Michael Fremer accepts Randi's Challenge

shack

Randi is a showman/entertainer. No more...no less. What he does or doesn't do...prove or doesn't prove...will have not one shred of influence/value on anything I do (other than the time wasted posting about it on this forum).

shack

Sona wrote:

Good to know where I stand. Off to rejoice.

I'll alert the media...:rolleyes:

Yashu

F1Nut, thankyou for the compliment. Arrrrr... and williamM2, off ye plank ye shall walk!

---

The differences are subtle, that is true. I don't think speaker cables should cost 7 grand, unless there is close to 7 grand of metal in there somewhere, but I do think that quality matters. Even if pear cable cost the same as monster, chances are they would still sound different, and measure differently.

In audio there is a law of diminishing returns when referring to upgrades. Some of the manufacturers abuse this law, and price their wares high so people will assume the appropriate quality will come with it.

Now to this issue:

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

No, it is not that simple. You are asking humans to do the testing. Humans lie, they have bias, they sometimes just don't even care, or care too much. Doesn't matter how blind you make the test... hell make it quadruple blind... there is always going to be an element of chaos and unreliability when dealing with humans. Measurements, hard numbers, they don't lie, they are the ultimate truth. I don't even understand why so many people see double blind testing as the holy grail. I used to not get it, but then it hit me a while back, any testing that completely relies on the opinions of humans, is ultimately subjective. You can increase the testing pool to 100 humans, but you are still getting 100 opinions. The theory is that, with a large enough group, patterns will emerge, but there is no way to guarantee these results with 100% certainty, because you are dealing with, basically, 2 legged, walking examples of chaos theory.

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

Dude, WTF... you admit he was being sarcastic and STILL think he was talking about actual dogs? Woof!

I suppose then, that most of the audiophiles on this forum happen to be dogs...


Here is my friend and I auditioning some new speaks... oddly enough, we couldn't agree on cables, and without opposable thumbs, we had a tough time getting it all hooked up anyway... Note to speaker manufacturers, please improve off-axis performance... lying on the floor, it's at least a 45 degree vertically off axis...


Here is another friend of mine, he has a couch, the lucky ****. I understand that it beats the floor, but without some double blind testing, I can't get anyone to believe me.

Sami

Yashu wrote: »

No, it is not that simple. You are asking humans to do the testing. Humans lie, they have bias, they sometimes just don't even care, or care too much.

If you can hear the difference, it shouldn't come to that. If you can't, it doesn't matter if you lie or not. Simple Blind Test (choice of music pre-determined to satisfy controlled environment):

Technician to change cables.
Tester, blinded to cable changes.

Cable A, listen to it x amount of time.
Cable B, listen to it x amount of time.

Repeat this loop enough times to get a confidence level (statistics):

Cable Test 1:
Technician: randomly inserts cable A or cable B, plays music
Tester: identifies cable either A or B

Result: wrong or right

Lets say we say with 90% that the tester actually was able to identify the cables correctly, we do have a hard, scientifically determined number that should qualify as "hard numbers".

DarqueKnight

Audiophilia is a good target for ridicule because it is far outside the realm of most people's interests, experience and understanding. Randi's "challenge" is nothing more than a publicity stunt and audiophile bashing. When you really stop to think about it, audiophiles are no more "extreme" in the pursuit of their hobby than most other hobbyists. I understand that most people really could not care less about accurate music reproduction. Conversely, many, many people care a lot about wine and perfume.

Consider wine connosieurs. You can give 10 samples of wine to an individual with a trained palate and he/she will be able to tell you the vintage, maker, and maybe even the type of dirt the grapes were grown in. No one questions or ridicules this because it is accepted that people can train their palates to be able to detect subtle differences in wine. Wine connosieurs have no "golden tongues" which give them some innate superiority to discern subtle differences in wine, they have simply been trained or trained themselves to discern those differences. For someone like me who does not regularly consume alcoholic beverages, most wine just tastes like sour grape juice.

Consider perfume testers. They actually have no "golden noses", but highly trained and experienced perfume testers get paid big money by cosmetics companies. Put 10 different perfume samples under their nose and he/she will be able to tell you the constituent scents and the relative proportions of each. I, on the other hand, would just be able to tell you whether I liked it or not.

If a person's sense of taste and smell can be finely trained and attuned, it does not require a leap of faith to accept that a person's sense of hearing can be similarly trained to discern subtle differences in audio phenomenon. Such people do not have "golden ears", they mearly have trained and experienced ears.

It is somewhat hypocritical when you think about it. The same female that would object to or ridicule her mate for spending $300 on a pair of interconnects would think nothing of spending $800 on a pair of shoes that she will only wear once. Furthermore, that $800 pair of shoes may be very uncomfortable, but if they are the current "rage" in fashion, she will endure the pain and discomfort in exchange for the "prestige" of being seen in those shoes. That same female, upon acceptance of a marriage proposal, fully expects to receive the most expensive diamond that her betrothed can afford. If a man states that he purchased a diamond (which is nothing more than a highly polished rock) for $20,000, he, and the recipient of said diamond, would be the subject of envy and admiration from many people. If that same fellow states that he just purchased a pair of superlative $20,000 monoblock amplifiers, he would be the subject of scorn and derision by many people. There would be many comments along the lines of "he doesn't know what to do with his money".

Much is made of the wild claims by snake oil purveyors in the audio field. Every product segment has these type of crooks, whether it's wrinkle cream or audiophile power cables being sold. Wherever there is money to be made, some are going to make it dishonestly.

Many people "trip" on the high prices for some audio gear, as if audiophilia is unique in its existence of a "high end" segment. For every $10,000 speaker cable, there are many, many more examples of $20,000 designer dresses, $20,000 bottles of rare wine, and $150,000+ exotic automobiles, etc., etc.

Life is short. Pursue your passion, whether it is polished rocks, designer clothes, audiophile gear, whatever.

Sami

DarqueKnight, a good post and you also touched the subject that is present in Randi's challenge: snake oil merchants. Lets face it, audio world is full of them.

madmax

This testing just wont work as proposed because you are putting the person on the spot. This will raise heart rate, blood flow and oxygen in their system. An existing sense of urgency will prevail causing flawed decisions due to lack of thought. Just won't work.

F1nut

Leave it to DK to put things in their proper perspective. Bravo!

Sami

madmax wrote: »

This testing just wont work as proposed because you are putting the person on the spot. This will raise heart rate, blood flow and oxygen in their system. An existing sense of urgency will prevail causing flawed decisions due to lack of thought. Just won't work.

LOL, sorry but I didn't expect to hear excuses from you. Do cables make difference, sure they do, I see that almost every day at lab. We chance cables in one of our RF systems and we have to calibrate that path again because the power loss changes. We are however talking about totally difference systems, and for audio purpose we are talking about low frequencies that do not put a lot of demand for cables.

If you truly KNOW that a cable A sounds better than cable B, you should be able to blindly identify these cables when you hear them in random order. Simple as that, and that's what this whole challenge sounds to be like, whether it's rigged or not.

jdhdiggs

DK,

One issue you overlook is that those wine tasters and perfume sniffers are tested in blind/scientifically valid environments where as "cable listeners" are not.

If you went to school to learn all about the differences in cables and were then hired, after strenous testing to prove your ability, to listen for differences in cables then your concept would be correct. As it is, that post is based on a flawed premise, namely the people you metion can prove, time and time again, that they can do what they say they can, where cable believers have not.

shack

Lot's of time the discussions get to the point of "you can't identify cable A or cable B" when in reality the question should merely be can you hear any difference...period. If one can simply identify if/when a cable has been swaped then the "there is a difference" criteria has been met.

madmax

Sami wrote: »

LOL, sorry but I didn't expect to hear excuses from you.

Yea, I should have put a in there somewhere although the premise isn't too far off.

