James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

Leica - Lets see you do it in a blind test. So far many have made the claim but none have been able to deliver - which is why the $1M remains unclaimed and no cable manufacturer ever puts on a comparative demonstration.

TBG - all audio components are designed using engineering principles - either theoretical or empirical. EE has a very good understanding on how components work - they would not do so without it! It is not some alchemical art no matter what the magazines would have you believe. Your statements about statistics are also in error - I have a PhD in mathematics and work in advanced statistical on a daily basis techniques in a scientific field way beyond anything under discussion here. Probabilities are statistics are linked at the most fundamental level - even a basic understanding should show you that.

Brizonbiovizier,

I have proven on my system expensive cables are a joke. They all vary on how much they roll off or cloud the signal. More expensive cables generally do the most harm. Most people never notice the dielectric foaming of the signal, because that distortion is buried in other component noise.

One thing I found that does make a difference is wire geometry. I have found very thin SCs to be great at extremes extension, while round wires produce a mid range bulge.

Brizonbiovizier, wrong on both counts. Yes, electronic components work, but that does not mean that we really know what variations might improve them. Certainly, to think that resistance, capacitance, and inductance are all that matters is simplistic. What about the geometry, what about the insulation, and what about the impact of RFI and EMF?

You are right about probabilities and statistics being linked at a fundamental level but it is still the case that statistical significance is the proper term, not significance as the single word believes the fact that what is statistically significant may be of little value. If you don't realize that statistical significance can be greatly enhanced by increasing the size of the sample, your understanding is deficient.

Statistical significance center entirely on the question of whether sampling error could mean that our random sample based findings could with a certain probability have come from a population where there was no relationship between the variables in our hypothesis. We are willing to risk type I error and reject our null hypothesis lending credence to our hypothesis if the probability of such an unfortunate sample is below typically below 5 in a 100 samples.

I have a PhD in both political science and psychology where I got most of my methods training both in experimental and sample based research. I have taught research methods and statistics for 40 years and published broadly in refereed journals, not that this really matters.

I still say that your dismissal of the possibility that wires sound different is inherently unscientific and unjustified by anything you mention. Furthermore, I cannot understand why any audiophile would not avail themselves of the opportunity to listen first before dismissing possible improvements.

Brizonbiovizier,
I understand your misperception- most cables are vaguely different at best. My cables are the Active Tesla cables from Synergistic Research and I can tell the difference 100% of the time when the active shields are turned on or off. I had a friend over and we did the blind test- sleeping eye mask on; in every instance I could plainly hear when the Active Shielding was turned on or off. I can also tell from outside my listening room. So much for your "theory".

I worked in RF engineering for many years. Electronic circuits are well understood - the mode of operation is one of design according to theory. It is not guesswork and the limitations are well known as are what would be required to improve them. Usually the active devices in such components. With respect to cables, LCR and the shielding are sufficient to categorize any variation in behavior of the two connected components. No-one has ever produced any rigorous evidence that has stood up to scientific scrutiny that shows otherwise. Therefore accepted scientific theory (which is contradicted by the unsubstantiated claims of the pro-cable argument) has nothing to answer. If such evidence is ever produced then you will have a case. That is the scientific process - which I might add created all of audio in the first place.

As a rule political science and psychology are those fields where statistics and scientific method are most inappropriately applied - much to the merriment of true statisticians - and cables are another prime example. I stated in my post that sample size is important so I am bewildered that you claim otherwise given that it was the point of my post. If I set up a series of trials and assess relative to random expectation then I can calculate the statistical significance of your performance (if any), employing certain controls to assess effects of bias or systematic issues etc etc.

If you can do as you claim then I suggest you step up and claim Randis $1M without making excuses. If you can do it Randi is on the level and will pay you I am sure so what have you got to lose?