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

krabapple said:
Your logic is flawed. As is Fremer's, often. What you heard at Fremer's when he played a recording, as at anyone's, was overwhelmingly the mastering of the recording , plus the sound that his loudspeakers and room imparted to the recording; plus, in Fremer's case, the sound that LP technology *adds* to a recording. The sonic 'contribution' of whatever cables he used was likely to be tiny if not nonexistant, and, Randi's belief notwithstanding, switching out amps would also likely have little or no sonic effect, as long as playback levels were kept below clipping.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I explicitly said that I know next to nothing about audio systems - just that Fremer's sounds pretty good to me when I hear it. His sounds subjectively "better" than my 5.1 computer speakers, regardless whether that difference is caused by the audio cable (not likely, apparently) or his six-figure tower speakers, or some emergent property of the whole setup.
 
We’re now looking at the list of others who have expressed interest in taking the challenge in regard to regular-vs-ridiculous speaker cables. The requests are in chronological order, and the next person up for discussion will be announced.
Click to expand...
Finally, some interest in knowledge, in actually exploring the range of human hearing perception.
 
Such an easy test to pass. The phase characteristics of the cable at frequencies over 1 MHZ can cause some amplifiers to exhibit unstable oscillations at those frequencies. The listener cannot of course hear those oscillations but a cleaver design or tuning of the amplifier could detect that oscillation and cause a noticeable phase shift or distortion in part of the audio band that a trained listener could detect.
 
Adam Blake and Pear are just looking ridiculous. There have been countless posts about how easily this challenge could be won. And ultimately it could even come down to a “lottery win” breaking chance by pure luck. Yet Blake and Pear refuse to submit to the challenge. They even refuse to lend cables to an audiophile that wants to take the challenge. Why?

If someone questioned the quality of any product I produced I would proudly stand up to any challenge without question and prove the quality of my product. Absolutely. I would prove my claims of the quality of my product without any doubt. If I produced cables that produced a difference that anyone could hear, I would stand behind that claim 100% and if anyone wanted to challenge a test of my claim I would grab it in a second to prove the quality of my product. It wouldn’t even matter that you throw in a $1 million prize or all the publicity I would get. I would just stand by my claim of the quality of my product.

So where did Pear go? Adam Blake won’t stand by his product? He won’t have it tested. He won’t even lend it to someone else to have it tested? He just backs out with no explanation? Sounds like a hustler selling fake Rolex watches from an overcoat on the street corner.
 
And do a search on "Pear cable" or "Pear cables" on Google. Tell me if James Randi (or maybe Randy--some people can't spell) doesn't come up on the first page.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Adam Blake and Pear are just looking ridiculous. There have been countless posts about how easily this challenge could be won. And ultimately it could even come down to a “lottery win” breaking chance by pure luck. Yet Blake and Pear refuse to submit to the challenge. They even refuse to lend cables to an audiophile that wants to take the challenge. Why?

If someone questioned the quality of any product I produced I would proudly stand up to any challenge without question and prove the quality of my product. Absolutely. I would prove my claims of the quality of my product without any doubt. If I produced cables that produced a difference that anyone could hear, I would stand behind that claim 100% and if anyone wanted to challenge a test of my claim I would grab it in a second to prove the quality of my product. It wouldn’t even matter that you throw in a $1 million prize or all the publicity I would get. I would just stand by my claim of the quality of my product.

So where did Pear go? Adam Blake won’t stand by his product? He won’t have it tested. He won’t even lend it to someone else to have it tested? He just backs out with no explanation? Sounds like a hustler selling fake Rolex watches from an overcoat on the street corner.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but but but but, uhh, Randi's a fraud! !:D
 
Paulhoff said:
Please, that still would be a very poorly designed amp.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Edited by chillzero: 
ETA: Quoted post moved.



Yes. As part of protocol vetting, JREF needs to specify that cables (or sneaky cable/amp combos) that are essentially *designed* not to be transparent, be omitted from consideration, by bench test if necessary. because there's nothing paranormal or even particularly 'golden eared' about hearing differences between things designed to be transparent, and things designed not to be. Nor does any 'objectivist' I've ever known think otherwise (e.g., even the supposed 'amps is amps' contingent, such as Peter Aczel or Tom Nousaine, regularly notes the conditions under which amps ain't just amps)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
krabapple said:
Yes. As part of protocol vetting, JREF needs to specify that cables (or sneaky cable/amp combos) that are essentially *designed* not to be transparent, be omitted from consideration, by bench test if necessary. because there's nothing paranormal or even particularly 'golden eared' about hearing differences between things designed to be transparent, and things designed not to be.
Click to expand...

