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

[Gravy]

As previously mentioned, I believe it would be pertinent to have not just one of each, but ten of each. This would eliminate the binary choice of whether one single cable was better than the other.

However, I'd rather doubt that Pear (or a challenger) would pony up $70K+ for some silly cables.

I like the idea of multiple cables of the same model. If it Pear were providing the cables, they wouldn't be ponying up $70K. How much do you think the cables cost to make? $200 each? $300? No, the problem with getting a lot of Pear cables, even as loaners, is that Pear can't risk the loss of sales that would come if their product proves to be indistinguishable from cheaper cables.

 

[Minkster]

I like the idea of multiple cables of the same model. If it Pear were providing the cables, they wouldn't be ponying up $70K. How much do you think the cables cost to make? $200 each? $300? No, the problem with getting a lot of Pear cables, even as loaners, is that Pear can't risk the loss of sales that would come if their product proves to be indistinguishable from cheaper cables.

Erm, how would this affect Pear anyway?

The challenge - if I am correct - could only prove that one bloke who runs an audiophile magazine can't distinguish between their cables and others. Unless I've read incorrectly. I'm not sure it would stop any claims by Pear

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

A test really is very simple. Buy, from a shop, a few of their cables and a few of the type to be compared. Get a few random people off the street...

Well, as pointed out above, the challenge is for Fermer (Stereophile) and not actually Pear. Considering the Fermer's quote below from Randi's comentary, I expect that getting people from the street to take the test is probably not an option.

I took the test and got 5 out of 5 identifications correct. John Atkinson, my editor, who the annoying Randi also derides, got 4 of 5 correct. However, as the overall population of engineers produced a statistically insignificant result, I was told that I was a "lucky coin," and my result was thrown out! Just as you would expect from a good bunch of collectivist commies! Had I been challenged to do 100 push ups and done them but the average number of pushups produced by the group was 20, my 100 would have been thrown out.

Although I do agree that the test should be very simple. Even Pear's website says that even non-audiophiles using whatever equipment they have should be able to hear a difference with Pear cables. The reviews of the cables say they are danceable and make the music come alive.

So it seems simple. You should just be able to set up a simple test with the cables blinded and the claimant could blindly tell the difference between the cables as easily as someone could tell the difference between orange juice and orange kool-aid.

Something tells me it won’t work out that way. I expect it will be like the magic CD improvement thing. It gets to different types of orange juice, and whether or not it is fresh squeezed, and the temperature of the juice, and the type of orange, and whether the orange comes from Florida or California, and how the oranges were transported, and what type of glass the juice will be in, and the type of light used to view the juice, and so on and on and on.

Of course I would love to see a straight forward test of just a normal good quality sound system with nothing changed but the cables and see if the improvement claims of the cables really hold up. But I'm not holding my breath that Fermer or Pear or will agree to that.

 

[Reverend Chu]

pipelineaudio said...
All theapplicant would have to do is make some awful cables with tons of capacitance and the resultant hi end loss..

Well, there's no need to make them. They already exist and are manufactured by Alpha Goertz. The cables are essentially two ribbons separated by an insulating dielectric. Similar if you will to taking a capacitor and unwinding it. The capacitance, which is signficant, can cause or exascerbate amplifier instability which can result in audible consequences due to oscillation. See, for example, Kal Rubinson's review in Stereophile of a multi-channel Adcom amp.

technoextreme said...
Can someone please answer this question. Why is it that my textbook says to ignore the capacitance/inductance at these low frequencies. It says that a wire is nothing but a wire unless you have 56km of it. Also that would be a simple act of asking for the characteristic impedance of the cable. He might as well get two different cables that have the same characteristic impedance.

In most cases, with wire that's not like the example I mentioned above, it is irrelevent for nominal speaker wire lengths. Say 3 or 4 meters. The characteristic impedance is irrelevent for speaker wire. Speakers are designed to be driven by voltage sources.

Regarding the testing protocol, it remains to be seen what Mr. Fremer will select as the alternate cable. While it is unclear to me how PearCable actually obtained their data (it appears that maybe it was calculated) for their cable, I would hazard to say that zip cord of similar gauge would be more than sufficient.

