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

[danielk]

So I go back to my point. The actual interesting test, imho, isn't really so much about the cables but about humans, whether we can consistently perceive audible differences between cables in general, whatever their measured technical differences or similarities.

Well, if there were indeed any audible differences not corresponding to different measurement results (within a reasonable range), we would have established the existence of paranormal phenomena.

 

[robinson]

I stand by my examples of how to do a real test of the claimed "improvement" in audio "quality". You don't have to prove "quality" based on the challenge. You just have to prove a difference, that is detectable with human hearing. Better or worse is a subjective call. Randi is saying you can't hear "the difference". That comparing the signal from Pear with say, Monster is impossible. That is another issue, but one that IS possible to test.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It's been a long time since I did much reading about amplifiers and speakers and I know the technology of both has improved, but one time amplifiers were or could be adjusted to compensate for the (poor) quality of the speakers -- to make the response "flatter".

Does current technology provide compensation for the transmission deficiences of the speaker cables? If not, why not? If so, would this not have an effect on any comparison test?

 

[robinson]

Shucks, just get the biggest gauge wire you can find and hook em up. Wire is wire.

 

[circuit_bent]

Ack. That's what I'm trying to get at, too.

Sure, this is a very good point, I agree.

But surely in the case of Pear, they would have to submit their standardized, official product?

This could easily be tested too. For example, by comparing the cables they submit for testing with cables that people have purchased from them. They should be the same for an official test.

Of course, JREF could always buy a pair for comparison!?

 

[circuit_bent]

Of course that's the question to ask, though it should probably be a little less loaded. Like having the listener arrange four audio samples according to the perceived quality.


I certainly wouldn't deem any filtering positive, but I haven't just bought cables for $1000 either. I could imagine that a cable which acts as a bandpass could resemble the functionality of a loudness button, if one adjusts the volume accordingly. Of course it is silly to call the result "better" since such effects shouldn't be the purpose of wiring. But that's why we do a test in the first place -- proving that it is silly!


I hope so, but it is still an assumption I wouldn't be willing to assert without further evidence. It is better to design the test in a way that takes this possibility into account, or we might be sorry later.


Exactly! That's my point. Imagine the look on people's faces when they get told that the sound of their $1000 cables could be reproduced with some amateurishly soldered circuitry made from some old spare parts. The more sloppily done it looks, the better!


That's how things should be, ideally. But it's a bad assumption to make in the design of the kind of test we're speaking of. It is very easy to fool oneself. Besides, I could imagine the difference to be so subtle that, although it's noticeable to the human ear, it might not be possible to say for sure which signal is the better reproduction of the original. Especially since any reproduction of the original requires some means of signal transmission.

Sorry, i don't see how having four samples will help us. I can't help but think that a direct comparison (blind) between the Pear cables and regular cables is just the simplest and purest kind of experiment.

About the bandpass filter idea. I'm not exactly following you there. That it might resemble the functionality of a loudness button, IF we adjust the loudness. Really? If it's a resonant bandpass filter then yeah, i suppose if you bandpass the midrange and crank the resonance it will appear louder. But this will immediately mark it as 'not a cable' and it would never be allowed to be a part of the experiment to begin with.

Go down 2 paragraphs and you seem to suggest that there actually is some covert circuitry in the Pear cables which is doing something overt? I think we can rule that one out. I'm going to go ahead and claim that Pear cables are just cables

Ok, and the final paragraph you mention the possibility that the difference might be 'so subtle' that they're basically imperceptible. But Pear is making a claim that there will be an actual perceptible difference.
If its imperceptible to the listener, then Pear's claim is baseless.

Sorry, I cant see why it's a bad assumption to make, because you're right, people are easily fooled. But can they buck the odds time and time again in a repeated blind experiment? I think not!

 

[GzuzKryzt]

You're all nuts. I can't believe I had to wade through all that tripe.
The Pear company claim that their cables provide a better listening experience compared to other cables.
Therefore a suitable, simple test is to have them listen to a piece of music with the Pear cables and then perform a virtual coin flip. 50/50 the cables are switched or the Pear cables are left in place.
If they don't consistently manage to detect when the less expensive cables are substituted for the second run then Pear have a problem.

What could be more straightforward than this?

