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

Joshua Korosi said:
I agree with Wolf. I don't think the case of "superior-sounding speaker cables" belongs in a JREF test. If scientific instrumentation proves there's a difference, then there's a difference - nothing supernatural about it.
Click to expand...


Maybe.

I find that point pretty persuasive, but -- as an example -- I am aware of a company in the medical field that promotes its own special TENS units for pain relief. A tens machine can be purchased for $400. These special ones run $2,000 to $3,000. They have all sorts of tests showing that the electrical signal being put out measures differently than a regular TENS unit - different frequency, amplitudes, etc., etc.

The differences, however, (from a medical standpoint) amount to looking at two identical cars and saying that the hood ornament is a completely different type of bird, therefore the car drives differently.

I don't know if this is a similar issue/claim, as I have not read into it yet. And I'll admit that I am unconvinced that this is a fight that I would have gone looking for, compared to other areas (like, say, in the medical field like the above machine making a company billions). ButI thought that I'd throw that in.
 
yairhol said:
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.
Click to expand...
A correction: Pear (no "L") didn't say they they wanted to be tested for the MDC. That was Michael Fremer, an editor for the woo-promoting Stereophile Magazine.
 
circuit_bent said:
How isn't loudness the same as volume in this sense? It's not a major deal, I would just genuinely like to know.
Click to expand...

Short answer, consult Wikipedia. Longer answer, certain frequencies are not as audible at low volumes. Loudness is usually a boost of low and high frequencies at low volume, making a low volume level sound "correct". At high volume the low and high frequencies are heard "properly", so the boost is not needed. It is about how we hear sound, more than it is a property or failing of the electronic path playing back the sound.

Different people hear differently, so "loudness" is subjective, not a measurable factor of a sound. How loud a frequency "sounds" is up to the person hearing it, not the sound.

If two cables are different, and somehow one set of cables is allowing more higher frequencies, so that the higher frequencies are actually at a higher sound level, this would be a subtle but real difference, and one that some people could hear. Most people would hear it if it was presented as I described above, using a fast comparison of two different versions of the same sound, tone, or even music.
 
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger said:
... I am aware of a company in the medical field that promotes its own special TENS units for pain relief. A tens machine can be purchased for $400. These special ones run $2,000 to $3,000. They have all sorts of tests showing that the electrical signal being put out measures differently than a regular TENS unit - different frequency, amplitudes, etc., etc.

The differences, however, (from a medical standpoint) amount to looking at two identical cars ....
Click to expand...

So different frequencies and a different amplitude of electrical current have the exact same effect on muscles/nerves in the body? That would be woo. Wouldn't it?
 
Dan O., you appear to have missed the most important factor in these discussions. At issue is not whether there are measurable differences between cables, but whether there are audible differences between cables. It is not the cables which the JREF consider to be paranormal. It is the claims of those people who allege they can hear a difference. The JREF is perfectly willing to stipulate that a Monster brand cable and a Pear brand cable are significantly different technically. They simply don't believe that anyone can (under proper experimental conditions) hear the difference.
 
The way I look at it is this: there is a limited range of hearing that the human ear is capable of. There is a subjective quality to sound in general, and music specifically. So, there are three issues involved in any claim by a music gear supplier: is the gear capable of providing a significant difference in sound to the majority of listeners, is that difference pleasing to the majority of listeners, and are those differences worth the price difference to the average listener?

So, can Pear provide a difference in sound quality that is noticeable, pleasing, and worth the cost? Somehow, based on common sense and experience... I think not.
 
I know tests are not conducted by Randi or JREF, so when I say JREF below, I mean: the testing agency appointed for this particular challenge by JREF and/or James Randi.

My understanding is that JREF would provide the monster cables and Pear would provide their own cables. Prior to the test, both JREF and Pear should conduct non-blind tests of the system using both cables. This allows JREF to make sure the cables provided by Pear are not substandard cables that will sound different. It also allows Pear to mare sure Randi isn’t pulling a fast one by mocking up some expensive Pear cables to look like monster cables. Both sides should sign statements that the equipment and environment is adequate for testing differences in the cables. The JREF statement would state that no difference could be detected. The Pear statement would state that a difference could be detected.

If either side feels the equipment or environment is not adequate, the equipment and/or environment should be modified. If this is not possible, the test is off.

In addition, the Pear listener should listen to both cables under exactly the same conditions that will be used for the test. For example, if is takes a minutes to change cables, or the Pear listener must be removed from the room during testing, etc. That means that for the first two tests, the Pear listener should be told before-hand which cables are being used. The Pear listener should sign a statement stating that even under the test conditions that a difference can be heard. There should not be any changes to the test system or any significant delay after these first two tests.

If JREF detects a difference or if Pear detects no difference, then we get into a sticky spot.

If JREF detects a difference:
1) JREF has to back down and admit that there is a difference in the Pear cables, or
2) Prove that the cables supplied by Pear are not actually the cables that Pear agreed to have tested.
If Pear detects no difference:
1) Pear has to back down and admit that there is no difference in the Pear cables, or
2) Prove that the cables supplied by JREF are superior to the monster cables that JREF agreed to have tested.

I assume that the test will be done with a CD provided by Pear. Before any of the above, JREF should be provided with the actual CD that will be used in the test. JREF should be allowed to examine the entire CD to ensure that it does not contain anything abnormal that would signal a difference in the cables (for example, software that detects non-audible changes in signals that in turn cause changes to the audio, or a light to flash on a stereo component, etc.)
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I know tests are not conducted by Randi or JREF, so when I say JREF below, I mean: the testing agency appointed for this particular challenge by JREF and/or James Randi.

My understanding is that JREF would provide the monster cables and Pear would provide their own cables. Prior to the test, both JREF and Pear should conduct non-blind tests of the system using both cables. This allows JREF to make sure the cables provided by Pear are not substandard cables that will sound different. It also allows Pear to mare sure Randi isn’t pulling a fast one by mocking up some expensive Pear cables to look like monster cables. Both sides should sign statements that the equipment and environment is adequate for testing differences in the cables. The JREF statement would state that no difference could be detected. The Pear statement would state that a difference could be detected.

If either side feels the equipment or environment is not adequate, the equipment and/or environment should be modified. If this is not possible, the test is off.

In addition, the Pear listener should listen to both cables under exactly the same conditions that will be used for the test. For example, if is takes a minutes to change cables, or the Pear listener must be removed from the room during testing, etc. That means that for the first two tests, the Pear listener should be told before-hand which cables are being used. The Pear listener should sign a statement stating that even under the test conditions that a difference can be heard. There should not be any changes to the test system or any significant delay after these first two tests.

If JREF detects a difference or if Pear detects no difference, then we get into a sticky spot.

If JREF detects a difference:
1) JREF has to back down and admit that there is a difference in the Pear cables, or
2) Prove that the cables supplied by Pear are not actually the cables that Pear agreed to have tested.
If Pear detects no difference:
1) Pear has to back down and admit that there is no difference in the Pear cables, or
2) Prove that the cables supplied by JREF are superior to the monster cables that JREF agreed to have tested.

I assume that the test will be done with a CD provided by Pear. Before any of the above, JREF should be provided with the actual CD that will be used in the test. JREF should be allowed to examine the entire CD to ensure that it does not contain anything abnormal that would signal a difference in the cables (for example, software that detects non-audible changes in signals that in turn cause changes to the audio, or a light to flash on a stereo component, etc.)
Click to expand...
You have to add a few things. You have to have two groups, one that hears the Pear cables first, and one that hears the Monster cables first.

I would throw in two more groups as control groups. One would hear only Monster cables, but be told that the cables were being changed between trials. The other group would hear only Pear cables, and also be told that the cables were changed between trials.

This would help control for the imagined differences between any two groups of sounds, and would make for a much more solid test.
 
Why are the last posts suggesting things that would need to take place if JREF detected a difference?

Is it not the audiophiles with their 'golden ears' who are taking the test?
JREF made no such claims.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I assume that the test will be done with a CD provided by Pear. Before any of the above, JREF should be provided with the actual CD that will be used in the test. JREF should be allowed to examine the entire CD to ensure that it does not contain anything abnormal that would signal a difference in the cables (for example, software that detects non-audible changes in signals that in turn cause changes to the audio, or a light to flash on a stereo component, etc.)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where software comes into playing back an audio CD?
If there's inaudible information on there, it's not going to play back through any system and be perceived by anybody. Interesting thought though, if they could somehow squeeze inaudible sub-bass (for example) on the supplied CD and cause the graphic equalizer to go nuts if they knew their cable could transmit those frequencies better than anyone else. It would also have a tendency to create more rumble in the room and create a distinct impression in the listener.

But the final word would be that any non-budget cable will have the certain minimum mechanical and electrical properties which would avoid cutting off lows and highs. There's not much one can do in that regard beyond the basics.
 
I have another problem with this test.
If Michael Fremer is the one taking the test and he needs to detect between some 'regular cable' and his '$$$ cable' (detect a difference and not which one is more pleasing since that is subjective) then what if, say the mid frequency response of the 'regular cable' is 0dB (very good) but the mid frequency response of the '$$$ cable' is +/- 2dB (worse and noticable). Michael Fremer will undoubtedly notice the audio difference coming from the two cables and precisely determine which of the two cables is currently being used.

Regards,
Yair
 
yairhol said:
I have another problem with this test.
If Michael Fremer is the one taking the test and he needs to detect between some 'regular cable' and his '$$$ cable' (detect a difference and not which one is more pleasing since that is subjective) then what if, say the mid frequency response of the 'regular cable' is 0dB (very good) but the mid frequency response of the '$$$ cable' is +/- 2dB (worse and noticable). Michael Fremer will undoubtedly notice the audio difference coming from the two cables and precisely determine which of the two cables is currently being used.

Regards,
Yair
Click to expand...

How would a cable like that exist? A cable can't just notch out the midrange like that. If they had a poor frequency response, they would have a litany of complaints from unhappy customers.
I could be wrong but there's only so much a cable can do. Beyond a certain point of competant design and manufacture, they are all the same.
 
circuit_bent said:
How would a cable like that exist? A cable can't just notch out the midrange like that. If they had a poor frequency response, they would have a litany of complaints from unhappy customers.
I could be wrong but there's only so much a cable can do. Beyond a certain point of competant design and manufacture, they are all the same.
Click to expand...
I'm not a cable expert but for example what if the conductivity of the wires inside the cable were not very good in some way. Could you not hear it as frequency response? Now a guy like Fremer is a cable experts so he can bring to the test a so called $$$ cable but it would be some kind of bad cable (not entirely bad but enough for an audio expert to notice a difference).
As a way to avoid this Randi should add to the protocol that the cable be measured first using specialized equipment to see if the frequency response of Fremer's test cable is as appears in his site. That would make sure that the cable under test is the said $$$ cable.

Regards,
Yair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom