[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oicdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think you can yell fraud on a subjective item. That's like saying "my hamburger tastes better". Sure, companies say that in commercials, but if you ever look at the little asterisk, it usually says in some taste test, x amount of people preferred it over the other brand. It's not necessarily TRUTH, but it's subjective...it's not "fraud". Granted I haven't read the whole thread...he's stupid if he didn't make some sort of "listening test" before making that statement...

The thing is, whether a cable is better or not is objective, and can be determined through DBT. I'm not saying cables can't exhibit different sound, and I personally doubt they do to the extent that people say they do, but for the most part, cable makers usually say their cables are better. That's what this challenge is all about, whether the $8k or $43k cables are better than Monster cables.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you perform a given test, yes, the result are the results, BUT...It makes a big difference in relation to those that insist it CAN NOT be done, that people are incapable of learning to hear such differences and that therefore any test result seeming to demonstrate that a difference has been heard can not be due to a difference in the cables and that therefore there is some flaw in the test whether evident or not.

Can you point to any DBTs of speaker cables that showed that anyone could tell the difference between different cables ?

Quote:

And it makes a difference if the test conditions interfere with or minimize the factors that make it possible for a trained listener to make such delicate differentiations.

These sound like the standard excuses rolled out whenever someone who is totally convinced they can tell the difference fails to do so, such as Ivor Tiefenbrun or when they wimp out of these challenges such as Jack Sumner (Transparent Audio) or (now) Adam Blake (Pear).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif You make it sound as if there is any agreement about what "an audible difference between speaker cables" means in practice (operationally) as opposed to in the abstract. How could it be more evident that we don't.

Er, you listen to the same system with different speaker cables and you tell the investigator which set you think you are listening too, where is the problem?. You can level match if you want , you can devise all sorts of ways of randomising the order but it isnt difficult. Tom Nousaine has done a load of these tests back in the 90s - pretty straightforward really.

The JAES has published papers on the electrical differences between speaker cables - in one paper

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/...teractions.pdf

cables with different gauges are tested - the measurable differences in FR are slight even when comparing 3ga to 18ga the biggest difference is 0.3db and that at 20K. Between "decent" cables the biggest difference found between cables was ~ 0.1db at 20K. At lower frequencies the differences are even smaller.

I am not saying that it is impossible for someone to be able to detect such differences , and I would really like to see someone try and do it. If Pear really believed their cables were empirically superior it is puzzling why they chickened out.

 

[DSlayerZX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spraggih /img/forum/go_quote.gif thread lock coming

I fully agree with that, like the many other cable thread that involved the same type of argument and same... well.. "person"

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sovkiller, these cables aren't a faith, they are fraud. For the most part, the maker claims they sound better. If they don't, I'm pretty sure that is fraud under US law. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Well first of all, nobody had proved yet that they don't, nor that they do, that is the first thing to prove IMO. let's wait at least for that result, to make our conclusions....OTOH if someone believes it sound better than others, and that there are differences, even with no way of proving it, due to maybe some perceived differences, or maybe not perceived, and just for placebo, it is IMO faith. to believe in what you can not scientifically prove is IMO a sort kind of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif No that's not fraud, which requires intent to profit from knowing deceit. If they believe as many do that some cables can be better than others and that theirs are among them then there's no knowing falsehood....

Well first, don't be so sure of that, of course that they will never accept publicly that they are deceiving, there are a lot of unscrupulous manufacturers out there (not saying that they are one of them, but I do not know them to assure the opposite neither). But who will know for sure if they are at least really convinced of that claims, or if they know they will, or not, make any difference, or if it is just a marketing bluff as they know that there is no way of proving it...till now...so...

 

[earwicker7]

Look, I'm as disappointed as anyone that Pear backed out, but let's be honest, was there any good reason from a strict business point of view for them to do this?

I'm not trying to make excuses, but I've personally seen business decisions that looked horrible from a PR stance (which this does) but made total sense when it came down to dollars and cents.

Look at it this way; here's what Pear was probably thinking...

A--We win. Now many of the people who've never had any chance of affording our products (let's be honest, where you fall on the cable debate has a huge correlation with your budget) are on our side. This translates to zero sales, as they still can't afford our product. A large amount of the anti-cable people wouldn't change their mind if god himself told them designer cables are gold, so they will find a way to decimate the methodology, more than likely by abandoning "The Amazing Randi". So the test has no effect on them.

B--We lose. This shouldn't require much explanation.

Again, I wanted to see this happen, and I think it's a PR misfire (if Pear wasn't ready, they should have never offered in the first place), but from a business standpoint I understand why they dropped out.

Let's hope Fremer stays in. He has a reputation to lose, but I don't think Stereophile will fold if he screws up, so IMO there's not as much at stake with him.

 

[Sovkiller]

Well in the first instance, Randi never asked them to lend the cables for free, I do not recall have read that in any place...the methodology will include to use thier cables, of course, but there was never a mention on how to get them...they could be purchased as well...

