Have 10 people who have bought these hyper-expensive cables come in for testing. We have an assortment of music tracks. Probably contemporary music tracks are best because they are generally well engineered and are mixed to cover a wide frequency spectrum. If the 'mega-cables' do yield benefit, this is the type of music that would reveal the difference.
So the randomly selected track is played twice. The first time the track is played with the supercables. Then a virtual coin-flip and the track is either played again with the supercables or switched for some other cables with a more down-to-Earth price. Still, a quality cable would be used. In the order of perhaps one hundred dollars. A couple of hundred max.
The person taking the test then decides whether there is a difference or whether the superior cables are being used for both listens.
That sort of "experiment", as well as the following example, illustrate an outstanding lack of scientific method. Which actually makes sense, because the "test" isn't actually about the cables, but people. Read on:
When I was a graduate student I did the simplest possible experiment. I placed a pair of amplifiers on a table: one fancy and expensive, and the other plain and cheap. Both had wires that ran to a switch box. The switch was clearly labeled as to which amp corresponded to which position. Subjects were allowed as much time as they wanted; they operated the switch themselves, and all they had to do was to report in which position of the switch the system sounded better. All but a few reported that they could tell the difference, and almost all preferred the more expensive unit. One person said that as far as he was concerned, the switch "wasn't doing anything at all." That person was right: I was using only one amplifier and the switch was not connected to anything. The results were statistically significant, and showed that people can fool themselves with alarming ease.
http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=98
In both cases, it isn't a scientific experiment at all. To be scientific, you have to eliminate variables, and create an experiment with one variable, the one that you are testing.
In this case the claim, made by Randi, is that "nobody can hear the difference, it would be paranormal if they could". There is also another claim, "there is no difference, it would be paranormal if cables were different", though it isn't as obvious. Both of these claims may actually be valid. But without testing, doing a real experiment, you just don't know. It doesn't matter what you say, you simply do not know.
The first issue, and most important, would be about the hardware. Do the super duper Pear cables transmit a different signal to the speakers? The obvious way to find out would be to test them. If in fact the claim holds up, and there is a different frequency of energy transmitted, as determined by test equipment, then there are grounds for the next step.
If not, end of story. Randi wins right there. Unless you can determine that one cable sends a different signal, what is the point of going any further? This ruins all the fun, so let us assume the manufacturer isn't simply committing fraud, and the scientific test, with real science type equipment and stuff, shows the signal is flatter, at certain frequencies. (The web site makes this claim). Yes yes, I know, testing the cables would be the obvious thing to do, but what fun is that?
OK so we have evidence the cables are different.
OK, so now we test if music sounds "better", or different. Either one satisfies the conditions of the challenge, that nobody can tell the difference between Monster Cables and the really expensive Pear Cables.
No. That isn't how you do science. Remember how the quoted "test" showed people can be fooled? That perception is influenced by belief? Or in that case, fraud? Perception is one of the easiest things to manipulate, to fool most people. People can not be trusted when it comes to perception. Period. Stress, expectations, setting, beliefs, even having strangers around, or being in a strange setting, they all can change perceptions. Even time can change it, as well as fatigue and other biological changes.
Rather than set up some complicated test with variables and music and speakers and travel and switches and any and all silly gizmos, this one is a no brainer. No, really it is. Well, at least to me.
We have a simple claim from Pear, that one cable transmits certain frequencies better than another. We determined (not really, but this is just talking) that indeed there is a flatter response with the Pear Cables.
Does that matter? Does a flatter curve matter? Can it make a difference? Can people hear it?
Well, we can answer all of those with a scientific method.
Generating pure frequencies, you play those through the cables, into the reference speakers, and you analyze the sound. (This is a very exact science, it is one thing Audio Engineers do). Then you switch the cables, everything else is the same, and analyze the sound again. Nothing but the cables are changed. NOTHING but the cables are different.
If the actual sound is different, we now have a
scientific basis for the cables actually sounding different. Not better, that is a value judgment, everybody gets to decide that for them self. You can't know anything about "better", better is subjective.. That is a complete non issue here. Again, the quoted test above shows this. The exact same sound can be judged better. Or worse. You can not go by perceptions like that. It doesn't work. Why is that you might ask? Bear with me, I will explain all.
Can we test for better? No, what we do next is determine if human beings can hear
the difference, which is the challenge. Really, it is. Difference is a very important issue.
