[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif By attempted I meant Fremer was going to make a go of it. And yep! that is indeed the one I am referring to. I didn't read all the specifics so I didn't want to come out too strong stating that Randi had weaseled out. I had heard something of the sort but just knew he had backed out. What were the specifics?

Well, it all started when Randi wrote a piece about some Pear Audio cables.

Fremer applied for the $1 million challenge. But because some felt that it didn't have anything to do with the paranormal, a special challenge was created that Randi would handle himself.

Pear contacted Fremer and offered to provide some of their cables for the challenge.

The challenge as set forth initially by Randi was for Fremer to be able to identify either the Pear Audio cables or some Transparent Opus cables with some inexpensive Monster cables.

In an EMail exchange between Fremer and Randi, Fremer suggested using his own Tara Labs cables as he was already intimately familiar with them and hadn't listened to either the Pear or Transparent cables.

Randi said he would be ok with this, and indeed expressed that he would prefer that route for the reason given by Fremer. However he would first have to consult with his advisers before formally agreeing to using Fremer's Tara Labs cables.

That's where things stood when Pear Audio withdrew their offer to provide their cables to Fremer for the test.

Immediately after Pear withdrawing their offer, and in spite of the fact that there were still two cables on the table, Randi wrote a piece gloating over Pear's withdrawal, and basically calling Fremer a coward, and how he had conveniently got himself out a tight spot. He then declared the challenge closed.

To reiterate, even though there were still two other cables under consideration, including Fremer's own Tara Labs cables that Randi said he would in fact prefer he use, Randi disingenuously used Pear's withdrawal to close the challenge and try and smear both Pear and Fremer.

The man's a weasel. Simple as that.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pear , who were going to provide the cable backed out as well, in fact they did this first and put Fremer in an impossible position where he would have to pony up several $K for the cables himself.

Except that the Pear cables were not the only cables up for consideration, so Pear's backing out didn't put Fremer into an impossible position.

What put Fremer in an impossible position was Randi's disingenuously pulling the rug out from under him by declaring the challenge closed even though there were still two other cables on the table.

There's simply no defending Randi's actions in this incident. The man is dishonest.

se

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's interesting that every time a general or theoretical question about DBT's is asked, many (or most) of the arguments involve cables. It seems like cables are a favorite whipping boy. I wonder if some people would make the same arguments if we were talking about amps or DAC's.

I make the same claim in regards to cables, DACs, and SS amps (assuming they're bit properly and within spitting distance in measurements). Of course it's harder to mess-up a cable than it is a DAC or amp. Even owning a Cary Audio Xciter I have no problem admitting that it's probably overkill with some cheaper offerings being on par or possibly better (though both would be in law of diminishing returns anyway).

 

[Willie2]

I guess I am just dumb! It seems to me that if someone tells me there is a difference between two cables, or two amps or two dacs then he should be able to distinguish that difference in the blind. If he can't tell the difference without "looking" then there is no difference! It just seems so logical. But then again I am just dumb!

 

[BIG POPPA]

To me this a hobby. I spend my recreational time enjoying this hobby. Some people take DBT to serious to enjoy as a hobby IMO. Some people can tell the difference in their rig what cables can do and some do not. It is OK what ever camp you are in. Just the finger pointing gets a little over the top on who is right and who is in the other camp IMO.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess I am just dumb! It seems to me that if someone tells me there is a difference between two cables, or two amps or two dacs then he should be able to distinguish that difference in the blind. If he can't tell the difference without "looking" then there is no difference!

Sort of depends on how you look at it.

Even if there is no objective difference, any subjectively perceived difference is ultimately no less real from the perspective of the listener than if there were.

It's all well and good to try and prove objective differences. But what does it really mean from the perspective of the listener?

Let's say that it can be shown that there is no objective (i.e. actually audible) difference between two particular cables or whatever. Yet, subjectively the listener perceives a difference and finds that they prefer one over the other, and the one they prefer costs more than the other one.

What to do? Buy the less expensive one knowing that the more expensive one doesn't produce any actual audible difference? Or go with the one that for whatever reason sounds better?

se

 

[wavoman]

I do not fully agree with Koyaan's take on James Randi. Randi did not really fink out, and he is not dishonest -- that is way too strong a word.

