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

So, can you explain why two cables couldn't have completely different frequency "signatures", where one would be more treble heavy, and another emphasize bass or mids more strongly?
 
JoeEllison said:
So, can you explain why two cables couldn't have completely different frequency "signatures", where one would be more treble heavy, and another emphasize bass or mids more strongly?
Click to expand...

Well, I'll come back to that. I don't have the technical knowledge to make an airtight case, although I tried to explain it in previous posts.

It is a very good question. I'll go and do some more reading about it. It deserves a careful treatment.

Oh and btw. I think in our quick little A/B experiment we thought up, turning around in the chair is probably a bad idea. Maybe a blind-fold is better. There might be some subtle differences to hearing if the person is facing the source or turning away. It shouldn't really happen, but it eliminates an 'out' that I might try to exploit.
 
circuit_bent said:
Well, I'll come back to that. I don't have the technical knowledge to make an airtight case, although I tried to explain it in previous posts.

It is a very good question. I'll go and do some more reading about it. It deserves a careful treatment.

Oh and btw. I think in our quick little A/B experiment we thought up, turning around in the chair is probably a bad idea. Maybe a blind-fold is better. There might be some subtle differences to hearing if the person is facing the source or turning away. It shouldn't really happen, but it eliminates an 'out' that I might try to exploit.
Click to expand...

You'd almost want to bolt down the chair, and immobilize the head, to eliminate any wiggle room(no pun intended).
 
Dan O. said:
The cables did have effects on the frequency response of the system but wether these effects could be heard is questionable.
Click to expand...
Clearly, if those effects fell within the range of human hearing, they would be detected.
 
Because of the unusual interest in this particular challenge I believe JoeEllison and circuit_bent should take their argument to a different place on the forum. I mean no disrespect but this challenge has been reported on other websites and this is the thread many people might judge the website on. Make a concise argument about your beliefs here and then argue with others on the "Latest Commentary Issues" forum.
 
Senex said:
Because of the unusual interest in this particular challenge I believe JoeEllison and circuit_bent should take their argument to a different place on the forum. I mean no disrespect but this challenge has been reported on other websites and this is the thread many people might judge the website on. Make a concise argument about your beliefs here and then argue with others on the "Latest Commentary Issues" forum.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we're not having an argument.:D
 
circuit_bent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. I was beginning to think I'd become invisible!

My understanding of this issue is somewhat hazy, at best.
So, from what you've said, overtones do not exist below the frequency of any individual tone, only above them, right? So, for example, if there is a tone way up high at over 20KHz it will not produce any other resonances at frequencies within human hearing range?

In which case, the only real difference possibly noticable due to overtones would come from the bass end of the recording, which is less likely to improve the listeners experience of the music (I'm assuming most average listeners will like an increase in brightness instead of a stronger bass response).


I expect that much of this speculation is redundant anyway, seeing as how digital media these days don't reproduce any frequencies below 20 Hz or above 20 KHz , thus staying within the human hearing range.

Of course, I'm assuming here that the protocol being drawn up specifies CD as the source, not 1/4" tape or something stupid like that!
 
brettDbass said:
I expect that much of this speculation is redundant anyway, seeing as how digital media these days don't reproduce any frequencies below 20 Hz or above 20 KHz , thus staying within the human hearing range.
Click to expand...
In truth, CD can go well below 20Hz, that is no problem for digital at all.
Paul

:) :) :)
 
circuit_bent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Internet.
 
robinson said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Robinson is on the money here. The power of suggestion is huge. I used to sell audio gear. Rule number one was, "tell the customer what they will hear, and they will hear it."

Here's a test I'd like to see. During the open phase of this test, when the listener "knows" which cables are which, tell him the reverse of what is true. When the Monster cables are hooked up, tell him it is the Pears. When the Pears are hooked up, tell him it is the Monsters. I'd truly love to see the results of that listening test.
 
robinson said:
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.
Click to expand...
OH PLEASE, these guys always go on about it being all so obvious when they listen to difference wire, but that is always when they know which wire is being used. Why don’t you check out all the other BS and Snake-oil that the magazine sells and promotes and get back to us.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Gr8wight said:
Robinson is on the money here. The power of suggestion is huge. I used to sell audio gear. Rule number one was, "tell the customer what they will hear, and they will hear it."
Click to expand...

Indeed. It isn't just audio, a good salesman can sell a ditch digger dirt. Human perception, especially when it comes to "quality" is a fluid and personal thing. Frequencies and "color" and "warmth" and "flavor" are subtle but real things in audio. But so is belief about what you are getting.

Gr8wight said:
Here's a test I'd like to see. During the open phase of this test, when the listener "knows" which cables are which, tell him the reverse of what is true. When the Monster cables are hooked up, tell him it is the Pears. When the Pears are hooked up, tell him it is the Monsters. I'd truly love to see the results of that listening test.
Click to expand...

Or try it like the experiment with the A/B switch. Use the exact same source and see if people hear a difference when there isn't any. Experimenters can be fooled, so can the test subject. One thing I learned from Randi, when setting up a test or debunking somebody, make sure the results are obvious. The more variables and factors involved, the more excuses for failure.

Interesting link to the Pear Cables used by the Military. They are stressing the clarity of the signal. Bad cables, especially unshielded cables, are a huge problem with audio. You really do want a cable that under all circumstances and frequencies, doesn't do anything but transmit the signal. No colorization, no frequency changes, no noise and no drop in strength.
 
robinson said:
<< SNIP >>

Interesting link to the Pear Cables used by the Military. They are stressing the clarity of the signal. Bad cables, especially unshielded cables, are a huge problem with audio. You really do want a cable that under all circumstances and frequencies, doesn't do anything but transmit the signal. No colorization, no frequency changes, no noise and no drop in strength.
Click to expand...

Check the date of the press release. (It's April 1st). :D
 
robinson said:
Interesting link to the Pear Cables used by the Military. They are stressing the clarity of the signal. Bad cables, especially unshielded cables, are a huge problem with audio.
Click to expand...
If there are no shielded cables where they are needed, that is just poor quality of equipment and has nothing to do with Pear cables.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I have tried asking a few questions but received no answers. So I'll try again.

Give that audiophiles (and electronics engineers) talk about matching components, how is it even possible to test for just the effect of audio cables in a system? The amplifier is non-linear in its output, the speaker is non-linear in its response. Connect them with a cable that somehow compensates for these non-linearities and the ear says, "Wow, what danceable music". This cable costs $50. Connect them with a $7,000 cable that is linear (flat) and does not compensate and the ear says, "I had better buy even more expensive cables. My toes are not even tapping".

Yes? No? :confused:
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I have tried asking a few questions but received no answers. So I'll try again.

Give that audiophiles (and electronics engineers) talk about matching components, how is it even possible to test for just the effect of audio cables in a system? The amplifier is non-linear in its output, the speaker is non-linear in its response. Connect them with a cable that somehow compensates for these non-linearities and the ear says, "Wow, what danceable music". This cable costs $50. Connect them with a $7,000 cable that is linear (flat) and does not compensate and the ear says, "I had better buy even more expensive cables. My toes are not even tapping".

Yes? No? :confused:
Click to expand...
NO, if there is a difference between 10 gage wire that I paid 20 cents a foot for, and this Pear BS wire for speakers, then they added capacitance or inductance or both to their wire.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom