the kind of resolution a really good music reproduction system is capable of, so they just don’t know what it can reveal.

 

[The Atheist]

You are working under the false assumption that my participation on this forum is the only interaction I have with JREF.

No, Claus, I'm not working on any assumptions at all. I'm asking a question which you have now refused to answer twice.

No surprise.

Do you acknowledge that your protocol is so full of holes that it is worthless?

Why would I give a toss about the protocol? It isn't my challenge and I really don't care. Reno and a couple of others have shown that it isn't a two minute job, but maybe six or seven. The protocol is irrelevant as Randi isn't even going to look at what's been said here and will use his own legal and expert advisors to work on it.

I'm just thoroughly enjoying your continuing hypocritical posting.

 

[The Atheist]

TA,

What type of immediate action do you mean?

The immediate part should be to publicly challenge the Pear people in response to their calling hoax on the challenge.

The only alternative to admit a mistake.

Sitting on thumbs isn't a good look and as Reno has pointed out, action and JREF seem to be words which don't gel together too well in recent times.

Have you looked at the website lately?

FAQ is being updated

That's been "being updated" for several months. Taking a while, eh?

And what makes you think there isn't any action?

Because your post said that "it was being worked on"

As noted, so are the FAQs.

See you in six months or so, eh?

 

[sthomson]

Y'all seem to be starting at the end and working you way towards an untenable conclusion. Let's do this the right way and start at the beginning. Namely, what claims does PEAR audio make about its cables?

From the FAQ:

3. Do I need to be an audiophile to hear the differences between cables?

Claim 1:

Anyone can appreciate the differences that cables make.

Claim 2:

Improve the quality of the cables and the same listener may not know why the sound is better, but they know it is better.

Claim 3:

If you listen to music, you can benefit from the improvements in accuracy that accurate cables will enable.

7. Will the cables sound good with my specific brand of equipment?

Claim 4:

...Pear Cables...are designed to be sonically neutral, they will work well with any brand of equipment.

These sound like some fundamentally testable claims, to me, and they simplify the testing procedure greatly. Let's summarize:

PEAR claims that:
1) Anyone can hear the difference between PEAR cables and other cables (note that they do their freq. response comparison vs. a "high-caliber" audio cable).
2) Anyone can tell that PEAR cables produce a qualitatively better sound than other cables.
3) A more accurate representation of the recorded media is a benefit to casual listeners (rather untestable, I admit, but an interesting claim nonetheless)
4) Their cables will improve the sound accuracy with any hardware.

There you go. We don't need audiophiles. We don't need hundred thousand dollar equipment. Build a shielded coax switch and run an ABX test with 10 participants. That tests Claim 1.

If PEAR cables can pass Claim 1, then we can worry about how to measure "qualitatively better sound".

 

[The Atheist]

Unfortunately, like most offers of $1 million this one is a hoax.

James Randi has completely fabricated the statements about Atkinson made in this "challenge".

Most importantly, James Randi's "challenge" is backed by nothing

We have not yet put together an official response to this joke of a "challenge"

I'll just repeat those statements.

If it were me on the receiving end, I'd be taking some fairly immediate action.

Claus and others seem to be quite happy to let it continue. As always, no skin off my nose - I haven't issued any challenges regarding speaker cables.

Randi has.

 

[joobz]

Remember, this is not DC.



It may be science, but the test-setup described in that page ain't.

Hans

Maybe this has been mentioned, but the freq-response published by Pear isn't even of their Anjou line ($7250/12ft). It is their cheaper Comice line ($410/12ft). I find this quite bizarre. If you want to brag about how great your stuff is, why not show the data from the best stuff you got? At least show me why your best cables are an order of magnitude more expensive then your run of the mill line. Is there a measurable difference?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus and others seem to be quite happy to let it continue.

That is a complete false statement.

Just because you are not privy to everything does not mean nothing is being done.

 

[Inkler]

More persperctive

4) Their cables will improve the sound accuracy with any hardware.

There you go. We don't need audiophiles. We don't need hundred thousand dollar equipment. Build a shielded coax switch and run an ABX test with 10 participants. That tests Claim 1.

If PEAR cables can pass Claim 1, then we can worry about how to measure "qualitatively better sound".

Pear is probably starting with the assumption that their potential customers are astute, or at least not mentally deficient, enough to put their cable into a system that is commensurate with the price of the cable. They are not saying that they will turn a mediocre system into something better than it can inherently be. They are asserting that their cables are COMPATIBLE with other components, as in not designed to color the sound in some way.

They say this:

7. Will the cables sound good with my specific brand of equipment?

Yes! It really does not matter what equipment you have. Because Pear Cables are designed to be sonically neutral, they will work well with any brand of equipment. Matching cables with certain brands of equipment is only important when buying cables that have a known tendency to “color” the sound. Pear Cable does not design any of its products to produce “coloration.”


Suppose they were selling really expensive camera lenses, designed for the kind of cameras that don’t have the lens built in. They let you know that you can use their lense with “any” SLR camera body. That’s not the same thing as saying it will turn your camera into a better device.

So say you want to test out the claims about this lens. You could put it on some low-resolution digital camera (or pick the low-res setting) and “prove” that it is indistinguishable from other lenses.

