James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

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.

"I think EE has very limited understanding of why things work and uses a fundamentally unscientific "good enough" perspective on circuits, parts, wire, and even what is safe." TBG

Engineers are by definition not scientists. An enlightened understanding of "good enough" is at the heart of good engineering. Engineers design fantastic, fascinating, shiny devises that actually work.

If the goal of cable design is no audible contribution by the cable, then all cables should sound the same , by design.

If there is a audible difference between two cables, A & B, then either A is no good, B is no good or neither A nor B is good. The better cables get, then the more alike they should sound.

well stated, tbg.

i have suggested blind testing but mr b avoids the subject.

practically speaking, if you can hear a difference and are confident that you do during a number of listening sessions, it should be sufficient. if you then purchase the cable and it remains in your system for a period of time, that also should be sufficient. blind tests are imlpicitly or explicitly rigged to make it difficult to observe differences.