The facts here have not been summarized totally correctly. Yes it is true that at first Randi told Fremer that Fremer could use his own cables (Tara), instead of the Pear's, but Randi clearly added that he needed to check this with his engineering advisors before this was final.

His engineering advisors nixed the plan, not Randi directly, because they pointed out that Fremer could "cook" his cables to introduce artifacts that could make them identifiable in blind tests. The engineers strongly advised Randi to insist on new, store-bought package-sealed cables.

And Randi added: "look -- I started by challenging Pear. Let's get through that, then talk about other protocols". He was specifically challenging some very over-the-top claims by Pear.

The Pear cables cost $7250. Pear backed out and would not cover the cost. Stereophole could have, Fremer could have ... but nobody would. Why not spend $7K to win $1 Mil???

So Randi said "this is closed".

A high-end stereo store that stocked Pear cables could have given them to Fremer, then taken them back and sold them for half price, losing only a little on the turn.

But no one stepped up.

Randi had no real interest in the general cable debate anyway -- he is interested in debunking paranormal claims. The high cost of the Pear cables caught his eye, and he thought he could use his general $1 Million challenge to make a point. I am sure the storm that followed and the rabid nature of cable believers was more trouble that it was worth -- none of this advances the important work his foundation does.

He challenged Pear. They backed out. Fremer accepted, but did not have and wouldn't buy the cables. Game over. Randi did not take on the entire cable industry or even state an opinion re cables making a difference -- he just said compare Pear to Monster (which I am sure he thought was a decent cable).

Now it is true that before the discussion moved to Fremer's own cable, Randi and Fremer discussed a non-Pear alternative -- Transparent brand, even more expensive than Pear. And Randi said they would be OK instead of Pear, but he then assumed Fremer would not buy those either. After Randi closed the challenge, Fremer said he would have been able to maybe borrow those cables. By then Randi's supporters were telling him to move on, back to paranormal, so that's when he issued his "We started with Pear, that's the challenge" statement. Randi could have re-opened the challenge at that point, telling Fremer to produce new Transparent cables, but he didn't. This was not the best move by Randi, but it is far short of dishonesty.

More at

Latest News: RANDI WITHDRAWS FROM CABLE CHALLENGE - JREF Forum

where you can read both sides of the argument in full.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do not fully agree with Koyaan's take on James Randi. Randi did not really fink out, and he is not dishonest...

Yes, he did. And yes, he is.

Quote:

The facts here have not been summarized totally correctly.

I disagree.

Quote:

Yes it is true that at first Randi told Fremer that Fremer could use his own cables (Tara), instead of the Pear's, but Randi clearly added that he needed to check this with his engineering advisors before this was final.

That's correct.

Quote:

His engineering advisors nixed the plan, not Randi directly, because they pointed out that Fremer could "cook" his cables to introduce artifacts that could make them identifiable in blind tests. The engineers strongly advised Randi to insist on new, store-bought package-sealed cables.

You're leaving out the rather critical fact that Randi closed the challenge BEFORE he'd consulted with his advisers. Both the Transparents AND Fremer's Tara Labs were still on the table.

Quote:

And Randi added: "look -- I started by challenging Pear. Let's get through that, then talk about other protocols". He was specifically challenging some very over-the-top claims by Pear.

But it was Fremer who applied for the challenge. NOT Pear. And it was Randi who accepted Fremer's application. Pear never had any direct contact with Randi.

Quote:

The Pear cables cost $7250. Pear backed out and would not cover the cost. Stereophole could have, Fremer could have ... but nobody would. Why not spend $7K to win $1 Mil???

THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND $7,000 BECAUSE RANDI CLOSED THE CHALLENGE IMMEDIATELY AFTER PEAR WITHDREW!

Quote:

A high-end stereo store that stocked Pear cables could have given them to Fremer, then taken them back and sold them for half price, losing only a little on the turn.

See above.

Quote:

But no one stepped up.

Again, see above.

Quote:

Randi had no real interest in the general cable debate anyway -- he is interested in debunking paranormal claims.

Completely irrelevant.

If he didn't have any real interest in the general cable debate, then HE SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCEPTED FREMER'S APPLICATION.

Quote:

He challenged Pear. They backed out.

No, they didn't.

Again, Pear never had any direct contact with Randi. It was Fremer who applied for the challenge. Not Pear. The only thing Pear did was tell Fremer that they would provide him with some of their cables.

Quote:

Fremer accepted, but did not have and wouldn't buy the cables. Game over.

First, and again, there was no opportunity for Fremer or anyone else to buy the cables. Randi closed the challenge the minute Pear withdrew their offer to provide Fremer with the cabls.

Second, at the time Randi pulled the plug, there were still TWO OTHER cables on the table. The Transparent Opus and Fremer's Tara Labs cables.

Quote:

Randi did not take on the entire cable industry or even state an opinion re cables making a difference -- he just said compare Pear to Monster (which I am sure he thought was a decent cable).

Get your facts straight.

The original proposal Randi put to Fremer was to use EITHER the Pear cables OR the Transparent Opus against some Monster cables.

Fremer suggested a third option, his Tara Labs, which Randi said he would prefer pending his consulting his advisers.

So even if Randi's advisers had pooh-poohed Fremer's Tara Labs before Randi closed the challenge, the Transparent Opus cables were still on the table.

Quote:

Now it is true that before the discussion moved to Fremer's own cable, Randi and Fremer discussed a non-Pear alternative -- Transparent brand, even more expensive than Pear.

The Transparents were Randi's idea.

Quote:

And Randi said they would be OK instead of Pear, but he then assumed Fremer would not buy those either.

Again, Fremer was never given the option or opportunity to buy the Pears OR the Transparents. Randi closed the challenge IMMEDIATELY after Pear withdrew their offer to provide their cables.

Quote:

After Randi closed the challenge, Fremer said he would have been able to maybe borrow those cables.

Yes, AFTER Randi prematurely and disingenuously closed the challenge.

Quote:

By then Randi's supporters were telling him to move on, back to paranormal, so that's when he issued his "We started with Pear, that's the challenge" statement.

And he was being less than honest when he issued that statement.

In Randi's own words:

We are asking you [Michael Fremer] – and/or Adam Blake – to significantly differentiate between a set of $7,250 Pear Anjou cables and a good set of Monster cables, or between a set of $43,000 Transparent Opus MM SC cables and the same Monster cables – your choice of these two possible scenarios… This would have to be done to a statistically significant degree, that degree to be decided.

His "We started with Pear, that's the challenge" is a load of ********.

Quote:

Latest News: RANDI WITHDRAWS FROM CABLE CHALLENGE - JREF Forum where you can read both sides of the argument in full.

Thank you for digging that up.

In that thread I (Steve Eddy) show without any doubt whatsoever that Randi ended the challenge when there were still TWO cables on the table, and BEFORE Randi had consulted with his advisers regarding Fremer's Tara Labs cables, and WITHOUT giving Fremer any opportunity to buy or have loaned to him either the Pears or the Transparents.

The man is a weasel.

And I say this after having been a big fan of Randi for many years.

se

 

[wavoman]

If I knew Koyaan was "se" on the JREF thread I wouldn't have bothered posting!

Anyway, no sense repeating that thread. So -- all who read this: if you wish to follow the arguments here, go to the referenced thread, it's all there. Read, and make up your own mind. Do not believe what I say, or what Koyaan says, without dipping in to the facts yourself.

You will read in detail se's (Koyaan) arguments and all the rejoinders, including official comments from Randi's organizations. The debates about the timeline are all laid out.

There can't be any meeting of the minds here since there is not common ground re the timeline or even who offered what when (the email trial leaves a lot of holes). Without facts, opinions are hard to justify. So we are left with impressions -- mine his that James Randi did not act perfectly, but his actions were way above "fink out". He saw Fremer to be a nasty email writer, and wanted to rise above the muck.

I do not know and have never met James Randi, but I know and strongly trust people who know him well, yet would call a spade a spade, and my beliefs are informed by what they have told me re all this.

Koyaan has formed his own impressions and that's fine by me.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif There can't be any meeting of the minds here since there is not common ground re the timeline or even who offered what when (the email trial leaves a lot of holes).

********.

There were no holes.

Quote:

Without facts, opinions are hard to justify.

There are facts. You simply choose to ignore them.

FACT: The initial challenge was issued to Michael Fremer and/or Adam Blake, and involved the Pear and Transparent cables.

FACT: On Monday, October 15th, 2007, Fremer suggested in an EMail to Randi the additional possibility of using his own Transparent cables.

3) have you sign off on okaying me to use my reference TARA Labs Omega cables ($16,000 pr.) versus whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."

FACT: On Monday, October 15th, 2007, Randi replied to Fremer's EMail expressing his preference for that option for the sake of simplicity, but that he would first have to consult with his advisers.

I think I?d go with option 3, for simplicity, but I?ll have to consult with my advisors, first?

FACT: On Saturday, October 20th, 2007, Pear wrote to Randi telling him that they had withdrawn their offer to loan their cables to Fremer for the challenge.

FACT:On Saturday, October 200th, 2007, in response to Pear's withdrawal of their offer, Randi declares the challenge closed and calls Fremer a coward and a blowhard. (Blake Withrawls from PEAR Cable Challenge)

Third – and most interesting – this retreat by Adam Blake effectively closes the current challenge, much to the relief of both Fremer and Blake, of course. Actually, I must admit that this was a rather clever way of squirming out of the huge dilemma in which these two blowhards found themselves.

FACT: At the time Randi had declared the challenge closed, he HAD NOT consulted his advisors regarding Fremer's Tara Labs cables. Meaning that Fremer's Tara Labs cables WERE STILL ON THE TABLE. This fact was established by Randi himself on Monday, October 22nd, 2007. (The Latest on PEAR Challenge Refusal).

The use of Fremer’s “reference cables” was a matter that I could not bring to the attention of my advisors due to the interference of the weekend and to the fact that on Friday I was rushed to the local emergency hospital with what turned out to be a false alarm.

There are no holes.

Randi is a weasel.

se

 

[Bilavideo]

Um, you guys are talking about D-B-T. Isn't that verboten? Don't be surprised if you all get zapped by blue lightning and the last thing you hear is, "Unlimited power!!!!"

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Um, you guys are talking about D-B-T. Isn't that verboten?

Not in the Sound Science forum.

se

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif There were no holes. There are facts. You simply choose to ignore them.

I think most people, giving the thread I cited a careful read, would agree with me that fact chain as presented by you has exactly the holes that many others pointed out in that thread. They discuss things like Fremer never filling out the web application, and so on.

I leave this to everyone to form their own conclusion. I have no interest in debating you further, since the other thread covers everything I could say, only better.

It's funny, we probably have more common ground than you would think, I agree James Randi could have done better, but he hardly deserves the bad actor image you paint him with. And Fremer is downright uncivil.

I won't put you on ignore, since you have a lot of interesting posts on other topics, but I won't respond here again. I am sure you know how to put me on ignore if you would like.

As I said above, my advice is for everyone to do their own research, believing neither of us.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think most people, giving the thread I cited a careful read, would agree with me that fact chain as presented by you has exactly the holes that many others pointed out in that thread. They discuss things like Fremer never filling out the web application, and so on.

That's not a hole. That's people not paying attention.

Because Fremer was not making any paranormal claims, it wasn't quite fitting for the regular challenge. A special challenge was established that Randi would handle directly.

Quote:

It's funny, we probably have more common ground than you would think...

Perhaps we do. But that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Quote:

...I agree James Randi could have done better, but he hardly deserves the bad actor image you paint him with.

I disagree. And the facts speak for themselves.

Quote:

And Fremer is downright uncivil.

No argument there.

But after what had just been put over on Fremer, Randi wasn't deserving of any civility.

And however uncivil Fremer may have been, at least he was not dishonest.

se

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sort of depends on how you look at it. Even if there is no objective difference, any subjectively perceived difference is ultimately no less real from the perspective of the listener than if there were. It's all well and good to try and prove objective differences. But what does it really mean from the perspective of the listener? Let's say that it can be shown that there is no objective (i.e. actually audible) difference between two particular cables or whatever. Yet, subjectively the listener perceives a difference and finds that they prefer one over the other, and the one they prefer costs more than the other one. What to do? Buy the less expensive one knowing that the more expensive one doesn't produce any actual audible difference? Or go with the one that for whatever reason sounds better? se

What about the reverse point of view? For the vast majority of us who don't live in the rarefied peaks of multi-thousand dollar cables it actually does come at some relief to know we're not really missing out on that much. Relief possibly in the sense of there actually being an end to upgraditis