There are high-resolution viewing systems, and high-resolution sound systems. Both kinds require the entire chain to be up to snuff.

High-resolution TV screens we have now reveal things that are downright embarrassing in, say, old Star Trek episodes, where the makeup looked OK on 1960’s TV but looks laughable on better stuff.

Sound systems have the equivalent in high-resolution versions.

 

[The Atheist]

That is a complete false statement.

Really? Then show it.

Just because you are not privy to everything does not mean nothing is being done.

but keep not answering the question...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From ECSTATIC review:

I still found the Anjou cables to be a joy to listen to for extended periods

What on Earth is all the arguing about? I mean, who can disagree with such joy? Stick the wires in your ears and ENJOY for hours and hours!

Just have Randi mail the Million and be done with it.

I'm , Absolutely,

 

[Gravy]

Hello,

I’m new here.

Hi, Inkler. Welcome to the forums.

I admire what James Randi has crusaded for (and against) for years. I’m definitely on the side of debunking claims of the paranormal, especially when they are made by people who prey on the credulous.

This is why I very much wish he had stayed in that field, instead of straying into something very different. The mere fact that this kind of “can they or can’t they” discussion is going on shows that this is different.

To be fair, the Million Dollar Challenge boils down to "can they or can't they?"

...I wrote to Mr. Randi asserting that he has crossed a line he should have recognized, and explained a little about why he should stand down. His answer was a very strong exclamation that he NEVER stands down.

He is right not to back down once issuing a challenge. I don't assume that Mr. Randi hasn't done some research into the Pear claims.

(1) In order to discern the differences in cabling between Monster Cable and something a lot more exotic, you want to have a very VERY revealing system, from speakers (absolutely critical to get these right) to everything else on back in the chain.

Pear does not claim that this is necessary.

(2) Given the highest caliber setup and a fair test, there are probably millions of people who could discern the differences in cables, including most children.

Most people never experience the kind of resolution a really good music reproduction system is capable of, so they just don’t know what it can reveal.

I'm not aware of blind tests that confirm this statement. AFAIK, decent copper cable is decent copper cable.

Pear is probably starting with the assumption that their potential customers are astute, or at least not mentally deficient, enough to put their cable into a system that is commensurate with the price of the cable. They are not saying that they will turn a mediocre system into something better than it can inherently be. They are asserting that their cables are COMPATIBLE with other components, as in not designed to color the sound in some way.

They say this:

7. Will the cables sound good with my specific brand of equipment?

Yes! It really does not matter what equipment you have. Because Pear Cables are designed to be sonically neutral, they will work well with any brand of equipment. Matching cables with certain brands of equipment is only important when buying cables that have a known tendency to “color” the sound. Pear Cable does not design any of its products to produce “coloration.”

Suppose they were selling really expensive camera lenses, designed for the kind of cameras that don’t have the lens built in. They let you know that you can use their lense with “any” SLR camera body. That’s not the same thing as saying it will turn your camera into a better device.

So say you want to test out the claims about this lens. You could put it on some low-resolution digital camera (or pick the low-res setting) and “prove” that it is indistinguishable from other lenses.

There are high-resolution viewing systems, and high-resolution sound systems. Both kinds require the entire chain to be up to snuff.

High-resolution TV screens we have now reveal things that are downright embarrassing in, say, old Star Trek episodes, where the makeup looked OK on 1960’s TV but looks laughable on better stuff.

Sound systems have the equivalent in high-resolution versions.

Bolding mine. Pear's claims should be tested, not someone else's claims. By the way, I'm not aware of any blind tests that bear out the idea that people with "educated" ears do any better than the general population at distinguishing high-priced cables and power cords from mid-priced, are you?

 

[jimtron]

(deleted; already been covered)

eta:

Has this been mentioned? On the Pear site, they list many other cable companies and say:

At Pear Cable Audio Cables we stand firmly behind the products that we offer. We are so confident in our audio cables that we encourage you to compare us to any of our competitors. A comprehensive list of cable companies is provided for your convenience.

 

[The Atheist]

I’m not here to fight, and I see a somewhat pugnacious attitude from several posters. I’d rather ignore the fighting and offer a bit of information, to enlarge the knowledge pool.

Just to clarify, for you and anyone else, I have no opinion on the cables - my stereo runs on $10 speakers and no amount of cabling is going to improve the crappy sound they create. It's a subject I'd seek expert (read: audio engineer, qualified with minimum Bachelor's degree + experience) opinion before offering any comment as to their efficacy.

While I have the most pugnacious attitude, it's aimed at the lack of positive action regarding the challenge rather than the subject of the challenge. Your posts are informative and I'm led to believe that education is one of the goals of JREF.

 

[pipelineaudio]

The "Randi cult" needs some defending

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/279785/937/#msg_279785

"I just poked around the Randi site a little bit. So here's a website that makes the claim that if anyone anywhere still believes that Uri Geller may be at all unusual, why, they simply haven't read James Randi's great book proving otherwise. And how does one read Randi's book? Why, by buying it of course!!"

I apologize in advance for the weaker minded of my pro audio bretheren