I recommend that whatever principals at the JREF are involved with the testing protocol, contact Tom Nousaine. He has done a number of these comparisons, has published, is a noted debunker of audio foolery, and I believe still has an ABX box which would facilitate matters. Otherwise, one may be able to obtain one from QSC by contacting Bob Lee, who I think would be thrilled to provide a loaner. Further information, including contact info can be found at his website: nousaine dot com

BTW, there is no reason for Mr. Fremer to indicate which cable is better. He need to simply reliably identify the cable under the ABX protocol.
Some may find it interesting that a number of years ago, Tom was presenting at an AES (Audio Engineering Society) meeting and was publically challenged by Jack Summer, owner of Transparent Audio (they make PearCables look cheap), that he could easily tell identify his product. He invited anyone up to his place in Maine. Regretfully, when Tom and others appeared at Jack Summer's home some time later, Jack refused. This is like offering a person the shirt off your back and then one day the person asks you for your shirt.

Note, that Mr. Fremer is looking to include interconnects (those cables that go between an amp and preamp for example) also and is looking for a concession by Randi that those cables can result in audible differences. There is a cable, made by Cyberlight I believe, that was reviewed by Fremer in Stereophile. This particular cable takes an analog signal, converts it to light, then reconverts it back to an analog signal. Measurements done at Stereophile indicated that the vendor has effectively been able to introduce very significant amounts of audible distortion products.

Regarding Adam Blake, who has piqued my curiousity, it doesn't appear that he makes his cables. There is an address given on his website,

PearCables
134 Eliot Avenue
West Newton, MA 02465

However, a search at the town of Newton's Assessment Office, turns up that this property is a single family house with the owners stated as being Bruce N. & Patricia L. Nelson. A Zabasearch of Adam Blake indicates he has had several addresses in Massachusetts, with one of them being the one above. It appears that Adam Blake has a hard time living in one place for any length of time and I guess is bunking with the Nelson's now. Seeing as how two of his distributors are overseas, I suspect he's buying his wire from one of the many Chinese or Hong Kong outfits that cater to this sort of thing. Perhaps he's even buying it fully assembled (terminated, covered, PearCable shrink tubing already attached). If so, and he doesn't indicate the country of origin or disguising it by ripping off tags, he may be running afoul of various federal laws. Just like what happened with Tara Labs a few years back when they were raided by the Feds. I'm currently awaiting a response to an inquiry made upon my behalf. Hopefully Adam Blake is properly reporting the income from his little business venture and has informed the town of Newton. It would be devastating if a business was being conducted in a dwelling not zoned for such.

I commend the JREF for taking this matter on. While it doesn't rise to the level of claims for products and services that have the possibility of affecting human health and lives, it will garner signficant attention and get more people talking, thinking, and taking action.
Rather he may be obtaining them

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Erm, how would this affect Pear anyway?

The challenge - if I am correct - could only prove that one bloke who runs an audiophile magazine can't distinguish between their cables and others. Unless I've read incorrectly. I'm not sure it would stop any claims by Pear

I think you are correct. The challenge is from Fermer, who appears to not have any significant relation to Pear. He just sort of popped up from one of Randi'scomentaries from about a year ago and wanted to take the cable challenge. It does sem a bit odd that Fermer appeared from under his rock at this time. But I don't see any affilation with Pear--not even a review or endorsement of Pear products. So if Fermer fails the test, there is nothing stopping Pear from justly saying he is just a tone deaf nut job that can't appreciate their cables.

 

[Cuddles]

Well, as pointed out above, the challenge is for Fermer (Stereophile) and not actually Pear. Considering the Fermer's quote below from Randi's comentary, I expect that getting people from the street to take the test is probably not an option.

But that's the point. It isn't actually him that's being tested, it's the cables. His quote just underlines the whole problem here. Maybe a few people can tell the difference, or maybe they just got lucky, but if you look at a sample of people there is no difference. Since the claim is that anyone can tell the difference, that is what the JREF should test.

Something tells me it won’t work out that way. I expect it will be like the magic CD improvement thing. It gets to different types of orange juice, and whether or not it is fresh squeezed, and the temperature of the juice, and the type of orange, and whether the orange comes from Florida or California, and how the oranges were transported, and what type of glass the juice will be in, and the type of light used to view the juice, and so on and on and on.

Of course I would love to see a straight forward test of just a normal good quality sound system with nothing changed but the cables and see if the improvement claims of the cables really hold up. But I'm not holding my breath that Fermer or Pear or will agree to that.

Unfortunately I agree with this. I think it is very unlikely that a sensible test will ever happen. The trouble is, this isn't as obviously silly as the magic CD chip. While their claims are obviously exaggerated, it is possible that there could be some kind of perceptible difference, even if only on certain systems to certain people. My worry is that Randi could end up with a test that does not have anything paranormal or pseudoscientific about it, but be unable to back down because of being so forceful about it from the start.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Seeing as how two of his distributors are overseas, I suspect he's buying his wire from one of the many Chinese or Hong Kong outfits that cater to this sort of thing. Perhaps he's even buying it fully assembled (terminated, covered, PearCable shrink tubing already attached).

That is interesting. While looking for information on this issue I came across several articles from the early 1980s where people were buying standard-type wire (the kind that usually sells for less than $1 a foot) from east Asia and reselling it in America as exocitc high-end wire for hunderds or thousands of dollars (sorry, I didn;t save the links). I'm not implying that this is what Pear is doing, but it does raise an eyebrow.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

But that's the point. It isn't actually him that's being tested, it's the cables.

But the point is that it really is just Fermer being tested. It is really a hearing test. Pear claims anyone can hear the difference. If Fermer fails, Pear only has to admit that one person could not hear the difference at one time under specific circumstances. And catually they would only have to admit that one person could not hear the difference at paranomal level.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

My worry is that Randi could end up with a test that does not have anything paranormal or pseudoscientific about it, but be unable to back down because of being so forceful about it from the start.

Like many other people, I too think Randi is stretching the scope of paranormal. This seems more like false advertising, like claiming that your 3X5 photos will look richer and more realistic if you use a camera with 12 megapixels instead of 6 megapixels, or that your writing will be more lively and creative using Microsoft Word on a $15,000 computer instead of a $4000 computer, or your cheeks will be smoother using a 4 blade razor instead of a 3 blade razor. I guess it is a little different. Hopefully Randi can pull this off and turn it into something positive.

 

[Reverend Chu]

To buy wire where there's a twist or weaving requires the use of a machine where you can program in what you want to do. Most places domestically require a commitment to a rather large amount of wire in the thousands or tens of thousands of feet in order to do this. A precious few don't, but they are a precious few and charge proportionately more for short runs. After all there's a signficant amount of time involved in set-up, tear-down, clean up, etc. Now Transparent, is fairly well established and sells a fair amount of wire. They used to and may still get their wire from New England Wire and Cable. I don't know about PearCable, but it's very important for the new cable monger on the block to make sure his cable doesn't look like anyone elses. A good way to do that is to source from overseas. So, you pick your wires, pick your colors, pick your terminations, pick your wire sleeving, add a nicely printed label, and you're in business. After all, if they're selling essentially the same wire to Australia, Germany, Malasia, and the US, the liklihood that anyone will figure it out is pretty remote. Most people, especially when wire is retailing for hundred's per foot, aren't likely to start cutting this stuff open.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd be surprised if Fremer requires extraordinary conditions. After all, this is a man who allegedly identified amplifiers at an AES meeting I think under very non-ideal conditions.

 

[Gravy]

Erm, how would this affect Pear anyway?

The challenge - if I am correct - could only prove that one bloke who runs an audiophile magazine can't distinguish between their cables and others. Unless I've read incorrectly. I'm not sure it would stop any claims by Pear

You read the challenge correctly. I wish Pear was an applicant. But just as the mere possibility of a test has made the news amongst techno-geeks, a failure would make the news, might cause more people to question such claims, might spur more blind A/B testing, and would appear in the results whenever someone Googles "Pear cable" or "Pear Anjou." I don't think a failure would stop Pear's claims, but I think it would hurt their sales.

Of course, it's possible that they only sell a handful of their top of the line products, and that the absurd pricing exists to make their other products look like bargains.

 

[peteweaver]

As long as there is sufficient room for nyquist theorem (in simple terms it means having a signal to noise ratio capable of being twice that of human audible range) then it should not matter what make cable is in use, or how much a speaker cable costs.

 

[Gravy]

@ Reverend Chu: Pear's cables are machine-made at a cable manufacturer in the Boston area.

 

[fsol]

Any guitarist whos had to use in anstrument cable in a gig because someone forgot the speaker cables can tell you the happy ending on that one.

It's not normally that bad, although...the other guitarist in my band used instrument cable to go from his 100W Marshall to a powerbreak and then to his cab. It got very hot very quickly. There was smoke and that nice smell you get when your electronics are burning. I guess if you are in that situation it is a calculated risk, with your bravery somewhat determined by how many drinks you've had before you start.

I use custom made speaker cables for my amp. Carefully handmade by chopping the plugs off a cheap power cord I had lying around and soldering jacks on the ends.

 

[Reverend Chu]

@ Reverend Chu: Pear's cables are machine-made at a cable manufacturer in the Boston area.

