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

[robinson]

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.

I think it is obvious there are other results from accepting the challenge.

Fraud is illegal, and JREF's assets are the sort of "deep pockets" any lawyer would work very hard to get into.

Only if it gets to the testing stage.

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 differences. 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.

This is what I was thinking of when I wrote up a way to see. There are two different issues on the table. Both can be tested.

There has been quite a large response to the cable challenge..

I bet. If I could get in on this action I would.

The protocol for such a test would take less than 2 mins to write up.

Nope. In fact, it took over an hour just to write up WHY the protocol should be done a certain way. Actually hammering out the details and safeguards will take far longer.

ETA: I'm surprised this isn't even about instrumentation. Is Randi betting the $1M on something that essentially amounts to an opinion poll?

Perhaps, perhaps not. As I pointed out, using people, it is easy to fool people. Science is another matter. It isn't easy to fool science, and equipment is immune to manipulation or opinion.

While I fail to see how this falls into the normal 'paranormal' charges that the JREF prize is supposed to apply to ...
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).

Indeed. You made many good points, which I notice were not responded to, yet. It does seem to be an issue that an answer can actually be known. But setting up a protocol, taking huge amounts of time to do it, then having the Challenge never happen because the two parties can't agree, that is the exact situation that skeptics have claimed makes the MDC a hoax.

In this case, it is obvious that an answer can be had. But the test itself, how you test, is the issue. It is always the issue. How do you set up a fair and impartial test in which the results will be obvious? And do it without spending more than it is worth to do so? And who decides if the test is a success or a failure?

While the Challenge and money belongs to Randi, all expenses are borne by the claimant. Even before they are accepted as a claimant. If there is the perception that the MDC is a hoax, why would anybody waste a dime or a single minute of time on it? If it is going to take years of negotiating, and much expense, before you ever get to the first test, why bother? If it is seen as a hoax.

I've read more than a few opinions that the hoax part of the MDC is in the negotiating phase, that Randi either rejects protocols or insist on changing the goal post, to manipulate things. This seems to be a case where those skpetic can see this isn't the case.

 

[circuit_bent]

robinson, you label my method un-scientific (it may well be). Then you launch into a mini thesis about your presumed correct scientific approach. It seems airtight, but it's just not practical.

You want to purify the testing procedure by reducing the sound under scrutiny to pure tones. Sounds good, but it may well be that nobody can actually differentiate the pure and mixed tones. What then? The Pear cable people can just say that such a test is worthless because it doesn't test what is actually listened to by people, music!

Why not interweave two music tracks in the method you outline and see if they can detect discontinuity or whether it's all from an unvariable source?

Also, and this is the main thing, your test seems to revolve around the person being able to recognise beats in the mixed sound. Have you considered that some people might be particularly attuned to that phenomena? Does it necessarily mean they can differentiate complete music tracks using different cables? That's what people are interested in determining.

Your method sounds more like a hearing test to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they will exploit the practicality aspect of your proposed test if they fail. People buy speakers and cables to listen to music, not pure tones. Pure tones aren't 'dancable'.

 

[Gravy]

Pure tones aren't 'dancable'.

You are mistaken. Velcome to Schprockets.

Robinson, I don't have time for a longer response here. You make some good points. But your idea that a preliminary test by machine could be used to decide if the listening test should proceed doesn't hold. The MDC isn't concerned with how the claimed effect is produced, only that it can be demonstrated or discerned. In this case, the claim is about listening, so any test requires listening.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

No, the second claim is invalid. No two cables are exactly alike. Not even of the same make and model.

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.

Two cables of different type will have different characteristics, if you measure them carefully enough. And since we have quite sensitive equipment for measuring that, we might well be able to measure such differences.

OK so we have evidence the cables are different.

Yes, we might as well assume that.

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.

Right, but since "better" is totally subjective (for certain types of music, I'd vote better for a broken cable ), let's settle for different.

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.

Yes, that is science, because that is exactly the claim: That people are being fooled into thinkind there is an audible difference. So that is what we want to test.

People can not be trusted when it comes to perception. Period.

Ehr, who or what else do you want to do the perception? This gets philosophical, but the fact is that our only channel to the real world goes through human perception.