Being able to tell the difference between two sounds, is either obvious, or non existent. Under one certain condition. Playing music twice is the last thing to use in trying to tell the difference. The exact same music can sound different. This can be shown with another experiment, but forget about that, it doesn't matter. We have rejected it, it isn't needed.
To make this obvious, let us use an example everybody is familiar with, unless you are blind, in which case you might not be reading this anyway. Light. Yes light. If you are trying to see if
somebody can tell the difference between two different lights, you don't turn one on, let the person look at it, then turn it off, and turn on the other light. It doesn't work. Doing it multiple times, and ask them to say which is which, or if they are different, is even worse. If the lights are close to the same, it is impossible to tell the difference like that. Either intensity or color. It doesn't matter. It will not work.
It is almost impossible. That is a terrible test. Not scientific or fair in any way. No, if you want to know if the difference between two sources is perceptible, if people can tell the difference, the way to do it is to
switch back and forth between the two, with a beat, or rhythm, over and over, repeating the change.
If it possible to see a difference, that will make it obvious, so that even a casual observer can see it. No need for complicated set ups and protocols. It is an obvious test. It will also reveal that some people have keener senses, if some people can see it, but others can't.
Can a person see a difference? How can you know? They simply tell you when the light is changing, rather than staying the same. End of story. You can switch f one light on, as a standard, then start pulsing the lights, or start off with the pulsing light, it won't matter. If nobody can tell when it is a steady source, or a changing source, there is no difference between them, at least to the human eye. End of story. If the difference can be seen, then you see a pulsing light.
That is a simple yet effective test of two different signals. There is no doubt about the issue, it either is pulsing or it isn't.
There may be small problems, which will become obvious later.
Now, you can do the same thing with sound. You switch between the pure tones, from both cables, with a beat or rhythm. The best option would be to record the output of the speakers, and edit the two outputs together, with no noise, so that there is no switching sound or interruption of the tone. Again, using test equipment you can see that the tones are different. If not, no need to go further. You analyze the recording, to make sure there are no pops, blips, any other sound that would cue a change. This is very important. Just pure tone, nothing else.
If indeed the cables produce different tones, at the frequencies claimed, you now have
a test audio track, that when played back, is a rapid switching from one source to the other, using pure tones, so that there is only one thing being tested. Obviously you have to use the Pear Cables and original system to play this recording back. So that the tones can be heard, if they are indeed there.
So now we have either a pure unchanging tone, or pulsing tone, ready to test. What is the test?
Can a listener tell any difference? Do you hear a steady pure tone? Or do you hear a changing tone? It doesn't matter if it is louder, cleaner, crisper or any other description, can a human being hear
a difference?
Remember the light example. You either can tell the signal is steady, or it is pulsing, changing with a beat. To be scientific, you try several beats, to avoid bias. Too fast a beat would be beyond perception, too slow and you are back to the original problem, the innate problem of comparing sources.
If Pear wants the million dollars, they should do this simple test first, in order to simply know, and avoid any embarrassment. Same goes for Randi. Except if you find there is a difference, and it can be detected, then you are screwed.
While this simple experiment sounds complicated, it really isn't. By eliminating everything
except the one thing we want to know, all excuses and rationalizations are viewed as just that. On both sides. The Cables produce a different sound, or they don't.
Because older people usually lose the ability to hear higher frequencies, it is obvious that you can have the situation where some people can hear the pulse, the beat produced by switching the sources, while others simply can't. This could lead to the exact criticism that some have made about Randi, that because he decides what happened or didn't happen, the challenge is a fraud, or hoax. (See, back on topic at last)
In a case like this, it would be obvious to any observer that people with good hearing, in a double blind test, can or can't hear a difference between two cables. Even if Randi can't
I'm sure some of the technical aspects of what I just tried to explain may be confusing. If you have any doubts, consult a professional audio engineer. They can and will explain it, and can easily set up everything I mentioned.
To sum up, any test that involves music and switches and dual systems and travel and complicated groups of people watching each other and moving cables and pieces of music and stuff, is just nonsense. Showmanship, illusions, trickery and drama. None of counts. It won't prove or disprove anything, except what you want it to.
Either a signal is different, or it is not. If there is a difference, is it audible? If it is audible, can it be differentiated by human hearing?
All the talk and trickery in the world will not change the facts. If two cables are different, and that difference can be perceived, the test I outlined will make this obvious. It is both scientific and satisfies the requirements that the result is obvious.
It also speaks to the hoax issue. Is Pear hoaxing people? Or is Randi?
