End of cable debate - snake oil

A

anon_bb

Honey Badger
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
2,804
Reaction score
0
Apparently Fremer has taken up James Randis $1M challenge - hopefully the results of this should put an end to the debate.
 
It won't whoever wins the other party will argue the results and manipulate them.
That is if they even come up with a testing regime between themselves. I don't think they will.
 
Dom_ said:
It won't whoever wins the other party will argue the results and manipulate them.
That is if they even come up with a testing regime between themselves. I don't think they will.
Click to expand...


Randi is rigourous enough to ensure an independant third party is is involved to do the testing and results. That is part of any sensible test protocol.
 
I hope it goes ahead. If Michael Fremer does demonstrate that he can really hear a difference, it naturally won't affect the fact that I can't and I therefore won't be buying expensive cables to hear the differences that I can't hear. The fact that I now know that they're actually there won't help me hear them!

However, it will mean that there is indeed a physical phenomenon that is worth investigating and quantifying, and perhaps all the rubbish produced by the cable vendors will be replaced by scientific fact. The absence of scientific fact allows codswallop to breed. A definite result - one way or the other - would perhaps finish this off - I hope...
 
The Charming Mr. Fremer

This is Randi's challenge using cables that have similar LCR characteristics:

ââ'¬Â¦to significantly differentiate between a set of $7,250 Pear Anjou cables and a good set of Monster cables, or between a set of $43,000 Transparent Opus MM SC cables and the same Monster cables ââ'¬â€œ your choice of these two possible scenariosââ'¬Â¦ This would have to be done to a statistically significant degree, that degree to be decided.

But now the snake-oil charmer is trying to wriggle out by changing the parameters.
 
That's not the way I read it David - according to that article, M. Fremer wanted to use an alternative cable to the ones specified in the test, and J.Randi said no.

There is some flim flam about whether M.Fremer needs to buy the agreed cable or whether it will be supplied, but this is just clouding the issue.

Further down I note that M.Fremer agrees to continue with the test, despite the breakdown in communication.

It's a shame the test didn't happen. I would love to see a selection of magazine writers take the test personally, although I don't need to see it happen to be able to predict the results.
 
I didn't see that.. should have read further.

I can't blame 'Pear Cables'. Why should they take the risk that their product may be publically de-bunked?

Even if they weren't the risk/reward ratio is pretty slim IMO.

It has to be said, M.Fremer's language on that site is appaling (if that is indeed him).
 
I suspect every other cable manufacturer would also decline - as they know full well there is no difference
 
And who could blame them in the face of this kind of scientific rigour?

"Oh yes, that can be done, there's no question about that," answered Randi. "I can picture all kinds of scenarios where things can be implanted in a cable that could give out a signal, it can even give out a tone, a pulse of some kind that can be picked up easily on an earpiece, or by any means, even by a meter in your hand. I'm magician by trade, I know how these things are done."


James Randi..............Magician.
 
A fair DBT would be definative evidence for me but have any fair and definative tests representative of real listening actually been conducted?

has someone got an MO of a specific DBT?

Andy
 
And who could blame them in the face of this kind of scientific rigour?
Click to expand...
I don't understand your objection. It's clear that cables can be fabricated that can be told apart by ear or otherwise. It's also clear that hearing such cables wouldn't be a test of the Fremer et al claim.

Paul
 
The $1m is real.

But it is unwinnable because the challenge is to demonstrate something that, by definition, isn't there. Divining, clairvoyance, Shakti Stones, electrically equivalent items of hifi sounding different.

Fremer along with many other 'audiophiles' believe in a supernatural effect. Why they are so reluctant to simply accept this is a mystery.

Paul
 
But it is unwinnable because the challenge is to demonstrate something that, by definition, isn't there.
Click to expand...

As I understand it Fremer accepted the challenge, the rules were then subtly changed and tantrums ensued to the extent one of the cable manufacturers refused to have their product in the playing field. Fremer suggested another cable and then the $1m vanished in a puff of smoke vanished from the table replaced no doubt with a white rabbit in a top-hat. Fremer's hissy-fit was most unfortunate and it makes him look like a fool, but the bottom line is he called Rhandi's bluff and Rhandi caved. That's how I read it anyway.

Tony.
 
Thats fremers POV - hes just setting up a straw man for the benefit of the cable industry he "supports" so he can defuse the situation created by randi but without being subjected to the scrutiny of the test.

The only bluff here is fremers
 
Why is it so difficult for a cable believer to actually show that their experience is real? There's always a complication. Take Randi out of the equation, surely it's in Pear's interest to team up with an industry big name and demonstrate that their business is built on granite? The result goes into JAES and everybody's very happy.

The weaselling and bickering really doesn't lend much support to the cable assertions.

Paul
 

Latest posts

Back
Top