The challenge has been accepted by Pear Cables.

For those who don't know about it, the famous magician and paranormal/psychic debunker James Randi offered up one million dollars to anyone able to prove the difference between a high-end (multi-thousand dollar) speaker cable and a normal cable.

I sure hope they have the test set up properly if it happens. All we need is to have the subject guess correctly more often than not with a small sampling and have the wire-believers using it as proof to support their beliefs....

Maybe my e-mail sent Pear Cables over the edge . Isn't this exciting?

Go Mikey Go!

Has that kid even graduated from High School yet? If Pear fails, then in theory we can conclude that there is no difference between their product and lamp cord either. As we all know you can't tell the difference between monster and lamp cord.

I bet that kid has a psychology degree.

I wish I were as talented at getting money from rich folks as that kid is.

But you have a clean conscience and that is far more valuable than money. Walk tall, walk proud.

It's good to be able to look the man in the mirror directly in the eye.

Hope Pear cables aren't ultra thin, full of capacitors, or the like.

And for god's sake, why choose Monster as the control? Eurrrch.

Someone in the comments suggested Mythbusters as a better way to go. The issue would definitely get more exposure that way.

I'd love to see Mythbusters do an audio myths episode. Hard to get across on TV, though.

Plus, fairly boring to watch.

True. How'd we end up in such a boring hobby?

There are many things worth spending time on that just wouldn't make great television.

Yeah, and half of that stuff is already on television.

Are you kidding, just try to imagine what they would do to try to have the wires make a difference! I know, put them in liquid nitrogen so they can become superconductors and then at just the right time, smack! and the wires have indeed made a difference, they truly disappeared from the soundstage.

Yeah, but how do you work explosions into it?

Pick one.

3-phase fault simulation

Air-insulated disconnect switch in a substation

Ok, don't just hit the wires, try to blow them up with a super mega-watt burst into them!

If i recall, JohnK ACTUALLY uses lamp cord.

Check out the bs graph from the Pear website:

I too used lamp cord up till I purchased a set of Axiom cables. It allways worked great for me.

I use 16 gauge lamp cord on my M50s. I use big honking Canare Quad Star on my M80s. Why? 'Cause I wanted to. The VP100 is connected by Rat Shack 16 gauge, the QS4s by somebody-or-other 16 gauge flat.

Do they ever mention who those competitor cables are and more importantly gauge size?

Should you not be able to read Voltage on wires at the lower end right to zero hz, no matter what the frequency? Voltage is voltage whether it is trying to move 1hz or 21000khz. All you electrical engineers educate me.

I have to agree with Amie. I spent a bit more for cables because they are audio jewelry. If i have to look at them, they may as well be pretty, albeit reasonably priced at least.
I went less expensive with the speaker wire but got some lovely quality stuff for about 50 cents a foot. I would say 50 cents Cdn, but since that equates to more $ for the Americans now...it only sounds more expensive.

They don't mention who the competitor is. But I've asked them and if I ever get a response, I'll let you know.

They seem to indicate that the graph is suspect below 150Hz due to so-called anomalies. No speaker cable that is sized properly would perform in that drastic way.

But to answer your question, the voltage that appears at the speaker terminals does indeed depend on frequency. Cables are characterized by resistance, capacitance and inductance. Resistance attenuates signals by the same amount regardless of frequency. But the resistance (called reactance) developed as a result of the capacitance and inductance varies with frequency.

At higher frequencies, the voltage at the speaker terminals does indeed drop by as much as a dB for "normal" wire runs due to the combined effects of resistance and reactance. But at above 15KHz, the minimum detectable change for humans with good hearing is somewhere around a couple of dB. So I don't believe anyone can hear the difference with "normal" wire runs.

An update to the challenge.

It's the lower spectrum I was actually interested in more. As I couldn't believe a wire should drop off like that at the lower end, this would lead me to believe they devoloped a specific test that shows there product is better than the other brand.

Surprise, surprise.

I guess another question is just how long is that cable they are testing?

So they could concievably get that graph if the wire is long enough, most likely well betond anything someone would use in a house.

If the cable was very long, it would also have a depressed response at mid-frequencies.

I also noticed that in Pears retraction statement " as well as our doubts about the legitimacy of your misleading challenge (including the fact that you now personally claim that almost anyone can tell the difference between Monster cables and zip-cord)"

Anyone know if the JREF or James Randi himself, makes that claim.

I don't think Randi makes that claim anywhere. He is trying to get purveyors of Bul$41T (of any kind)to put up or shut up. Many people talk about taking the challenge but most back out with all kinds of lame excuses. The ones who take the test are usually either self deluded or dumb con artists who think they can get past the protocols to get the money. Everyone has failed so far.

His weekly rant and report called the Swift comes out every Friday and I recommend it highly to anyone who is skeptically inclined. He has taken on a lot of "Golden Ear" audio nonsense lately and it makes for fun reading.

Imo any high end cable maker would be a fool to take this challenge, not only do I believe they could not back up their claim of better acoustics but they would make a pariah of themselves within their little community of snakeoil salesman by killing everyone's business if the findings did not go in their favor. Not a gamble I think they would take.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. Didn't make any sense.

Michael, it's only wishful thinking that the result would be "killing everyone's business". Similar blind listening tests in the past indicating that there're no magic amplifiers, players or wires have been dismissed or ignored by the hopeful and gullible.

I have a colleague at work who has "Golden Ears" syndrome. He believes that he has heard differneces between wires. He even believes that equipment with vibration dampening weights sounds better! When I talk double blind listening tests to him he thinks they are invalid because to him it is the subjective that matters. Not good thinking on his part.

People actually want to belive in magic. If you are a true beliver all the evidence in the world won't sway you. Snake Oil will always find customers.

I take it he wasn't referring to a record player, right?

Some call it faith.

Exactly!

I didn't want to use the F word. Some people are sensitive.

My comment wasn't meant as a judgment, just an observation.

I didn't take it as a judgement. I am a card carrying athiest with religious friends so I sometimes reflexively bite my tongue when I talk about beliefs. You are right. This is faith of a non-religious kind, but unlike religion, this faith is more based on faulty evidence then dogmatic belief. After all they have the evidence of their "Golden Ears" to support them.

There are two things that magicians like the Amazing Randi know, how to fool people, and more importantly, how people fool themselves, and that's how the "Golden Ear" syndrome works.

Rick, we have regulars on this board who believe there are differences in many links in the audio chain (receivers, DACs, interconnects, speaker wire, etc.). Let's call them subjectivists. And, there are board regulars who disagree. Let's call them objectivists (made-up word). Each side, of course, thinks the other is incorrect and misguided, which sometimes, regrettably, leads to our discussions deteriorating from arguments into quarrels (see my tired ol' signature below). We can go a long way toward avoiding this if we restrict our discussion to the issues, avoid the personal insults, and treat those who hold an opinion which differs from our own with a little respect (poor misguided fools though they be ).

In general, we strive to avoid discussing religion and politics because they are such "hot button" issues. Personally (I do not pretend to speak for other members), regarding these two "hot-button" issues specifically, I have no quarrel with someone who, as you did, states what they believe (or don't believe, as the case may be), as long as there is no attempt to argue that position and/or convince others they are wrong to believe otherwise.

There are many here who hold beliefs which differ from mine who I like, respect, and consider good friends (even if they are really silly ). I hope you'll feel the same, eventually .

DISCLAIMER: Before the "who died and made you moderator" comments begin, I wish to make clear that the above is merely my opinion, nothing more; nothing less, which I feel I have the right, as do all of us here, to express.

I have no problem being friends with people who disagree with me and I have no agenda to try convince other people that there views are wrong, beyond the following: If someone states something is true based on their evidence and upon due examination I find their evidence lacking, I will say so politely and without rancor and offer and alternative view. If they take offense at that point I couldn't be friends with them anyway. If they choose to ignore what I say that's fine too. My ego is not caught up in proving that I'm right, even if I am.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Ajax.

Who died and made you moderator, Jack?

Dirty rakinfrakin #$@&*&*##% #@$# &**) #$!





Laughed aloud.

You know that that hand gesture has different meanings around the world. :P

Ha ha, I think Jack is WELL aware.

Some even believed that the Indians had a shot over the Red Sox!

Well, football can be like that.

Who are you calling "Silly", you old coot?

Actually, I'm not. That smilie was labeled "okay." If it means anything else to others, I hope they will understand that, being a U.S. American, that was the intended meaning. I was looking for a good "thumbs up" smilie and couldn't find one I liked.

I'd ask for an explanation of the other meaning(s), but I'm afraid of the answer(s) I'd get.

That's not a particularly nice gesture in a lot of parts of Europe.

Another gesture that mediterraneans don't like is our open hand salute for "hi" or "bye".

I took it as OK.