Cables most certainly make a difference. Do you not hear a difference or do you just know there is no difference??
madmax

jdhdiggs

Shack:

That, I would totally agree with! If someone could/would just compare some basic AR or monster cables to some TOTL MIT's or Nordhosts and nail 19/20 different/not different test blindly, I would believe that someone can do the whole rest of the story.

What chaff's me is the inconsistancies:
"You're gears not high end enough"
"I can hear night and day differences on my RTi4's and receiver"

"There's no difference in cables under $200 anyway"
"Going from my AR's to Blue Jeans to Signal Cable were all huge improvements..."

Such contradictory claims are the crux of the argument in my book and lead me more to a "mental" rather than "physical" cause even though both are equally real outcomes to the individual.

reeltrouble1

who listens to music cables??????? very silly idea. very silly,. I am in agreement with DK, although training of the ear is inevitable, people just process sound waves differently, its just the way their brain receives electrical signals and processes the information, do not really see why that is so hard to understand. People readily submit to the idea that some folks can see better than others, I suppose because it is as plain as the glasses on your face, others hear better, or at least their auditory system is able to process the information better, golden ear??? well call it whatever you want but it makes total sense that such folks would be drawn to this hobby from the standpoint of what they hear and not what they see or say about some bench test.

Different strokes and all that but I know what sounds best in my rig, again empirical data is what works best for me. Its not about some cable that cannot do squat without the rest of the parts it is totally dependent upon except take up space and look pretty, which leads to the supposed snake oil, sure some wild eyed ideas, but "full of them" I think not, snake oilers who charge excessive prices for junk are weeded out by the community in quite short order. Some of the biggest snake oilers have been these alleged 'giant killers" although possible to build a satisfying system with them, giant killer is a joke, I prefer "acceptable compromiser" to a true audio reproduction experience.

Use whatever gear makes you happy, I know I do.

RT1

shack

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Shack:

That, I would totally agree with! If someone could/would just compare some basic AR or monster cables to some TOTL MIT's or Nordhosts and nail 19/20 different/not different test blindly, I would believe that someone can do it.

I've said it before....I've done a ABX test and could tell each time. Whether anyone chooses to believe or not is their issue...not mine. Don't give me the "prove it" for the cause crap. I don't want to, I don't need to and don't care because the only person I need to convince has been satisfied.

Sigh....I just need to ignore these threads. :rolleyes:

Sami

madmax wrote: »

Cables most certainly make a difference. Do you not hear a difference or do you just know there is no difference??

Lets put it this way: cables CAN make a difference. Not will but can, if it's a bad cable then it will introduce noise to the path. I don't care really to test if a $1000 cable would make my system sound marginally better because I know that with quality cables the difference isn't going to be more than that, if at all, on my relatively inexpensive system.

If you make a claim that a cable A was a such big improvement over cable B, you should be able to tell the difference if we hooked it up to a different, similar system you should hear a difference. Forget about excuses like "system synergy" or not being familiar with the system, if there is a huge difference you should hear it, period. Now prove it on a blind test. If there is a huge difference it should be easy to prove but for some reason hasn't been done yet. That just reinforces the image of mental differences between cables, not real differences.

hearingimpared

Sona wrote: »

Could we do these cable tests with Lsi's and $2000 in cables and electronics or is this whole debate in the stratosphere of those dabbling in the ultra high end? (I ask cause Hearingimpaired I think slammed the inability to distinguish CD/SACD as a result of crappy equipment.)

First off kiddo I own nothing in the ultra high end.

Secondly, I slammed a rediculous post about a test that absolutely proved SACD no better than CD.:rolleyes: I have experience with the Oppo that I used in that statement. The quality of SACD from that player (which BTW got good reviews in two of the rags I read) is inconsistent at best when compared to a high end SACD player but even with a high end DAC connected to the Oppo's transport I can still hear a major difference between every SACD vs CD of the same title.

I don't blame you for siding with someone who keeps spouting about double blind tests and changes measured in test equipment blah, blah blah . . .

. . . when you find yourself upgrading your equipment and start hearing the differences between pieces of gear and cable you will then join us who have been enlightened by our own listening experiences rather than some skeptics ultimate unrefutable one sided test.

Did you ever notice that we who have heard the difference really do give a rat's behind about all these "debunkers?" All they want is publicity or revenge!!! I have been around music, musicians and gear since I was a little boy . . . I know what I hear, that is all I care about.

madmax

Sami wrote: »

Forget about excuses like "system synergy" or not being familiar with the system, if there is a huge difference you should hear it, period.

But these are reasons, not excuses. I can walk into any of these guys houses and not be able to hear small tweaks. You have to know a system before you can tell something changes (although I did actually pick out a problem F1Nut had with his system, put into words exactly what he was hearing, changed to a different cable and got rid of the problem). Sure, anyone can hear a radical frequency slant or something like that but that sort of change is not what we are talking about here. At least us cable guys aren't.
madmax

jdhdiggs

shack wrote: »

I've said it before....I've done a ABX test and could tell each time. Whether anyone chooses to believe or not is their issue...not mine. Don't give me the "prove it" for the cause crap. I don't want to, I don't need to and don't care because the only person I need to convince has been satisfied.

Sigh....I just need to ignore these threads. :rolleyes:

Just curious, did you change the cables and/or could you see the cables. If you answered yes to either, it was fundementally flawed. Otherwise, bully for you, no you don't need to "prove it" to anyone. Just realize that virtually all scientific and psychological data are on the other side so people will doubt your claim without said "proof".

hearingimpared wrote: »

Did you ever notice that we who have heard the difference really do give a rat's behind about all these "debunkers?" All they want is publicity or revenge!!! I have been around music, musicians and gear since I was a little boy . . . I know what I hear, that is all I care about.

I'm going to go ahead and through the BS flag on that one. 9 times out of 10 when this stuff comes up, it's those that hear that difference that go into the name calling and bashing of other people or their systems or just generally come off as arrogant ****. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't have responded or even opened the thread.

Most non-believers WANT to experiment, WANT to see this phenomenon for themselves and then try to figure out why it doesn't work for them, or perhaps invest enough so it does. It's not so much as to "debunk" the theory, but rather prove that it can happen. Believers seem to want the opposite. They want to generate excuses before anything happens, they refuse to be the test subjects, they are the ones that don't want to see the results. Why is that? Especially if you don't care?

shack

jdhdiggs wrote:

Just curious, did you change the cables and/or could you see the cables. If you answered yes to either, it was fundementally flawed.

No and no. My daughter swapped out two different I/Cs (that I was very familiar with their tonal characteristics and using a passage of music I was equally familiar with) with me facing away from the gear. I could even tell when she didn't swap the cable

jdhdiggs wrote:

Just realize that virtually all scientific and psychological data are on the other side so people will doubt your claim without said "proof".

So what? As I said...the only person I need to prove it to (me) has been satisfied.

shack

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am merely relating my experiences. Take that and do whatever you want.

DarqueKnight

Sona wrote: »

I rather doubt though you are trying to get us to conclude you knowingly buy expensive cables that sound awful but look great just for the cachet.

I buy audio gear, expensive or otherwise, based on how close it gets me to my reference, which is the sound of real, live, music. If I could achieve my audio resolution resolution requirements with a $119.95 boom box from Wal Mart, I would be thrilled to do so.

Sona wrote: »

So if we substituted the cables on your system, would you be able to identify them by sound alone? Or even do good, better, best?

Absolutely. If you go back and read my cable reviews, you will see that I take care to record the differences, if any, I hear when switching cables. Furthermore, other people, audiophile as well as non-audiophile, have also been able to hear the differences. Shortly after switching to the PS Audio Resolution Reference cables, a friend stopped by and noticed that my system sounded "better". He asked if I had purchased new amps. Likewise, when visiting my friends who are caught up in this hobby, I can tell if something is "different" or "better" about their systems...because I am very familiar with how their systems sound.

Sona wrote: »

Certainly something you and an experienced friend could test in the privacy of your own home. You would not even have to tell the friend which cables were in place. After a listening test, the friend could simply reveal that cable A was first and cable B second and you would know for yourself that you got it right.

I think you and other skeptics are missing the point. I, and all the audiophiles that I am personally acquainted with, are not on a crusade to "convert" the uninitiated. We already know what we can or cannot hear. I am on a crusade to get the best music reproduction that I can afford. I really do not care if someone else can or cannot discern a difference in a cable, amplifier, or source component. What is important to me is what I can hear and enjoy in the cozy confines of my listening room.

An important point to consider is that differences in cables may not be apparent depending on the resolution capabilities of the associated amplifiers and source components. Some kinds of differences are only discernable once you know what to listen for.

For high quality cables, as with high quality anything, the differences between two different specimens may be very subtle. Indeed, I have heard cables from two different manufacturers that sounded alike in every aspect, except in how they rendered images within a soundstage. If I had my back to the soundstage, I would have been unable to tell the difference between the two, because I would have been unable to accurately gauge the differences in space between images within the soundfield. Someone else, who is not adept at evaluating soundstage rendering, would have said the two cables sounded alike, even when they were facing the soundstage. Also, if the cables had been used with equipment that did not properly transmit the part of the signal that contained the spatial information, the cables would have, again, sounded alike.

Sona wrote: »

Yes, and for the wine connoisseurs, you can verify their expertise by looking at the bottle.

Same for the noses.

Consider the audiophile. Put 10 different cables in their systems and they will be able to tell you which one is in.

I assume you meant to say "Put 10 different cables in their systems and they will [not] be able to tell you which one is in.

Blanket genralizations like this serve to misinform the reader. As I have stated before, the ability to discern differences in cables depends on a lot of variables such as:

1. The listening preferences and priorities of the listener.
2. The sensitivity and response characteristics of the listener's ears.
3. The recording quality of the source material.
4. The resolution of the audio gear.
5. The synergy of the cables and associated audio gear.

As I understand Randi's "test", only two cables will be evaluated. There could very well only be very subtle differences in his test cables that are filtered out by the audio electronics. I could easily rig a similar test with two cable specimens that I know to be identical in tonal character, but different in spatial resolution. I could then pair them with electronics which do not pass on the spatial information. The result: two different cables that sound alike.

One other thing you should also understand about me: my naturally skeptical nature plus my professional experience and academic training in electrical engineering cause me to scrutinize the performance claims by manufacturers very closely. I am not given to fits of euphoria over the next new thing because it is new or because it is pretty and costs a lot.

DarqueKnight

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Just realize that virtually all scientific and psychological data are on the other side so people will doubt your claim without said "proof".

As Confucious and other wise men have said: "So what?" People used to be jailed, hanged and burned at the stake for proclaiming that the world was spherical rather than flat, as was the prevailing "scientific" theory at the time.;)

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Most non-believers WANT to experiment, WANT to see this phenomenon for themselves and then try to figure out why it doesn't work for them, or perhaps invest enough so it does. It's not so much as to "debunk" the theory, but rather prove that it can happen. Believers seem to want the opposite. They want to generate excuses before anything happens, they refuse to be the test subjects, they are the ones that don't want to see the results. Why is that? Especially if you don't care?

I disagree thoroughly. Most nonbelievers want someone else to tell them what sounds good, instead of spending the time and effort getting their ears around as much gear as possible. IF nonbelievers really wanted to experiment, they would be spending the time reporting their evaluation results rather than questioning the veracity of those who are experimenting, evaluating and documenting.

I really do not understand why this is such a point of contention. If a $39.99 cable sounds the same as a $3,999 cable to someone, I am happy for them. I wish I could be that way, then I would have more money to trick off on strippers.

DarqueKnight

jdhdiggs wrote: »

DK,

One issue you overlook is that those wine tasters and perfume sniffers are tested in blind/scientifically valid environments where as "cable listeners" are not.

If you went to school to learn all about the differences in cables and were then hired, after strenous testing to prove your ability, to listen for differences in cables then your concept would be correct. As it is, that post is based on a flawed premise, namely the people you metion can prove, time and time again, that they can do what they say they can, where cable believers have not.

If the market for high performance audio cables ever approaches the sales volume of wine and perfume, I guarantee you that a corps of professional cable evaluators will emerge.

As it is, we are talking about a niche market (high performance audio cables) within another niche market (audio cables) within yet another niche market (audio gear).

My premise is not flawed, rather it is the conditions under which these so-called scientific cable tests have been conducted that have been flawed.

If I understand you correctly, since I have no formal training in evaluating audio cables and since that training has not been certified by some "authoritative agency", then I have no qualifications to accurately describe what I hear. OK. You are welcome to your opinion.

Look...if someone needs an "authority" with an accredited degree in cableology and a white lab coat and tell them what sounds good or what should sound good...well, I feel sorry for them because they are missing out on one of the best parts of this hobby, which is training oneself to critically evaluate gear and thereby enhance and optimize the listening experience.

ka7niq

Darkknight wrote: »

As Confucius and other wise men have said: "So what?" People used to be jailed, hanged and burned at the stake for proclaiming that the world was spherical rather than flat, as was the prevailing "scientific" theory at the time.;)

The world was never proven to be flat, just thought to be.
Exhaustive scientific testing has proven there is no audible difference in sound of speaker wire.
Just as no one has ever demonstrated ESP under controlled conditions, no one has ever demonstrated they could hear differences in wire.
They may claim to hear differences, but I can claim to be the reincarnation of John Holmes too.
Proving it is the hard part .......

Another sign of Mental Illness, particular Bi Polar Disorder, is believing you have "special powers/abilities".
Perhaps some of you need to go back on the meds ?

JUST KIDDING

davidk0512

RuSsMaN wrote: »

It doesn't, it just allows him to educate us and name drop yet ANOTHER time.

The future of the forum, you're looking at it.

Where the hell is bchivers?

////\\\\

Sorry, I couldn't resist

DarqueKnight

ka7niq wrote: »

Exhaustive scientific testing has proven there is no audible difference in sound of speaker wire.

I enjoy reading scientific literature. Can you provide references to these exhaustive scientific tests?

F1nut

ka7niq wrote: »

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
BLAH

....

heiney9

ka7niq wrote: »

The world was never proven to be flat, just thought to be.
Exhaustive scientific testing has proven there is no audible difference in sound of speaker wire.
Just as no one has ever demonstrated ESP under controlled conditions, no one has ever demonstrated they could hear differences in wire.
They may claim to hear differences, but I can claim to be the reincarnation of John Holmes too.
Proving it is the hard part .......

Another sign of Mental Illness, particular Bi Polar Disorder, is believing you have "special powers/abilities".
Perhaps some of you need to go back on the meds ?

JUST KIDDING

Yet their are unexplained phenomenon related to ESP all the time & thru all the ages :rolleyes: . I demonstrate cable differences everytime I post about my experiences. It just doesn't fit your nice and tidy idea of how these differences should be conveyed.

So you want to have the disease John Holmes had........interesting......maybe the meds should be for you.

h9

P.s. Oh yeah, forgot to add "JUST KIDDING" :rolleyes:

Sami

madmax wrote: »

But these are reasons, not excuses. I can walk into any of these guys houses and not be able to hear small tweaks.

As you can read, I never talked about small tweaks:

"If you make a claim that a cable A was a such big improvement over cable B, you should be able to tell the difference if we hooked it up to a different, similar system you should hear a difference. Forget about excuses like "system synergy" or not being familiar with the system."

If the chance from cable A to cable B, or IC A to IC B was such a "night and day difference" is surely could be proven by blind AB test, right?