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

[robinson]

Are you that naive to what we are talking about here, no matter how the test is set up they will call fail we they fail, and that fail will come up as, "We got tired" "There was to much stress", well the list is a long one and I'm sure there are many I haven't heard of. They are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in SALES.

... no matter how the test is set up they will call fail we they fail, and that fail will come up as, "We got tired" "There was to much stress"...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Slow down, deep breathes, calm, calm, relax... take it easy, it isn't worth getting upset over.

 

[tot]

Interesting that also here, like any audio forum, something about cables sounding different leads to endless thread without any kind of real conclusion.

 

[Gr8wight]

Interesting that also here, like any audio forum, something about cables sounding different leads to endless thread without any kind of real conclusion.

A conclusion will come with a test.

No, wait...no it won't.

Damn it!

 

[Drudgewire]

Interesting that also here, like any audio forum, something about cables sounding different leads to endless thread without any kind of real conclusion.

Well not all of us have a million smackeroos to entice forum members with Mr. Smartypants.

 

[Paulhoff]

... no matter how the test is set up they will call fail we they fail, and that fail will come up as, "We got tired" "There was to much stress"...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Slow down, deep breathes, calm, calm, relax... take it easy, it isn't worth getting upset over.

Calm, I see no dead bodies around me.

Once again, they are not, not interested in the truth, they are only interested in SALES.

Paul



So what is so hard about understanding that.

 

[robinson]

Do you have some special powers? How do you know that? What rational person would make cables so damn expensive very very few people would ever buy them? Sales would be important if they were reasonable, just slightly expensive, like Monster Cables. How can anyone think that these monstrously expensive cables are about sales.

 

[circuit_bent]

Do you have some special powers? How do you know that? What rational person would make cables so damn expensive very very few people would ever buy them? Sales would be important if they were reasonable, just slightly expensive, like Monster Cables. How can anyone think that these monstrously expensive cables are about sales.

Are you being sarcastic or something? He clearly means 'sales revenue' as opposed to 'maximizing sales'. Yes, they will increase their sales by lowering the price, but they may as well capitalize on the small percentage of people who are so credulous that they will think that something that is more expensive will necessarily be of superior quality. He's talking about making sales to this particular segment of the market.
I'm beginning to think people on this board are just pedantic for the sake of it.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Interesting that also here, like any audio forum, something about cables sounding different leads to endless thread without any kind of real conclusion.

usually there's a conclusion: Given a cable of adequate gauge and material for the application, no amount of money spent will create a *more accurate* cable

there are all sorts of things to do to make a "better sounding" cable, also known as a "worse sounding cable" also known as a defective cable

 

[pipelineaudio]

Do you have some special powers? How do you know that? What rational person would make cables so damn expensive very very few people would ever buy them? Sales would be important if they were reasonable, just slightly expensive, like Monster Cables. How can anyone think that these monstrously expensive cables are about sales.

Because this is EXACTLY how audiophiles work.

They only need to sell one or two at a ridiculous price to make a return on their investment.

IF someone buys their ridiculously expensive stuff it opens the door to their "lower level" line. The door is beaten down to get the "almost as good " product

The "mark" (the sucker who bought the retardedly expensive product) will defend his purchase absolutely to the death, and will actively search mailing lists, tradeshows and internet forums to find new victims to defend his purchase to the death against. The fanaticism of someone who doesnt even want to admit for an instant that he bought super high priced snake oil is an amazing thing to behold

Paul knows what he's talking about here

 

[Dan O.]

I was thinking there might be a way to insure that there will be a test. All we need is an audiophile that claims to be able to hear the difference the high end cable makes. My thought was that we could just buy a set of the super-expensive cables and if they didn't perform well enough to win the million, take them back under the satisfaction guarantee.

The problem is that they have a $50 per cable restocking fee. That's a bit steep just to test what we already believe is hype.


So how about a plan-B: Instead of testing a good cable to the over-hyped over-priced cables, what about testing good cables against NO cable? What cable could possibly be better than having no cable at all. The ideal would be to have the amplifier connected directly to the speaker. But it would be difficult to get much stereo separation that way. So the second best would be to use an open wire rigid feed line. We can then test this "next to perfect" connection against any affordable cable.

 

[robinson]

So how about a plan-B: Instead of testing a good cable to the over-hyped over-priced cables, what about testing good cables against NO cable? What cable could possibly be better than having no cable at all. The ideal would be to have the amplifier connected directly to the speaker. But it would be difficult to get much stereo separation that way. So the second best would be to use an open wire rigid feed line. We can then test this "next to perfect" connection against any affordable cable.

Actually I have a set of speakers that the amp is built into them. (Two speakers, two amps) So separation is no problem. But then you have the problem of hooking up a speaker to the Pear Cables, so that won't help.

I did think about this issue, in regards to a test. It would be possible to take apart the speaker/amp assembly and hook speaker cables up, switch from no cable to the pear Cables, but the rewiring would be a bitch.

This is all just speculation really. If the challenge is that the Cables don't have a different ability to transmit the amps energy than any other cable, this is easy to test. All this other stuff is just showmanship or something.

So far I haven't seen any good reason not to do a scientific test of the matter. Why make it complicated?

 

[circuit_bent]

You mean your pure tones idea?

Is it so hard to grasp that the only worthwhile test for a subjective thing like the discerning of quality of music is to listen to music?

 

[robinson]

I used an example of single note music in order to get away from the pure tone problem, and also to have overtones and harmonics. So it would be music, but simple enough that anyone with good hearing could hear a difference between the signals, if such a difference is possible.

This isn't a complicated problem. Determining if a signal is different is possible. Determining if the difference is audible is possible. Determining if it is "better" is not.

If scientific analysis and measurements of the frequencies isn't good enough, then the switched source demonstration would make it OBVIOUS if a difference can be heard.

So far it seems to be about a person being able to tell, not about science. If there is no difference in the signal, then any other test is just a waste of time, and this is showmanship, bluster or something. If there IS a difference, then you test to see if it can be heard, by people with good hearing.

The claim is nobody can HEAR a difference between the cables, that the frequencies claimed to be better are not detectable by human hearing. If there is a difference, and it can be heard, by anyone, then different cables are different.

Trying to establish that one is better than the other is a matter of opinion. Establishing that the difference is possible to hear, is science.

I really don't understand why this is hard to grasp. Maybe it is a lifetime of audio work. I understand how audio works, I know how equipment works, I know hot to conduct a scientific experiment, to measure stuff, to show anyone what a different signal looks like. It is easy to do.

I explained a simple way to demonstrate being able to detect an audible difference. So that the results satisfy the MDC rules.

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.

Saying when the signals are being switched constitutes a positive result, not being able to say, or saying incorrectly, constitutes a failure.

2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted.

You play the recording, nobody at the time knows when it is a steady source, or when it is being switched. If you can't hear a difference, that is a negative result. If you can hear a difference, that is a positive result. At the end of the performance, you check with an electronic analysis of the recording to verify. But the beauty of a scientific test, as I described, is that the results are self evident. Anybody with good hearing can tell when it is a constant source, or when it is being switched back and forth. No need for any complicated protocols.

15. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRELIMINARY OR THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.

A no brainer. You either hear it, or you don't. No complicated switching of cables or sources or anything required. Zero wiggle room for either side. It also has the benefit of being a test that both sides can do without the other present. Anybody can do it. No questions about the results, either way.

What is wrong with that? Nobody can claim trickery or deception or reasons for failure or problems with equipment or setting or anything. By making it a matter of science, the same test can be done over and over, with no doubt as to the results.

How many other "paranormal" events or properties have that advantage?

I suspect one or both sides at this point are hoping to avoid such a simple yet scientific way to test the "claim". If I was going after a million dollars, I would have already done the test, before discussing protocol. Pear stands to benefit from doing the test, if it shows them in a good light, even if there is no challenge.

Randi stands to benefit if it shows no difference is audible, even if Pear rejects the challenge.

Somebody has to win.

 

[JoeEllison]

I think the problem is that the claim being made is not just about a difference in sound, but a difference in sound quality. Anyone can tell the difference between a scratchy bootleg and a carefully-recorded symphony, but can we OBJECTIVELY tell which is of a higher quality?

 

[robinson]

"Quality", "better", "tastier", "cooler", "most attractive", take your pick. All are subjective judgments. None are viable for testing. How can "better" be determined? Who decides?

And again, before attempting to test the ability to compare two sources, to decide which is "better", you have to know if there is even a perceptible difference in the sound. It would be like asking someone to pick which picture looks better, when there is no difference possible to detect.

Don't forget the experiment I quoted early on. Perception is easy to influence. It is easy to fool people, especially when it comes to hearing. You can play the exact same music and people will hear it differently, based on nothing but the thought it is different.

So using human perception to determine quality, or even a difference in some cases, is not scientific. The exact same signal can be heard differently. This is why listening test are NOT scientific ways to determine anything.

 

[robinson]

It also explains why some woo audio stuff actually makes music sound different, even when it is not.

 

[circuit_bent]

Ok, before I respond, just one question robinson.

How do you intend to seamlessly switch the different signals? Please describe the basic signal flow of your proposed setup.

 

[JoeEllison]

"Quality", "better", "tastier", "cooler", "most attractive", take your pick. All are subjective judgments. None are viable for testing. How can "better" be determined? Who decides?

And again, before attempting to test the ability to compare two sources, to decide which is "better", you have to know if there is even a perceptible difference in the sound. It would be like asking someone to pick which picture looks better, when there is no difference possible to detect.

Don't forget the experiment I quoted early on. Perception is easy to influence. It is easy to fool people, especially when it comes to hearing. You can play the exact same music and people will hear it differently, based on nothing but the thought it is different.

So using human perception to determine quality, or even a difference in some cases, is not scientific. The exact same signal can be heard differently. This is why listening test are NOT scientific ways to determine anything.

Again, the claim is really "better", not only "different". I doubt that there is a way to deal with this sort of woo. I have no doubt that you can create a cable that emphasizes certain frequencies over others... that doesn't make them worth $7500.

 

[circuit_bent]

"Quality", "better", "tastier", "cooler", "most attractive", take your pick. All are subjective judgments. None are viable for testing. How can "better" be determined? Who decides?

And again, before attempting to test the ability to compare two sources, to decide which is "better", you have to know if there is even a perceptible difference in the sound. It would be like asking someone to pick which picture looks better, when there is no difference possible to detect.

.

They certainly are viable for testing. Just because they are subjective doesn't mean tests can't be performed to gather sets of judgements, build a body of data, and draw conclusions. Who decides? The person being tested. Let's not forget that in this cable case, the people being tested claim they CAN hear a difference between the cables. All this talk of establishing a scientific basis for any alledged difference is useless. The claim revolves around their contention that they can hear a difference.

Therefore, whether or not they can hear a difference in a controlled setting is the only path to establish this.

If you want to scientifically look at the frequency response of different sets of cables of course you will get differences if you 'zoom in far enough'. That is guaranteed.

So that's established. There will even be differences in frequency reseponse on the same cable tested consecutive times due to random effects.

None of these experiments will help us, we already know the results.

We need to test their claims of being able to discern a difference. These claims are not in accordance with what we know about human perception and are therefore in the realm of the paranormal.

Have I missed something obvious here? Please let me know.

 

[JoeEllison]

Have I missed something obvious here? Please let me know.

Possibly. I'm wondering if a cable can't be designed to have huge treble or bass response, compared to other cables, and that these people could claim that it makes their cables better, when it really only makes them different but not in the way they claim?