Yes, the test is subjective because Pear's claim is that the consumer will personally find music to be enhanced with their cables.

And Robinson, I believe you rubbished the idea because of the greatly unscientific nature of having to perform a cable switch. Do you think this could give something away? That's why I came up with a wondrous, unbelievable idea....a partition obscuring the view!! Maybe the switch is performed in a different room! Also an idea that eliminates the cable switch idea (which is a bit unseemly) is a hub + mixer arrangement.

With a hot-swap of the cables, noise would be produced. I may well be wrong about this. I'm trying to find problems. This could be avoided by turning the gear off but this could add bias or at least could be claimed to be affecting the outcome (temperature variation). A workaround would be to remove the Pear cables each time and then either re-insert them or substitute the non-Pear cables. The person taking the test could be subjected to some music via enclosed headphones. This may add bias to the second listen via fatigue, so perhaps just fully enclosed headphones would do the trick to leave the subject no way listening for any clues during switching.

I don't know, maybe its only my dodgy cables that make a racket when you take them out of powered speakers?

The speakers could be turned off, the cables exchanged or not, and then turned on and allowed to rise up to its standard operating temperature. No possible clues for the listener and now conditions are uniform in every respect except the 50/50 chance of switching cables.

A hub is another option isn't it? Having essentially two inputs to the speakers, one for each cable routed from a mixer. A flip of a switch sends the signal down one or the other. That makes life easier doesn't it?

Anyway, the first paragraph where I claim that you're all nuts is the real meat of this post. I hope anyway.

While it is always strangely entertaining to see people with semi-knowledge discussing people with actual knowledge, please remember this:

It all depends on the claim.

If the claim is worded like in the quotes from this link, one would simply have to design a test protocol which could prove/falsify said claim.



Do you really think any vendor of any product will take the JREF Challenge if his product sells and he can boost popularity by straying along the lines of libel?

 

[circuit_bent]

While it is always strangely entertaining to see people with semi-knowledge discussing people with actual knowledge, please remember this:

It all depends on the claim.

[If the claim is worded like in the quotes from this link,[/url] one would simply have to design a test protocol which could prove/falsify said claim.



Do you really think any vendor of any product will take the JREF Challenge if his product sells and he can boost popularity by straying along the lines of libel?

Well I'm glad I've managed to be so entertaining you humble soul you.

Did I not outline a test protocol which would prove or falsify the claim?
Would you point out where my test is insufficient there or are you just going to feign superiority by suggestion alone?

Yes, the claim is worded to suggest that the cables will deliver a superior listening experience. I fully understand that. What does my test do but prove/disprove this? I don't know where you're coming from in that regard at all. Could you clarify why you would make such a statement?

And no, obviously I don't think a vendor is going to take the challenge if he knows their claims can't be verified. What's your point?

I also suggested that people who have purchased the cables might be invited to perform the tests if the vendors won't. The truth of the matter is proved in either case.

 

[danielk]

Sorry, i don't see how having four samples will help us. I can't help but think that a direct comparison (blind) between the Pear cables and regular cables is just the simplest and purest kind of experiment.

Well, what I had in mind was one plain cable, one Pear cable, one faked Pear cable and maybe another fake or plain cable. The exact number isn't really important to me, however.

About the bandpass filter idea. I'm not exactly following you there. That it might resemble the functionality of a loudness button, IF we adjust the loudness. Really?

Loudness is not the same as volume.

If it's a resonant bandpass filter then yeah, i suppose if you bandpass the midrange and crank the resonance it will appear louder. But this will immediately mark it as 'not a cable' and it would never be allowed to be a part of the experiment to begin with.

And where would you draw the line? Every cable is a combination of resistance, inductance and capacitance. I know a cable like that would be stupid. But the test isn't there to convince me, it's there to convince people who will latch at every opportunity to denounce the test on flimsy grounds. I was just tossing around some ideas to get a feeling of the kind of problems one would have to anticipate to make sure the test is really airtight. We're talking about a million bucks here after all.

Go down 2 paragraphs and you seem to suggest that there actually is some covert circuitry in the Pear cables which is doing something overt? I think we can rule that one out. I'm going to go ahead and claim that Pear cables are just cables

No covert circuitry is necessary -- just badly made cables on purpose. I don't know if Pear cables fall into that category. I don't care. The test shouldn't depend on it. In any case I'm trying to come up with a test design that isn't limited to testing Pear cables.

