James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

Brizonbiovizier's point about sighted tests is an important one.

If you take away the visual cues then much of the fanciful amazing properties of one cable versus another disappear as Mike Lavigne found out (much to his credit for doing a blind test and advancing his understanding of the true magnitude of cable differences, which is ever so small).

Those spending $1000 to $7000 or more on speaker cables would do well to conduct some blind tests and put their own convictions to the test (wife or friend can help). I assure you that many of you will be just as surprised as Mike Lavigne was.

As for those spending $50 to $200 cables it hardly seems worth the bother to go to blind tests or trying to show others that what they hear is influenced by what they see.

BTW- Absolutely Nobody is immune from visual cues or rave reviews that predilect our thinking...we ALL suffer from this. I suffer from it with ATC speakers...I read about all those mastering engineers, grammys and prestigious studios and I am predilected to think ATC must be something special. They do sound nice no doubt. A bit too forward sounding for some and I respect those who feel that way because there are so many great speakers out there. I know for sure that I am influenced by their user list and AES participation and AES papers with regard to my respect for their quality - it ain't purely what I hear. This is why all serious medical research involves placebos.

brizonbovizier is fortunate he lives in england. otherwise i would be ready to submit to a blind test, with two pair of cables of my choice and a stereo system of my choice, to prove him wrong about cable differences.

however, is perception reality ?

if a difference is not heard does that mean that all cables sound the same ? does such a position apply to all phenomena ?

it is possibles that there are differneces which cannot be perceived. that does not mean they do not exist.

Shadorne, I certainly have known people who buy equipment given its manufacturer's name or because of bells and whistles, but most I know are indifferent to this, at least as I judge the appearance of their gear.

I have no objections whatsoever to people comparing gear behind a curtain, but I think DBT's 30 sec. exposures are invalid.

Finally, very little medical research deals with placebos. That there is centers on evaluating new drugs. Most medical research is simple statistical analyses looking focusing on what contributes to those having a disease.

Mr tennis. Actually that is not true it takes multiple tests subject to statistical significance as someone can can produce a random guess that gets better than the pure chance odds correct. You have to look at the distribution of results, the number of tests and subjects etc to determine if a conclusion is significant.

TBG. But what you like - but you cant claim it exists without proof. Otherwise it is belief and not fact.

The main point = even if cables did make a difference (unlikely) then it is so small that spending the difference elsewhere will make orders of magnitude more difference regardless of system cost. Especially when room treatment is often completely neglected in these systems!

Brizonbiovizier, I buy on belief as do you. Beware that it is not just significance, it is statistical significance as in is it possible that our random sample came from a population where there was no relationship between variables. What you are talking about is that it is very improbable, not that it is statistically significant, much less meaningfully significant.

I agree with you that room treatment is often neglected, but I certainly would not include digital correction for the room in what needs to be done.

Why do you use expensive connectors on you cables? How do you know they make a difference? You use cables because they were provided and claim cables make no difference without any observations to backup that conviction. This is quite contrary to the scientific method. One seeks a theory that accounts for the observations rather than avoiding observations because they are contrary to the theory.