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.

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.

*snip*

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.

But we already found out that the cables were (probably marginally) different. You are just repeating that measurement.

If the actual sound is different, we now have a scientific basis for the cables actually sounding different.

But we already have that. The big question is whether the difference is perceptible.

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.

But that is not relevant to the question. No doubt, an average person will ba able to detect subtler differences that way, but so what? Nobody does that in real life. The question we want to answer is whether one can tell the difference in a realistic listening situation.

Hans

 

[danielk]

The problem being, the magic cables don't have to sound better at all, just different. They could be worse than the standard cables, but the open test would distinguish which is which immediately.

That's what came to my mind as well. I heard it's actually not uncommon for the woowoo cables (high-end is definitely the wrong word here) to sound different because they're actually worse than well-made normal cables, electrically speaking. The cables come with a built-in equalizer filter, so to speak.

I imagine this gives the producers of said cables a lot of wiggle room, since electrical measurements are required to sort this out, and audio-woos often dismiss that idea in favor of listening tests. Of course, after having paid $1000 for a cable which sounds subtly different, it will be pretty hard not to convince yourself that the sound is "better" with the $1000 cable.

Of course, I'm sure this has all been considered and accounted for...

Maybe it has, but still, I think this makes for a very interesting education opportunity. I'd greatly appreciate if someone with experience in this area could outline how one would go about designing a test which takes this problem into account. Normally, preferences should average out with a large enough number of participants, but can we really assume by default that the averaged results will converge on the electrically cleanest signal? Humans could, on average, just have a preference for sound that is adjusted in a certain way.

Hm, perhaps one way to get around this could be to replicate the electrical characteristics of the $1000 cables with custom-made filters quickly soldered together from $1 radio shack parts. If the skeptics are right, no significant electrical differences should translate to no significant preference in a blinded listening test. As long as the the electronic circuits are properly documented, fear of tampering shouldn't be an issue. Any failure to exactly replicate the sound would only favor the woo camp. It's quite a lot of work, though.

What do you think?

 

[circuit_bent]

Interesting, but surely the right question to ask is "Does this sound better than the previous trial?" or "Can you discern a difference?", rather than asking about the uniqueness of the sound.
I'd be interested to know exactly how audio cables can add uniqueness to a sound if you've got some ideas there? In a positive sense at least?
You mention filtering, but any kind of attenuation of the signal's frequencies will never be construed as making the sound better unless the original mix is very bad. If it's actually enhancing frequencies and delivering harmonic content that's not present in the original recording, then it's no longer a cable. More like a cable/mix enhancer.
Also, such a cable would make a well mixed track sound obviously very bad to even a common person.

 

[Cuddles]

Right, but since "better" is totally subjective (for certain types of music, I'd vote better for a broken cable ), let's settle for different.

But "better" is the important point. The claim is not being made that these cables sound a little different from cheaper ones, the claim is that they sound better. It doesn't matter if someone can tell the difference between two cables (although that would be very interesting and worth looking into further), if they get them the wrong way around, the test would have failed because the actual claim they make would be false.

 

[alfaniner]

No -- if they know the Pear cables sound worse (and for some reason they actually do) from the open test, it would be easy to distinguish between the two types, and choose the Pear cables. They don't have to sound better, just different.

I'm curious to see the protocol. I think there is a danger in just using two sets of cables. Possibly ideally there would be 10 sets of each type, with a randomizer choosing both the type and which of the 10 of that type to use, hopefully eliminating the difference between individual cables.

 

[volatile]

No -- if they know the Pear cables sound worse (and for some reason they actually do) from the open test, it would be easy to distinguish between the two types, and choose the Pear cables. They don't have to sound better, just different.

No, no, no. The reviewer said the cables were "dancable", and Pear heavily market their cables based on the improvements, not just differences. The claim is "better", thus "better" must be the testing criteria.

 

[Cuddles]

No -- if they know the Pear cables sound worse (and for some reason they actually do) from the open test, it would be easy to distinguish between the two types, and choose the Pear cables. They don't have to sound better, just different.

I'm curious to see the protocol. I think there is a danger in just using two sets of cables. Possibly ideally there would be 10 sets of each type, with a randomizer choosing both the type and which of the 10 of that type to use, hopefully eliminating the difference between individual cables.