Ok, and the final paragraph you mention the possibility that the difference might be 'so subtle' that they're basically imperceptible. But Pear is making a claim that there will be an actual perceptible difference. If its imperceptible to the listener, then Pear's claim is baseless.

No, that's not what I said. I was talking about a difference which while audible in direct comparison, would still be small enough to make it very difficult to pin down which signal is actually the "proper" one. Again, I don't really know if that's a common occurrence. My point is that the test should better not depend on it either way.

Sorry, I cant see why it's a bad assumption to make, because you're right, people are easily fooled. But can they buck the odds time and time again in a repeated blind experiment? I think not!

But this will only be true if the averaged preferences of the testers cancel each other out precisely. Take my hypothetical loudness example. Some people prefer having the lows and highs amplified disproportionately, others prefer the straight signal. But I see no reason to assume that exactly 50% of the population like loudness and exactly 50% don't like it. Maybe it is that way, maybe it isn't, the point is it shouldn't matter for the test to succeed.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Well I'm glad I've managed to be so entertaining you humble soul you.

Did I not outline a test protocol which would prove or falsify the claim?
Would you point out where my test is insufficient there or are you just going to feign superiority by suggestion alone?

You may have missed the "if".

"If" the claim from Pear Cable is worded like that. It seems that the text in the quotes was not from Pear Cable, and it certainly was not from an actual application.

Also, how does one sensibly test for "danceable" or "desire to get up and move"?

The wording of the claim is very important. As Randi said: "If you claim to be able to play the violin, we won't ask you to play the piano."



I touched a nerve, did I not?

Yes, the claim is worded to suggest that the cables will deliver a superior listening experience. I fully understand that. What does my test do but prove/disprove this? I don't know where you're coming from in that regard at all. Could you clarify why you would make such a statement?

And no, obviously I don't think a vendor is going to take the challenge if he knows their claims can't be verified. What's your point?

I also suggested that people who have purchased the cables might be invited to perform the tests if the vendors won't. The truth of the matter is proved in either case.

I should have made this clearer: When I referred to "claim", I meant the claim in a proper application for the JREF Challenge.

Hypothetical discussions in this particular subforum do not do it for me at all. Granted, I understand the need and the use for people bouncing off ideas off each other. I prefer to wait until an actual proper application has been received - or even accepted. Usually, there still is ample time and reason to let the keyboards heat up.

 

[rsaavedra]

Well, if there were indeed any audible differences not corresponding to different measurement results (within a reasonable range), we would have established the existence of paranormal phenomena.

No you miss my point. The fact that you might measure the wrong thing (e.g. just frequency response) when the ears are possibly capable of picking up some other things not involved in what you measure doesn't established the existence of any paranormal phenomena. Just establishes the fact that what you measured is possibly not sufficient.

To make the assumption that frequency response is all you need to measure to declare the cables are audibly identical would be quite a stretch. That would need to be tested in and of itself.

 

[danielk]

No you miss my point. The fact that you might measure the wrong thing (e.g. just frequency response) when the ears are possibly capable of picking up some other things not involved in what you measure doesn't established the existence of any paranormal phenomena. Just establishes the fact that what you measured is possibly not sufficient.

Right. I didn't say anything about limiting the measurements to frequency response, though.

To make the assumption that frequency response is all you need to measure to declare the cables are audibly identical would be quite a stretch. That would need to be tested in and of itself.

Indeed.

 

[RemieV]

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?



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



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

As noted, so are the FAQs.

See you in six months or so, eh?

With the new Swift out, and the behind-the-scenes workings of the JREF more clear, I would appreciate it if you retracted your statement.

 

[robinson]

The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge "FAQ"

As the new challenge rules have just recently launched, we're collecting questions now. Feel free to send any you might have to challenge@randi.org.

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#randi

I guess one could complain. Or send some questions for the new FAQ. Which is more helpful?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#randi

I guess one could complain. Or send some questions for the new FAQ. Which is more helpful?

Yes, the FAQ thing is completely my fault. It's been done for awhile actually, and I just haven't put it up yet. My apologies.. I got sidetracked by other projects. I will have it up soon.

