James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

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?

high muralman1:

most interconnects do not attenuate the highs . they are either very extended or accentuate the treble.

for example, nordost, synergistic research tesla, crystal cable, virtual dynamics and poema cable, definitely are not soft on top.

as someone who has auditioned and reviewed many cable products, i cannot recall encountering a cable that was rolled off in the treble. can you provide the names of a few ? i will audition them myself, unless of course i have already heard them or owned them.

Muralmanl - I agree. Many of the highest prices offenders deliberately contain anomalously high LCR values solely for the purpose of sounding "different" (in well understood ones) which can then be touted as "better" to justify the price.

Leica - then step up and claim randis $1M! have you considered that this "active device" may just be altering the LCR anomalously to achieve an effect? If it is just some sort of buffer then it is the buffer making the effect not the cable. In like manner beefing up the output stage of a component improves the sound quality often - it is distinct from the cable. In the absence of any real explanation it is impossible to say. Similar claims have been made for various cables in the past and without exception the ability to discern vanishes under blind testing.

Brizonbiovizier, I think you hurt what case you had by your condescension. I suggest you get off your high horse and read something about sampling theory and statistics. Phrases such as "much the merriment of true statisticians" suggest that you are quite insecure in your competencies and certainly not scientifically trained. You claim that no one has ever produced any rigorous evidence that has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Well I would claim that I doubt if you would know anything about this, that it is just rubbish.

Objectivists always claim the scientific high ground and often I have learned do so without justification. It certainly is not scientific to forego listening to find if your cherished "theory" continues to hold. I doubt if anyone reading this thread is any better off for doing so.

If cables all sound alike the why-

1. Why do we need to prove we have "paranormal" abilities before we can take the test? Is being paranormal a scientific variable for this "scientific" test? If so how do we prove this- winning Lottery numbers- LOL.
2. Why do we need to prove the cables sound "better" and not just different- who determines "better" and since when is better "scientific?"
2a. Is better not a "subjective" determination- how ironic or "moronic" in this case.
3. Why can we not select our cables- why are we forced to use a cable "ringer?"
4. Why can we not take the test in our own system that we are familiar with?
5. Why are we forced to run the cables through a switching box that will negate the differences between the cables being tested?

The answer is this is not a real test and that Mr. Flat Earth has no intention of paying out.