James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers

Surely that suggests most reviewers and any cable manufacturer with a web site that makes claims about amazing powers or abilities of their products in relation to "Monster Cable" fare. (Monster Cable appears to be JREF chosen reference...i.e. extremely expensive wire but not "crazy extreme" prices).

A million bucks is a milllion bucks!

Why did I read through this? I will give you $1,000,000 if you tell me why.

Bjesien,

Because your Papua New Guinea Fertility statue needs recharging from the Water Tank Tweak and so you ended up wasting time surfing the web, instead of pursuing more enjoyable activities...

Now cough up the million!

(For those reaidng this post you need to check out Bjeisen's system to understand him)

The exclusion of people without a "media presence" and the open ended condition of proving that Pear Anjou speaker cables "perform better" than the equivalent Monster cable, (NOT to prove the ability to distinguish one from the other), makes the contest impossible to win.

Personally I think it would be easy to distinguish Pear Anjou from Monster in a high resolution setup (the Anjou's have ultra low inductance numbers while keeping capacitance in check). But if were we take pick an "unbiased" sample group of listeners from the street for blind testing to prove cable A "performs better" than cable B, does any one of us really believe we will be able achieve statistical significant positive result?

Thus a "media presence" person foolish enough to take up the challenge will simply invite ridicule from Randi.org on being a "failure", which they will no doubt portray the attempt as.

To me this challenge is simply a publicity stunt to gain notoriety. Cable naysayers have no doubt lapped this up and are taking this opportunity to gloat. The disingenuity of their claims that no one is up the challenge is rather telling.

Personally I think it would be easy to distinguish Pear Anjou from Monster in a high resolution setup (the Anjou's have ultra low inductance numbers while keeping capacitance in check).

Then why do you think John Atkinson and Dave Clark do not take up the challenge?

If it is "easy to distinguish" then surely the time/effort would be worth a million bucks?

I mean these people do audio listening tests and measurements for a living...it should be a simple matter for a respected & highly discerning reviewer.

After all, the challenge is not about "inductance" or other measurable differences - it appears to be about the ability to demonstrate being able to hear better performance; simply to support the claims, made with ease, in the reviewers articles, which are published in the media and influence a great many buyers. That is the jist of it in the way I understand it. I don't see a trick or impossible challenge as you do. I mean what is impossible about something that can be done with ease?