 

[The Atheist]

With the new Swift out, and the behind-the-scenes workings of the JREF more clear, I would appreciate it if you retracted your statement.

Don't be silly - Jeff has just apologised for the continuing delay in the FAQs.

I am, however, delighted that James has confirmed his position and gone on the attack almost immediately.

Given the delays in every aspect of the "changes" to the challenge as clearly evinced on this forum, I think I'm entitled to one snide remark. In this case, it was wrong and I'm glad to be wrong on it.

Not to mention that if this week's Swift was going to cover it, nobody would have been giving away any secrets by saying at the start of this thread:

James Randi is aware of the comments by Pear's CEO and will be addressing them in Swift on Friday.

Far too obvious.

 

[robinson]

Hey, you just don't get it man.

It is not a good idea to show all your cards to your opponent before you sit down at the table.

See? Facts, science, and that research stuff is cool and everything, but this is about winning. It's a contest man, you don't let the other side know what you are doing. That wouldn't be fair.

 

[yairhol]

Just popping in to remind everyone that although Randi has issued the challenge and Pearl Company has accepted it (in the broader sense of the word) this does not mean that there will be a challenge. I have a strong feeling (The 'force' is strong within me) that Pearl will eventually not accept any protocol due to inabilities to reach an agreement on subjects such as:
1. A meticulously enough designed acoustic room. (Such a room may cost thousands of dollars to build or rent).
2. An audio player with levels of fidelity and frequency response that dogs would not be ashamed of.
3. An agreed upon date and time in which all parties can be in the same place for a sufficiently long enough period of time.
4. Other

BTW, I would like to advise Pearl not to accept the protocol unless Randi lets it use the Demagnetizing thingy on the chosen audio player (which may be out of stock at the time of the challenge so add that as number 5 on the list).

Regards,
Yair

 

[circuit_bent]

Just popping in to remind everyone that although Randi has issued the challenge and Pearl Company has accepted it (in the broader sense of the word) this does not mean that there will be a challenge. I have a strong feeling (The 'force' is strong within me) that Pearl will eventually not accept any protocol due to inabilities to reach an agreement on subjects such as:
1. A meticulously enough designed acoustic room. (Such a room may cost thousands of dollars to build or rent).
2. An audio player with levels of fidelity and frequency response that dogs would not be ashamed of.
3. An agreed upon date and time in which all parties can be in the same place for a sufficiently long enough period of time.
4. Other

BTW, I would like to advise Pearl not to accept the protocol unless Randi lets it use the Demagnetizing thingy on the chosen audio player (which may be out of stock at the time of the challenge so add that as number 5 on the list).

Regards,
Yair

Well, such a room would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. I don't think anybody will be doing that!
Points 1 and 2 are easily solved by just making use of a high quality studio environment that already exists.
Point 3 could easily make the process drag out a long time. But I don't think that JREF would be responsible for any procrastination there.
It's point 4 that I'm truly worried about. But whatever techniques they try to utilize to weasel out of the challenge, it will count strongly against them in the eyes of the public.

 

[circuit_bent]

.

Loudness is not the same as volume.

No covert circuitry is necessary -- just badly made cables on purpose. I don't know if Pear cables fall into that category. I don't care. The test shouldn't depend on it. In any case I'm trying to come up with a test design that isn't limited to testing Pear cables.


No, that's not what I said. I was talking about a difference which while audible in direct comparison, would still be small enough to make it very difficult to pin down which signal is actually the "proper" one. Again, I don't really know if that's a common occurrence. My point is that the test should better not depend on it either way.

How isn't loudness the same as volume in this sense? It's not a major deal, I would just genuinely like to know.

The next point is immediately settled by taking cables that they submit for testing and comparing it against other Anjou cables already out there. If there's something fishy about them, it would immediately be revealed.
If you're suggesting that maybe the default Anjou cables, all of them, were manufactured so as to do something overt to the signal, it would be common knowledge by now. It would do weird things to the frequency response which isn't evident on the Pear company graphs.
Again, I'm going to go ahead and say that their cables are just cables.

And your last paragraph brings up the idea about a small but hard to pin down difference confusing matters. Well, if it's not abundantly clear that one cable is superior to the other then that goes against the claims of the Pear company. They claim there will be a definite benefit. Ambiguity in perception tells against that claim.