 

[Jon118]

Still, it could be a big hindrance to have to get one's own cables. This might kill the challenge, or may not. Of course, I still think it is an un-winnable challenge not because no one can actually tell a difference (certainly there is a difference between pure silver with nice terminations and cheap copper with poorly done nickel termination) but I don't believe Randi will let someone actually win.

 

[badmonkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As mentioned above, you're pushing into libel territory here .

Well in the US the plaintiff is obliged to prove that the alleged defamation was untruthful (amongst others), rather than the defendant having to demonstrate the truthfulness of their claims which is the norm in other countries.

So, that should be interesting.

Hey Pears, you're all FRAUDS!

C'mon, SUE ME!

 

[badmonkey]

Riboge, like a few others, is an idiot. Apart from his quack legal advice, his arguments look more and more like a devout Christian trying all the usual tricks against the unbelievers. Smearing the atheist, even the agnostic, as "faithful" in their own right, and challenging the skeptics to support their "unfounded assertations". Oh dear.

As to the butting in on those "reasonable discussions", I think you'll find the majority of reasonable persons are appalled by the nonsense they see being covered in such genuinely serious discourse - and the preaching of it to the innocent newbies. Response? Your bunk gets challenged on this public forum as the thoughtful attempt to counter it.

 

[003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Saying "they are a fraud" without any proof or even clear evidence of this in a deliberate attempt to harm their business, which is clearly your intent, is a crime.

What if the judge dosen't believe in cables?

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by badmonkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif As to the butting in on those "reasonable discussions", I think you'll find the majority of reasonable persons are appalled by the nonsense they see being covered in such genuinely serious discourse - and the preaching of it to the innocent newbies. Response? Your bunk gets challenged on this public forum as the thoughtful attempt to counter it.

Exactly - one would think the good samaritan thing to do is to ward off large purchases of snake oil. If you don't believe that cables are snake oil, we do.

Let "alternative theories of cabling" be heard

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...Saying "they are a fraud" without any proof or even clear evidence of this in a deliberate attempt to harm their business, which is clearly your intent, is a crime....

IMO to make "a claim like that" with no evidence, or any clear proof and charge the customers that amount of money is IMO a deliverate attembpt of ruining our home finances, which maybe is not their intent, but is also in my book another crime, they are not being considerate with the wallet of others at all.....

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by badmonkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Riboge, like a few others, is an idiot. Apart from his quack legal advice, his arguments look more and more like a devout Christian trying all the usual tricks against the unbelievers. Smearing the atheist, even the agnostic, as "faithful" in their own right, and challenging the skeptics to support their "unfounded assertations". Oh dear. As to the butting in on those "reasonable discussions", I think you'll find the majority of reasonable persons are appalled by the nonsense they see being covered in such genuinely serious discourse - and the preaching of it to the innocent newbies. Response? Your bunk gets challenged on this public forum as the thoughtful attempt to counter it.

Wonderful job of elevating the level of discourse!

If you get around to reading what I've actually written you will see I described both sides as believers and agreed with Sovkiller's and others' description of the stalemate between two extreme positions.

Perhaps you would care to actually say something on an adult level about ideas and arguments I have presented. Namecalling, especially unaccompanied by any facts or reasons or ideas, is just pitiful.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you point to any DBTs of speaker cables that showed that anyone could tell the difference between different cables ?

I was not confining myself to a particular kind of cables, and I have indicated already that I said DBT-type tests, meaning reasonable approximations like single blind. If someone had reported a rigorous DBT test acceptable to all we wouldn't be having a discussion like this.



Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif These sound like the standard excuses rolled out whenever someone who is totally convinced they can tell the difference fails to do so, such as Ivor Tiefenbrun or when they wimp out of these challenges such as Jack Sumner (Transparent Audio) or (now) Adam Blake (Pear). Er, you listen to the same system with different speaker cables and you tell the investigator which set you think you are listening too, where is the problem?. You can level match if you want , you can devise all sorts of ways of randomising the order but it isnt difficult. Tom Nousaine has done a load of these tests back in the 90s - pretty straightforward really.

You are someone whose comments I have valued, skeptic or not, but here you don't bother to show any thought about what I've written. These things are excuses only if you don't acknowledge that hearing in the full sense is a perceptual activity influenced by many other brain functions concurrently and by learning(history and nature of listening, instruction, etc). You just can't factor out such things as which equipment, where, under what conditions, what stakes, etc? This seems readily apparent to skeptics when explaining away reports of heard differences as the effect of all these other things, which include motivation, suggestion, imagination, etc. But there is some kind of weird inability to accept that the same things, e.g., learning, can improve perceptiveness about what comes into the ear canal just as they can distort it or decrease it.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is a shame, anyone got $7250 to lend Mr Fremer to buy the cables himself ? - I can pitch in $5 - we could start a fund. Does anyone here have a pair they could lend him ?

I emailed Pear Cables and received a reply from the president of the company. I doubt if he would agree to the test under any conditions. I think he's scared.

Fremer is apparently willing to go on with the test. But no one is willing to plunk down the cash for the Pear Cables. I think that pretty much sums up the value of those particular wires.

See ya
Steve