I don't know of any places in the Boston area that draw their own wire, apply insulation, etc. Which one?

 

[Cuddles]

But the point is that it really is just Fermer being tested. It is really a hearing test. Pear claims anyone can hear the difference. If Fermer fails, Pear only has to admit that one person could not hear the difference at one time under specific circumstances. And catually they would only have to admit that one person could not hear the difference at paranomal level.

That's exactly my point. The challenge was directed at the cables and the claims made about them by Pear. That is what should be tested. If all they end up doing is testing Fermer's hearing, that is nothing to do with what the original challenge was about. It won't prove anything and it is entirely possible it will cost Randi a lot.

Like many other people, I too think Randi is stretching the scope of paranormal.

It's not paranormal, it's pseudoscience. Randi attacks both and is well within his rights to go after this. The problem is, he has to be careful to stay with the pseudoscience and not end up attacking entirely possible claims, which is what seems to be happening.

This seems more like false advertising, like claiming that your 3X5 photos will look richer and more realistic if you use a camera with 12 megapixels instead of 6 megapixels,

They will. I can see a big difference between my camera and a friend's big, expensive one.

or your cheeks will be smoother using a 4 blade razor instead of a 3 blade razor.

Again, they will. I think these are actually very good examples. They are things where it is entirely possible to make pseudoscientific claims about something, but at the same time there are also perfectly reasonable claims, and you need to be able to tell the difference between the two.

 

[circuit_bent]

I'd like to bump my question again here, as I think it could have some relevance but want to garner the opinion of more forumites than just Robinson on the matter.

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!

Good question, but the answer is that non-audible overtones do not colour the sound in any way at all. The only overtones which do make an appreciable difference to the sound exist up to a frequency of approximately 20,000 Hz. (ie the limit of human hearing) and are perceived as making the sound brighter. Overtones by themselves would be very difficult to sense at this level (not impossible, depends on the individual), for example if you listened to a piece of music that was run through a high pass filter and all you heard was the +20 khz. part of the signal. They're really only sensed in conjunction with the rest of the frequency range.

There's nothing a sensibly made cable can do to stop the full audible frequency range getting through.

So short answer, don't worry! Non-audible may as well read non-existent in this case.

 

[Minkster]

They will. I can see a big difference between my camera and a friend's big, expensive one.

Erm....don't want to de-rail the thread, but its not as simple as that. Your friends big, expensive camera probably has better a better lens, better CCD blah blah blah.....the megapixel amount is NOT a measure of quality - especially when used for things like regular prints. In fact, many people are binning their perfectly servicable 3Mp cameras in the quest for more and more megapixels when its completely unnecessary.

As you were...

 

[circuit_bent]

Well, as pointed out above, the challenge is for Fermer (Stereophile) and not actually Pear. Considering the Fermer's quote below from Randi's comentary, I expect that getting people from the street to take the test is probably not an option.

Fermer's quote - I took the test and got 5 out of 5 identifications correct. John Atkinson, my editor, who the annoying Randi also derides, got 4 of 5 correct. However, as the overall population of engineers produced a statistically insignificant result, I was told that I was a "lucky coin," and my result was thrown out! Just as you would expect from a good bunch of collectivist commies! Had I been challenged to do 100 push ups and done them but the average number of pushups produced by the group was 20, my 100 would have been thrown out.

end Fermer quote.


Although I do agree that the test should be very simple. Even Pear's website says that even non-audiophiles using whatever equipment they have should be able to hear a difference with Pear cables. The reviews of the cables say they are danceable and make the music come alive.



Of course I would love to see a straight forward test of just a normal good quality sound system with nothing changed but the cables and see if the improvement claims of the cables really hold up. But I'm not holding my breath that Fermer or Pear or will agree to that.

I think Fermer's faulty analogy is priceless. Can a pushup be performed by chance now?

And no, I agree that Fermer and Pear will definitely not agree to any test. They know it's a con, they're not stupid.
I definitely think JREF should be aggressive in going after these types of frauds though. People are being taken in because of a lack of skepticism and forking over hard-earned (maybe, maybe not..they're probably well-to-do music producers with money to burn!) money to charlatans via empty promises.
Going after this type of fraud is perfectly in line with JREF's mission.

 

[petre]

Since I am not well versed in speaker cables, I cannot speak to their reasoning, but I am sure that it is sound.

Thank you RemieV, I had no doubt that in the matter of audio electronics Randi would be sure to seek sound reasoning...