But the claim is better. If the test is designed to test anything else, it is invalid. If this means there is no possibility of an open test, so be it. That is not a necessary part of the test, it is simply an extra measure to prevent the "the conditions weren't right" excuse. However, as can be seen from previous tests, this excuse is used anyway, so it doesn't achieve a huge amount anyway.

Multiple cables sounds like a good idea. The only problem would be that they could then claim there is a difference between indiviual cables that spoiled the results. This shouldn't be a valid argument since they make the claim for all cables they sell, not just a single one that they've tested, but I have little doubt that it would be used as an excuse anyway.

 

[technoextreme]

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

Actually at such low frequencies and such short distances there is no difference between cables.

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.

It's paranormal because there is no scientific basis for these claims. In fact the very first thing that I learned in college is when to ignore the capacitance and inductance of a transmission line. Audio cables are one of those times when a wire is nothing more than a wire. I may not have my engineering degree yet. I may not know how to entirely debunk some of these idiotic claims but I am absolutely certain that the audio cable claim is bull.

 

[brettDbass]

Here's a little something that popped into my head whilst reading Swift today, for your general consideration.

Randi states "there is a point beyond which no ear can benefit from the expense of conductors" and I certainly agree with this, but only so far as for the production of single tones.

Is there any possibility that overtones may make an appreciable difference to the listener when an improvement to the non-audible frequencies is made?

I ask only because I don't know ~ I hope that all possibilities such as this have been ruled out or taken into account before these discussions began!

 

[robinson]

It is easy enough to go off speculating about testing Cables and such, evidenced by my ramblings as well as extensive discussion by others. No doubt this is in part due to the desire to actually see something happen, as well as the huge misunderstanding of what is being said, claimed or challenged. Let us once more look at the scant facts of the matter. Randi wrote:

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.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4

Now before I go back to the testing discussion, it is obvious that the challenge Randi is making is about judgment, not science, not fact, but perception of quality, about a product, or products. One could make the same sort of claim about anything expensive. Some product that has value to a customer because he spent a lot of money on it, even though it doesn't seem to improve the quality of the actual experience.

My first thought is a sports car. People who spend a lot of money on cars may seem alien to some, but rest assured there are kids out there that actually spend $30,000 dollars and more on "improving" their ride, with lights and spoilers and paint jobs and rims and mufflers and stuff I can't even understand.

Does a $10,000 paint job increase the quality of driving the car? Does $5,000 dollars worth of neon increase the quality of driving the car? It would be paranormal if it did. I challenge them to a double blind test to see. Remember, that paint job is $50 a square foot! I say there is no difference between that expensive paint job and a cheaper one.

That if you set it up where two identical cars with different paint jobs are used, with the drivers not knowing which is which, nobody can tell which paint job they are driving.

See? Remember the simple fact that when most people are tested, they found the expensive amplifier sounded better? This is a real phenomenon. It isn't trickery, or woo, people actually enjoy something more if they think, (or know), it is expensive. There are extensive studies that show, without fail, that perception can be influenced. Nothing is easier to do. Most people have no idea how easy it is to do. Randi knows this. All Magicians know it. Marketing people know it too.

Depending on human perception to determine reality is like trying to determine which brand of car is best. Who looks the best? Or who is the best band. Or which speaker sounds better. You can do it, but nobody is going to buy your conclusion as absolute truth about reality. Even the most woo person would argue that such a method is terrible, not valid, insane.

You make some good points. But your idea that a preliminary test by machine could be used to decide if the listening test should proceed doesn't hold. The MDC isn't concerned with how the claimed effect is produced, only that it can be demonstrated or discerned. In this case, the claim is about listening, so any test requires listening.

Thank you. Yes, the claim made by Randi is about LISTENING, not about reality. It doesn't deal with the cables. Or the effect of having spent a lot of money on cables, and enjoying the heck out of your stereo. It isn't paranormal for somebody who just spent over $7,000 dollars to enjoy something. The same thing happens when somebody buys a $50,000 car, they enjoy it just looking at it. Is that paranormal? Does it really drive better than a $30,000 car?

