Michael Fremer accepts Randi's Challenge

ka7niq

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I spoke to Joe Grado at last week's audio pioneer seance. Next week I'll try to conjure up Arnie Nudell* and enlist his help in tracking down a mint Infinity IRS system.

[Ok...I know Nudell is still alive...but Infinity is dead, therefore he qualifies as an entity that we can "channel".;)]

I will "channel" ABX :cool:

madmax

ka7niq wrote: »

I learned the hard way my mind played tricks on me.

Still is.
madmax

hearingimpared

ka7niq wrote: »

It is like Religion, you can not prove or disprove the existence of God.
Thus, many will CLAIM to hear differences in jitter/cables, etc.
So far, none have been able to demonstrate it under scientific conditions.
I WAS once "one of them" a dyed in the wool tweak, and THOUGHT I heard differences too.
I learned the hard way my mind played tricks on me.
Be gentle with them, many have not learned this lesson yet.:)

Pompous **** alert!!!:rolleyes:

Sami

madmax wrote: »

BTW, Sami, if your amplifier has a measurable response in the 100khz to 6 ghz range you have a very bad problem.

How is that?

treitz3

Oh Sami. :eek:

RuSsMaN

hearingimpared wrote: »

Pompous **** alert!!!:rolleyes:

Is that what that smell is?

Sami

treitz3 wrote: »

Oh Sami. :eek:

If I'm talking about 6GHz Sig.Gens you think I'm talking about amps you hook into your speakers?

madmax

Sami wrote: »

If I'm talking about 6GHz Sig.Gens you think I'm talking about amps you hook into your speakers?

I've known some on this forum who wouldn't know the difference.
madmax

reeltrouble1

Welcome to two channel Sona, very common around here to prefer two speakers. Especially when using expensive wires..........;) I guess that is why this is the two-channel forum......:D

Actually, the resident Geek Squad never wants to recognize emperical data over theory and bench tests. A huge achilles heel, however, it does keep the joint stirred up. Too bad though, its just this one or two new yo-yo's that are obnoxious, the others do actually enjoy the hobby.......... In the very large picture the debate is healthy. Its a huge forest we play in with many paths, sometimes one of the tribes gets a bit bored and has to let the others just know they exist.

You are so right, its about the music and the individual listener, not the gear, the gear is just the means, however, a very necessary means.

RT1

heiney9

Sami wrote: »

I'm sorry but you're overestimating the capabilities of the human ear. Jitter for example can be easily measured but there needs to be a lot of it before it becomes audible to human ear.

Simply not true. Eliminate it and then come back and tell me there is no difference. Jitter is very real and can/does have a huge impact on digital signals.

heiney9

Sami wrote: »

I have a 100kHz - 6GHz signal generator here, with 9kHz - 7GHz spectrum analyzer. Lets hook the sig.gen. up to an amp and see if you can pick up the signal when the spectrum analyzer does... $50 challenge?

What get's missed in many discussions is HOW those measureable changes are interpreted by our ears and processed by our brain. We are all unique and just because you (those in general, not you specifically) can't hear it doesn't mean the change doesn't exist.

Some are hyper sensitive to audible changes and other aren't. Same goes for taste and smell, etc. People can also train themselves what to liste, taste, smell for. Ask a wine taster which wine tastes better and you'll get many different answers.

H9

Sami

heiney9 wrote: »

Simply not true. Eliminate it and then come back and tell me there is no difference. Jitter is very real and can/does have a huge impact on digital signals.

There can be quite a lot of jitter before it becomes detectable to human ear. In reference to the post I was replying to; show me one human that can detect jitter before or right when it becomes measurable:

"Edit: If it can be measured, it can be heard... period."

steveinaz

ka7niq wrote: »

It is like Religion, you can not prove or disprove the existence of God.
Thus, many will CLAIM to hear differences in jitter/cables, etc.
So far, none have been able to demonstrate it under scientific conditions.

...and as long as we each have our own wallet, none of us have to prove anything...to anyone. It's called personal preference. See how that works? Ain't freedom beautiful man?

shack

Sona wrote:

You don't have to prove anything to anyone, of course. On the other hand, if you are able to distinguish two variables, I see no reason why someone could not choose to demonstrate the ability.

Because no matter how many times one would demonstrate the ability, those who choose not to believe it would find a flaw....not a true ABX....random chance...etc. Those who do, will believe even in the face of less that the desired result. A pointless exercise.

I've said it on this forum many times...if someone wants to hear my experiences with cables and/or gear, I'll be glad to share anytime...just ask. If you don't...that's fine as well. I really don't care and I really don't have the desire to prove anything to anyone. NO one will change my mind...and I don't want to change anyone else's mind.

Yashu

Simply not true. Eliminate it and then come back and tell me there is no difference. Jitter is very real and can/does have a huge impact on digital signals.

Damn right it does... I put a DIP in my chain to test this. I used a low quality optical output and then put the DIP in the chain... even my wife could hear the difference. It was like I had bought a better set of speakers all of a sudden. The difference is mild compared to a quality digital out to begin with, but there is no doubt that jitter makes a difference.

I am firmly in the camp of if it can be measured by the equipment that we build, then there is potential to hear it.

WilliamM2

Because no matter how many times one would demonstrate the ability, those who choose not to believe it would find a flaw....not a true ABX....random chance...etc.

That's a nifty theory, problem is, it has not been demonstrated even once in a controlled test. That's the whole point of Randi's challenge.

I know if Fremer passes the test, I will believe it, as I doubt Randi will allow the JREF to be cheated. Now if Fremer does not back out...

Yashu

Randi will NEVER let this go beyond preliminary stages if this guy has the ears and knowledge to do these tests right. This contest is such a joke... he admits that equipment can measure differences, and that people with well tuned ears can tell the difference... so what the hell is the contest for anyway?

Is this like the pepsi challenge? Who cares what happens because monster cable gets "free" press with every contestant, right?

I am going to say this... I honestly don't give a **** if the average guy can hear the difference between some cables... why should we care? We are not average! Average people are happy with whatever the hell you can tune in the mix radio station with, or play some 128k mp3 with, or whatever has enough bass to blow the clothes of a woman... or at least rattle my **** windows at 2am. They are happy to get the AM news station on their alarm clocks, they are happy to get 64k lossy satellite radio anywhere in the continental USA, and have it come in on their car's stock paper cone speakers with that little tweeter whizzer cone in the middle that you used to see in every AM console in the 50's. They are happy to get sound out of the home theater in a box they hooked up to watch the latest hollywood bomb, and the muddy bass that comes out of the sub is more than satisfying to them!!!

WE are not THEM. WE obsess, we have ears tuned like a **** concert grand, we consider spending as much as a concert grand costs in amps and speakers that "can't even do surroundsound!?!".

Ok so I sound a little harsh, but seriously, it started out as a nice joke, but now that this guy is starting to get real press for this "contest", more free marketing for monster cable (like they need help marketing), and more jabs at those of us, You guys, Me, the ones truly impassioned about music and sound, the ones that actually take the time out of the day and sit back to appreciate recorded sound and all it's wonders and simplicities... We should not be encouraging him. I take back what I said before about the challenge. I don't think any of us should try. I think that feeding into this is just going to make us look bad, and monster cable look better.

I am young enough to know that this hobby is dwindling. I don't know anyone my age that has the passion for sound and music that I do. I don't even know anyone on a personal level at any age that does. I know the guys at the hifi shops, and the guys on the forums, and so on... but seriously, we are a dwindling few, and I suggest that we stop playing into this veiled attack on our hobby and just enjoy what we have been able to bring to our ears and let them have their monster cable if they want it so damn bad. Going to go listen to some music now...

WilliamM2

This contest is such a joke... he admits that equipment can measure differences, and that people with well tuned ears can tell the difference... so what the hell is the contest for anyway?

Another nice rant. You still need to work on that reading comprehension. Randi does not say people with well tuned ears can hear the difference.

dorokusai

I think the challenge is awesome, good luck to both of them. It doesn't matter to me who wins and the retail industry won't care either. If you make it, they will come.

Yashu

Do I have to quote it again?

...that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation.

Come on, what do you think he meant by attentive dogs? Actual dogs...? :rolleyes:

He says it right there in back and white... and when you read between those lines, it is not hard to see that he is excluding us from this challenge. We have well tuned ears, we know what things are supposed to sound like, we have references, we are obsessive and attentive, we know how to operate instruments that can test these cables and deliver hard numbers...

Who would even want to live in Randi's world of substandard expectations? I happen to prefer knowledge over ignorance, even when the facts are not convenient.

hearingimpared

Yashu wrote: »

Do I have to quote it again?



Come on, what do you think he meant by attentive dogs? Actual dogs...? :rolleyes:

He says it right there in back and white... and when you read between those lines, it is not hard to see that he is excluding us from this challenge. We have well tuned ears, we know what things are supposed to sound like, we have references, we are obsessive and attentive, we know how to operate instruments that can test these cables and deliver hard numbers...

Who would even want to live in Randi's world of substandard expectations? I happen to prefer knowledge over ignorance, even when the facts are not convenient.

I would add on more thing to your rant . . . listening experience! That is what it really is all about the listening experience that leads up to the "tuned ears" that we truely subjective audiophiles are blessed to have.

Sami

Yashu wrote: »

He says it right there in back and white...

No, he says the only meaningful thing the test should measure is things YOU can and will hear. Not something that only dogs can hear, or can be measured by instruments.

Yashu wrote: »

I happen to prefer knowledge over ignorance

If you truly believe that you can hear it if it can be measured then here, I fixed it for you:

Yashu wrote: »

I happen to prefer ignorance over knowledge

hearingimpared

dorokusai wrote: »

I think the challenge is awesome, good luck to both of them. It doesn't matter to me who wins and the retail industry won't care either. If you make it, they will come.

I can't wait for this event to occur I just hope that Randi has the balls to admit when he is wrong and not weasel some bogus reason to invalidate the exercise. That seems to be the order of the day with the A/BX religion folks the mantra, " never proven in a controlled test." The funny thing is there must only have been a few "controlled" tests or no one would dare to claim that they knew about them all!

treitz3

hearingimpared wrote:

...."tuned ears" that we truly subjective audiophiles are blessed to have.

Blessed or cursed?

WilliamM2

Come on, what do you think he meant by attentive dogs? Actual dogs...?

Yes, that is what he meant.

We have well tuned ears, we know what things are supposed to sound like, we have references, we are obsessive and attentive, we know how to operate instruments that can test these cables and deliver hard numbers...

This is the third time you mention measuring equipment. Why do you need to measure it to hear the difference, or to win the challenge?

Yashu

The challenge is to prove there is a perceived audible difference. You must not be understanding this concept. He is asking someone to *somehow* objectively prove, to some arbitrary degree that he comes up with, something that is, at it's root, subjective. Can we just put randi in a box with some uranium and just claim he is both right and wrong AT THE SAME TIME (queue spooky music)?

He is setting up a catch 22 for audiophiles, and he is using this ploy to put his name in the media and also advertise monster cable.

You still need to work on that reading comprehension.

If you truly believe that he meant actual dogs... like 4 legged, furry tail wagging, yappy, home to fleas and ticks... dogs... k-9s, man's best friend and all that... then the pot has officially called the kettle black.

Honestly, don't be so absurd.

Also, to the person that mentioned listening experience... that is exactly what I am talking about and what randi means by "dog ears". I don't understand why there is still questions to his intentions. He admits that instruments can measure the differences and also people with sensitive ears and listening experience can notice the differences. So, we have, on the same page as the contest rules, language that admits that there is no contest to begin with. Smoke and mirrors... sounds like a something a magician would do... hmm... isn't it funny that this challenge is being offered by a washed up magician?

To bad he isn't a washed up pirate instead... then I could say something like... Arrrrr, there be squabbles ahead!

F1nut

Damn Yashu, you've got my respect and that doesn't come easily.

WilliamM2

The challenge is to prove there is a perceived audible difference. You must not be understanding this concept. He is asking someone to *somehow* objectively prove, to some arbitrary degree that he comes up with, something that is, at it's root, subjective.

He is asking for someone to correctly identify the cables is a blind listening test. It's that simple.

If you truly believe that he meant actual dogs... like 4 legged, furry tail wagging, yappy, home to fleas and ticks... dogs... k-9s, man's best friend and all that... then the pot has officially called the kettle black.

Honestly, don't be so absurd.

Dogs can hear frequencies that humans can't. That was his point, and he was being sarcastic I think.

He admits that instruments can measure the differences and also people with sensitive ears and listening experience can notice the differences.

He never says that, he quite clearly states that he believes no human can hear the difference, hence the reference to dogs. He has posted follow ups to his original comments, have you read them?

WilliamM2

F1nut wrote: »

Damn Yashu, you've got my respect and that doesn't come easily.

By totally misunderstanding what he reads? And making up his own interpretation, including conspiracy theories about it all being marketing for Monster cable? Apparently it's not that hard after all.

PolkThug

This thread has been Gazer Beamed.