Actually the 'thumbs up' is pretty offensive too in some regions.
it basically means "upyours". jejeje
Dont remember excatly where or what regions... posibly eastern europe and/or middle east

I cant recall what the other meanings were. Although I do remember there were several and most of them were negative/offensive. I took an international business course at college where we talk about body-language and gestures and their meaning on different places. It was a loong time ago.

Since that's how I meant it, I'm relieved.

All I have to say about this whole situation is this...who the hell made Jack a moderator? ......

Well, since I'm neither in Europe, nor European, I can only hope that any Europeans coming across my post, understanding that no one can learn the meaning of every gesture and phrase in every culture, would take into account my intent. I know that if someone gave me the middle finger salute, and I learned that in their culture it meant "jeez, you are a wonderful person," I would not be offended in the least. I do not expect people from other parts of the world to be familiar with all our cultural symbolism. I don't think they should expect me to be familiar with everyone else's.

I don't have to take this abuse. Wait a minute! Yes. I do.

Based on Ajax's forum registration date. I took his words as advice to a relative newcomer, and they were moderate.

Moderate words from a pseudo-moderator. Ha!

Seriously, I'm glad to hear you say this because that's how I meant them. My post was meant to be a comment on, not a criticism of, yours.

...And no worries. I took it as such and appreciated the intent.

Jack, we understood your meaning, but if you should ever travel abroad apparently it would be better if you just kept your hands in your pockets at all times.

At his age, that could be dangerous.

Oh hell, John. I do that as much as possible right now.

I received an answer regarding the frequency response graph that Peter posted. Peter, you obviously missed the fact that Pear was not only comparing speaker cable but also interconnects .

Query:

Adam,

Your website contains a system frequency response graph of an ideal cable, your competitor's cable and Pear cable. I am unaware of any reputable speaker cable that would exhibit a frequency response such as the one posted on your site. What "competitor's cable" are you referring to exactly?

Response:

Hello,

In future correspondence please identify yourself.

With regard to your question about the cables used in the Frequency Response graph on our website, from your question it appears that you may have missed the fact that this is a system frequency response which reflects the differences when both the interconnects and speaker cables have been swapped not just the speaker cables). While we cannot reveal specific brands, we
can say the the interconnect is a standard import coaxial style cable and the speaker cable is a standard import zip cord style.

Sincerely,

Adam Blake

Pear Cable, Inc.
134 Eliot Ave. | West Newton, MA 02465
P 617-273-0348 | F 617-870-5446
adam@pearcable.com | http://www.pearcable.com

Ah, so a jackass as well as a liar.

Next time identify yourself as Adam Blake's conscience.

That's very clever.

just keep swimming, swimming, swimming, just keep swimming, swimming, ummm are you my conscience, lol

Here is a link to the entire page of Pear's graph and the test. If you click the link to 'competitors', Axiom is listed.

next time ask him if he was comparing 100 ft of 28 gauge to 100 feet of 10 gauge...

sheesh.

They also list themselves as competition.

They state it is 12 gauge 14ft long, but it doesn't state whether or not it is a tube amp vs electronic nor whether or not the load was the same at each end.

What caught my eye was the fact the interconnects are 5 meters long. Why so long? For most configurations less than 1 meter will do.

Also this... "Because this system utilizes just 5.25" coaxial speakers, the low frequency roll-off can clearly be seen in both cases, but this has nothing to do with the cables. This is due to the fact that the system was not designed to play low frequency bass, and cuts that information out."
Was this due to the amplifiers being crossed over at 150hz or as they suggest due to speaker design. I would not think that due to a speakers inabilty to reproduce low frequency, the signal to it should also drop off. Does it?

I have a question about the Coaxials they were using or just in general. Do they not have a limited high frequency range as well? If so this could lead to the sloping graph at the higher frequency range, if the speaker design is the cause of the poor graph upto 150hz?

Jason, don't waste your time. If this was a reputable company, they would create a test environment and procedure that is repeatable and transparent. This is a ridiculous system test in my opinion.

I know, I've just been trying to figure out how they can come up with their result thats all. To have a curved graph just seems wrong, but like you said its a waste of time.

I know, I've just been trying to figure out how they can come up with their result thats all. To have a curved graph just seems wrong, but like you said it's a waste of time.

Oh no I have a Mojo problem

I like the article update on Gizmodo today. Seems Pear backed out loaning cables but Randi/Fremer are still open to testing. Hmm.

Yahoo!: 10 Worst Tech Products of 2007

Pear Cable's "Anjou" speaker cable makes the list.