You might think I am splitting hairs here, but Randi said:
"Well, we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these “no-compromise” cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables."

Perform better. That has so much wiggle room, is so vague, it is meaningless for a contract. It does indeed allow critics to state the MDC is a hoax. Back to the car example, something we can imagine a lot easier, how do you determine "better"? Does a $100,000 Hummer perform better than a $40,000 Lexus? How do you test that? Who decides? Same for a bottle of wine, a guitar, a painting, a piece of paper with some words on it. Challenging "performance", in some cases, is like challenging quality or taste.

Again, looking at the facts:
"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."

Performance. What does that mean? I'm avoiding the scientific stuff now, focusing on what is being said instead. A product should be judged ...

Can you get any more subjective than that? We are now in the realm of pure subjective enjoyment of a product. Is that the task of a Paranormal Challenge? To insist somebody listening to a set of very expensive cables isn't enjoying them more?

It is also a blanket claim, including every set of ears on the planet. According to the claim, nobody can hear any difference. It also moves the "testing" to people, their opinion, their judgement, meaning dogs and science don't count, only what people say they hear. Isn't that what woos do? Insist that their perception is more important than outside validation of the facts? Impartial observer don't count, only what people perceive, what they say happened. WTF???

While it sounds good to test for "performing better", even "not as well" means that now the Monster Cables are better, which is still considered "Paranormal" by Randi. Because the challenge is over the impossibility of one set of Cables making music sound "better". I would love to get back to the fun stuff of talking cables and testing, but the real issue is the MDC has been called a hoax.

No response in a case like this, means you lose. If somebody calls you on your claim, and you don't respond, it is understandable that your opponent is going to claim you lose, because you didn't answer, or respond. Not contesting means you admit guilt, in a case like this. How many times has that reasoning been used to attack woos? Plenty.

So, perhaps without meaning to, Randi has started a game. He fired the opening shot. You can't fail to return a serve at this point. You have to establish the boundary lines, not fail to answer a volley.

And, without perhaps realizing it, Randi and the JREF are obligated to come up with a protocol. Thems the rules. If you make a challenge, you have to explain what it means.

 

[robinson]

Is there any possibility that overtones may make an appreciable difference to the listener when an improvement to the non-audible frequencies is made?

Excellent point. Yes, overtones are sometimes everything. The high frequency resonance tones add "richness" or "warmth" to music. As soon as you get to that point, music is as subjective as it can get. Which is why evaluating an expensive sound can only be done by certain people, with trained ears, and very keen senses, not just of hearing, but of the ability to perceive overtones, harmonics, and resonant frequencies.

It sounds woo to people who can't hear it, but there are differences, subtle but real, between music produced by one instrument and another. It may not always have to do with price either. The resonating cavity, or body of an instrument, like a guitar or violin, isn't an exact science, it is an art at times. Age, and the amount of playing done on an instrument changes the sound.

There are people who can hear the most subtle differences between two notes, played on different instruments, that the majority of the people on the planet will never hear.

But this takes us into a very difficult area to test. Which is one major reason I tried to keep my idea for protocol in the realm of understandable science. There are two other factors I haven't even brought up, due to the utter complexity of the issues.

 

[technoextreme]

It is also a blanket claim, including every set of ears on the planet. According to the claim, nobody can hear any difference. It also moves the "testing" to people, their opinion, their judgement, meaning dogs and science don't count, only what people say they hear. Isn't that what woos do? Insist that their perception is more important than outside validation of the facts? Impartial observer don't count, only what people perceive, what they say happened. WTF???

It's not really a blanket claim though. If in fact the improvements caused by a cable are so insignificant that no one can actually hear them then any claims otherwise is just an illusion. The closest analogy I can think of is our eye. The unit of reflectance does not represent what we actually see when looking at something. It's actually logarithmic.

 

[robinson]

Based on the excellent input from brettDbass, my original protocol could be adjusted to a pure note, with harmonics and overtones. Instead of a tone generator, a vibrating string would be a better choice. Less isolation, but we now have a complex waveform, but it is indeed music at this point. The added higher frequencies will no doubt increase the ability to differentiate between any difference in sound.

Those who want the Cables to work may very well insist on this, while those who want the Cables to not work, may somehow fight against such a test. Which leads us back to the issue of the topic. Is the challenge a hoax or not?

 

[technoextreme]

Those who want the Cables to work may very well insist on this, while those who want the Cables to not work, may somehow fight against such a test. Which leads us back to the issue of the topic. Is the challenge a hoax or not?

I think it's idiotic to base this test on perception. Lord knows I can make your head you think my head is shrinking but it doesn't mean that it is. You could try for digital audio and use the cables off of that.

 

[petre]

For a change in perspective (which isn't always useful, but can be), how about considering the same situation with light instead of sound:

Claim: The light from our $7000 lightbulbs will make your paintings look their very best!

Arguement: The human eye cannot tell the difference between light from a high-quality $50 bulb and these crazy $7000 bulbs.

Science: It can be shown that the various wavelengths from the two bulbs do differ.

Counter-claim: These differences are not perceptable to humans.

Test: Have those making the original claim determine which bulb is being used when observing the light from the two.

Problem: Where do you get the bulbs for the test? I think both sides can agree walking down to the local store and getting a "Monster Bulb" is sufficient for that item. What about the $7000 bulb though? You can't just walk down to the local store and get one of those from a neutral location. If Randi has someone order it anonymously, the other side will cry foul that it could have been tampered with. If the original claimants have any control of the source, claims of tampering could not be dismissed either. They could adjust the bulb to add a bit of blue to the light and identify it easily.

My suggestion: (moving away from the bulb analogy) allow them to provide their own cables, but require a scientific measurement of the cables, similar to one cited in the product literature, that will demonstrate the expensive cable does as-good-a-job-or-better of exactly transmitting a waveform as the monster cable (I expect this is likely a focus of their current consultation). Then simply let their representative identify which sound samples are being passed through their cable. Better than average chance performance should be adequate to demonstrate that the transmitted sound is indeed better (via the reproducable scientific test noting purity of end signal) and that the difference is discernable to (some) human ears.

ETA: the speaker and other hardware used may also be a point of contention, since I think it likely that one could be constructed to amplify or dampen signal differences to control whether or not a human can detect the difference. I am hopeful "trip to the store" comprimise will be sufficient to provide neutral equipment of sufficient quality.

 

[volatile]

It is easy enough to go off speculating about testing Cables and such, evidenced by my ramblings as well as extensive discussion by others. No doubt this is in part due to the desire to actually see something happen, as well as the huge misunderstanding of what is being said, claimed or challenged. Let us once more look at the scant facts of the matter.

You're massively over-complicating the issue, and your analogy with a paint job is nonsense.

The auto shop sell you a paint job to make your car look subjectively better - nevertheless, paint jobs can, and are, judged on the quality, and it is quite simple to tell a technically bad paint job from a good one. Pear would no doubt claim that it is as easy to tell another cable from theirs as it is to tell a good paint job from a bad one.

The simple fact of the matter is that a) Pear say their cables measurably and audibly IMPROVE the sound (and not just the subjective experience of the sound) on all systems, for all people and b) the Stereophile guy said, quid deliberately, that these cables made the setup sound more "dancebale".

Thus it's perfectly valid to assess whether or not an "improvement" can be detected by this same guy if he doesn't know which cable is which. Pear don't say that the very price of the cables will improve your subjective enjoyment - if they did, they wouldn't have many customers. Instead, they pitch these cables as objectively and empirically better than standard cables, and thus must be judged accordingly.

All your points about subjective enjoyment are valid, of course, but utterly, utterly irrelevant to the claims made by Pear and by Stereophile magazine.

 

[volatile]

It sounds woo to people who can't hear it, but there are differences, subtle but real, between music produced by one instrument and another.

Whilst this is no doubt true, the Pear website claims that:

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

No. Anyone can appreciate the differences that cables make. A casual music listener may not be able to describe why a poor quality sound system doesn't sound good, but they know that it doesn't sound anything like live music. Improve the quality of the cables and the same listener may not know why the sound is better, but they know it is better. If you listen to music, you can benefit from the improvements in accuracy that accurate cables will enable.

Let's test this claim. ANYONE can tell the difference, apparently.