But Pear never claimed that their cables were paranormal. How do you decide whether a cable is intentionally non-transparent? After all, no cable will be completely transparent.
 
yairhol said:
All hell has broken loose:
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=2

Regards,
Yair
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that mess is disappointing to read. IMO Randi jumped the gun in including Mr. Fremer in his criticism when Pear backed out. Fremer appears to sincerely want to take the challenge that Randi said is now "closed". The whole thing certainly makes Pear look bad for backing out, but it's also making Randi look bad for how things are being handled with Fremer.

As for people backing out, I can certainly see why Pear would avoid the challenge, but Fremer would do it. Pear is the one with a lot to lose. If their cables are shown to be equivalent to much cheaper cables when listened to by someone as well known in audiophile land as Michael Fremer, it will kill their sales. But if Fremer fails the challenge, he can still argue that the differences in other high end cables are apparent, but Pear just isn't very good. He has little or nothing to lose and has a million dollars to gain.

Finally... to be honest I'm having a hard time caring about debunking high end audio cables. If someone spends eight grand on cables that are no better than $100 cables, yeah, they got ripped off, but if they're spending eight grand on cables, they're probably not losing the house or their health over it. I'm much more interested in seeing frauds such as bogus health practitioners debunked. People get hurt or killed by such things. But... Randi has chosen to include certain audiophile products in the challenge and its his challenge, so have at it.
 
patrick767 said:
Yeah, and that mess is disappointing to read. IMO Randi jumped the gun in including Mr. Fremer in his criticism when Pear backed out. Fremer appears to sincerely want to take the challenge that Randi said is now "closed". The whole thing certainly makes Pear look bad for backing out, but it's also making Randi look bad for how things are being handled with Fremer.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this all correctly, the problem is that Randi will currently not allow Mr. Fremer to bring is own PEAR cables to the test (for fear of tampering, I guess), and since PEAR will not provide a new set, someone (ie Not JREF) would have to raise $7,200 to buy a new set from them. Right now, it seems that Randi is in contact with some audio experts to work the whole thing out, but until then, it's closed.

Another point is that if Mr. Fremer doesn't have the backing of PEAR audio, they can claim that he wasn't a suitable candidate if he fails the test.
 
danielk said:
But Pear never claimed that their cables were paranormal. How do you decide whether a cable is intentionally non-transparent?
Click to expand...

It's not like signal transmission properties haven't been studied, you know. There's even a few fairly famous papers on cable/amp/speaker interactions that describes conditions under which cables become 'audible'.

Greiner, R.A.,"Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 80
Davis, Fred E., "Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91
Meyer, E. Brad.; "The Amp/Speaker Interface", Stereo Review, vol. 56, pp. 53-56 (1991, June)

The Pear cables have been measured over on AVSforum by a competent engineer. His results are at odds with Pear's own graphs (which are a bit cryptic) and indicate that the Pears are unlikely to sound different from a similar run of 14g Monster/generic.
Could that be why Pear bowed out, and why Fremer (who routinely claims to hear differences in cables, in his reviews, after all), insists on using his own?

After all, no cable will be completely transparent.
Click to expand...

Says who?

Remember, transparent only means, no audible change. Do you believe that every 'cable' -and there are quite a few inside the gear, as well as the big ones connecting the gear -- *audibly* degrades the sound?
 
Last edited:
This thread prompted me to do a bit of poking around the 'net - I found this webzine called "The Audio Critic" run by Peter Aczel. Some of the back issues are available to all (as pdfs).

Highlights include "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" in Issue 26 and "The Good Guys in the White Hats and the Bad Guys in the Black Hats" in Issue 24 where he says this about Michael Fremer
Possibly the most unattractive individual in the American audio community. In his writings and in his personal contacts he is vulgar, abusive, bigoted and intellectually dishonest. A real charmer....
Click to expand...
.. there's more on Fremer and various other cult luminaries, many connected to Stereophile magazine.
 
Gr8wight said:
I corresponded with Michael Anda quite a bit during that time. He was familiar with double blind listening test results. His response: the standard audiophile woo-woo mantra, "double blind listening tests are not effective when testing such a subjective thing as audio." They have honestly convinced themselves that because the perceived effect disappears when test controls are imposed, there must be something wrong with the tests.
Click to expand...

Not very sporting making unsubstantiated claims about someone on a forum that person is prohibited from posting on.

I've known Michael for some years and don't recall his ever saying such a thing. Would you care to substantiate your claim here? If not, please withdraw it.

se
 
You're asking a skeptic to provide evidence?

You want to see our evidences? You want to see our evidences?
Skeptics don't need no steenkin evidences.
 
robinson said:
You're asking a skeptic to provide evidence?

You want to see our evidences? You want to see our evidences?
Skeptics don't need no steenkin evidences.
Click to expand...
Once again you get it backwards.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
robinson said:
You're asking a skeptic to provide evidence?

You want to see our evidences? You want to see our evidences?
Skeptics don't need no steenkin evidences.
Click to expand...

Close. :)

Evidence? We ain't got no evidence. We don't need no evidence. I don't have to show you any stinking evidence!

How's that?

se
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom