I just did a search on Randi's test (on his website) and it is indeed the one to which I was referring... further the challenge was between a pair of Pear Anjou Cables and some Monster Cable... The Reviewer being challenged is not allowed to use his own cables or it seems any other for the challenge... Such conditions seem strange to say the least, for someone so confident that no-one can hear differences in cables...
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
Fahnsen:
Perhaps this is said before in this thread, but it can't be said too often:
Of course experience makes it easier to judge, and getting familiar with a certain component we might discover subtleties we might not recognize right away.
But:
1: There isn't such a thing as an exact memory of sound. Unless two sources are switch immediately, we are simply not able to compare the sound. What we compare, is our memory of the sound.
2: Changes in the acoustic environment will outdo any other changes anytime. If your speakers are moved only sightly, or even if you turn or move your head, the sound that reaches your ears will change.
3: Our expectations and prejudices influence our judgement. If we believe a cable to be better, chances are it sound better to us. Or it might be the other way: Because we can't really hear the improvement we expected, we believe the sound to be poorer.
The human hearing is not comparable to technological measurement. While different meters can do very accurate measurements of single aspects, beyond what's audible to the human ear, no meter can mimic the human mind's registration and processing of various simultaneous inputs. Still, every bit of information that's physical can be registered individually by a meter, and calculated according to the laws of physics. So even if it's impossible to measure 'what we hear', what's not measurable is not audible, in the physical sense.
Therefor, if someone claims to hear a difference between components (like cables) that should not, according to physics, cause any difference, the obvious reasons are that 1, the time elapsed between listening to the two samples was more than a few seconds; thus a real comparison actually never took place -- 2, the physical relation between the listener's ears and the sound source were changed -- and 3, the listener was biased in some way or other.
There's more than enough tests by now, to prove that alleged differences between cables vanishes, even for trained ears, when the aspects mentioned above are controlled. What's more, there's tests showing that people easily hear differences between two identical samples, if they believe them to be different.
Now you see I really don't agree with this.
3 examples.
1) I changed a vdh D102 III for a Chord Chameleon - similar priced cables at RRP. As soon as I put the Chameleon on I noticed a way heavier bass. Too much in fact and I've since changed to a Nordost Heimdall which is much better for my tastes.
2) I changed 6mm OFC copper speaker cables to QED SA XT. More detail, but too bright. Again I have since changed to match my personal tastes.
3) I changed Merlin Tarantula mains on my CDP to a Nordost Shiva. To say it was more revealing, far more 3D in sound is an understatement. I was, like you, not expecting to hear quite such a difference. But it was there. And before you ask I paid £74 on eBay 2nd hand for this cable so knew that I could sell on for more if necessary. Suffice it to say it's staying. Love it.
I have to say, and chalk and cheese is an overstatement, but a good cable can make a good difference. That doesn't mean all cables are good either.
Just to finish off, I do consider myself an audiophile. Yes I listen to and really appreciate music, and hifi makes this experience more enjoyable to me. I do enjoy listening critically, but it's not the be all and end all. For instance I am listening to a lot of Elbow at the moment, and they aren't great recordings but I enjoy them. Having said that if I was to want to show off my system, they would not be on the playlist.
Perhaps this is said before in this thread, but it can't be said too often:
Of course experience makes it easier to judge, and getting familiar with a certain component we might discover subtleties we might not recognize right away.
But:
1: There isn't such a thing as an exact memory of sound. Unless two sources are switch immediately, we are simply not able to compare the sound. What we compare, is our memory of the sound.
2: Changes in the acoustic environment will outdo any other changes anytime. If your speakers are moved only sightly, or even if you turn or move your head, the sound that reaches your ears will change.
3: Our expectations and prejudices influence our judgement. If we believe a cable to be better, chances are it sound better to us. Or it might be the other way: Because we can't really hear the improvement we expected, we believe the sound to be poorer.
The human hearing is not comparable to technological measurement. While different meters can do very accurate measurements of single aspects, beyond what's audible to the human ear, no meter can mimic the human mind's registration and processing of various simultaneous inputs. Still, every bit of information that's physical can be registered individually by a meter, and calculated according to the laws of physics. So even if it's impossible to measure 'what we hear', what's not measurable is not audible, in the physical sense.
Therefor, if someone claims to hear a difference between components (like cables) that should not, according to physics, cause any difference, the obvious reasons are that 1, the time elapsed between listening to the two samples was more than a few seconds; thus a real comparison actually never took place -- 2, the physical relation between the listener's ears and the sound source were changed -- and 3, the listener was biased in some way or other.
There's more than enough tests by now, to prove that alleged differences between cables vanishes, even for trained ears, when the aspects mentioned above are controlled. What's more, there's tests showing that people easily hear differences between two identical samples, if they believe them to be different.
Now you see I really don't agree with this.
3 examples.
1) I changed a vdh D102 III for a Chord Chameleon - similar priced cables at RRP. As soon as I put the Chameleon on I noticed a way heavier bass. Too much in fact and I've since changed to a Nordost Heimdall which is much better for my tastes.
2) I changed 6mm OFC copper speaker cables to QED SA XT. More detail, but too bright. Again I have since changed to match my personal tastes.
3) I changed Merlin Tarantula mains on my CDP to a Nordost Shiva. To say it was more revealing, far more 3D in sound is an understatement. I was, like you, not expecting to hear quite such a difference. But it was there. And before you ask I paid £74 on eBay 2nd hand for this cable so knew that I could sell on for more if necessary. Suffice it to say it's staying. Love it.
I have to say, and chalk and cheese is an overstatement, but a good cable can make a good difference. That doesn't mean all cables are good either.
Just to finish off, I do consider myself an audiophile. Yes I listen to and really appreciate music, and hifi makes this experience more enjoyable to me. I do enjoy listening critically, but it's not the be all and end all. For instance I am listening to a lot of Elbow at the moment, and they aren't great recordings but I enjoy them. Having said that if I was to want to show off my system, they would not be on the playlist.
The only missing element is the Pear Anjou cables, those $7250 pieces of copper around which this entire controversy erupted in the first place. We're left to think the following: If Pear Cable was so sure that Pear Anjou cables were as good as the company claims, and if those pieces of copper wire were truly worth $7250, the company would have stood behind that product, offering it up for any test, by anyone, any time.
If I were Monster, I'd buy a pair of Anjou cables for the test ... could boost Monster sales if there was no difference
And if I were Fremer, and confident in hearing differences, I would buy the cables with my own money ... then win a million at the challenge? ... why pull out of the challenge because the supplier refused to supply the cables? ...
If I were Monster, I'd buy a pair of Anjou cables for the test ... could boost Monster sales if there was no difference
And if I were Fremer, and confident in hearing differences, I would buy the cables with my own money ... then win a million at the challenge? ... why pull out of the challenge because the supplier refused to supply the cables? ...
I'm really not interested in Randi, but the fact exists that I have heard significant differences and to me that is far more important than anything I've read. I wish it wasn't as I'd have saved a few quid!
dim_span:
The only missing element is the Pear Anjou cables, those $7250 pieces of copper around which this entire controversy erupted in the first place. We're left to think the following: If Pear Cable was so sure that Pear Anjou cables were as good as the company claims, and if those pieces of copper wire were truly worth $7250, the company would have stood behind that product, offering it up for any test, by anyone, any time.
If I were Monster, I'd buy a pair of Anjou cables for the test ... could boost Monster sales if there was no difference
And if I were Fremer, and confident in hearing differences, I would buy the cables with my own money ... then win a million at the challenge? ... why pull out of the challenge because the supplier refused to supply the cables? ...
Pear chickened out since they see it as a lose/lose situation.... (or maybe they aren't that confident in their product, who knows)
However, since the purpose of the test is to prove that no differences exist in exotic versus cheap cables, then Pear withdrawing should not be the end of the test... Why wouldn't Randi consent to using a brand Fremer was familiar with instead?
As to Fremer not buying the Pear cables: He said he wanted to borrow a pair first to determine if in regular listening they sounded different from the Monster Cables! Keep in mind that he had not previously reviewed the Pear Cables, so hence had no idea whether they actually sound different from Monster... He already got the Monster and compared to his reference cables and was sure he could tell the difference... Pear are ones he had never tried... So suppose he bought them and found that they were no better than Monster? He'd have just wasted $7,500...
The only missing element is the Pear Anjou cables, those $7250 pieces of copper around which this entire controversy erupted in the first place. We're left to think the following: If Pear Cable was so sure that Pear Anjou cables were as good as the company claims, and if those pieces of copper wire were truly worth $7250, the company would have stood behind that product, offering it up for any test, by anyone, any time.
If I were Monster, I'd buy a pair of Anjou cables for the test ... could boost Monster sales if there was no difference
And if I were Fremer, and confident in hearing differences, I would buy the cables with my own money ... then win a million at the challenge? ... why pull out of the challenge because the supplier refused to supply the cables? ...
Pear chickened out since they see it as a lose/lose situation.... (or maybe they aren't that confident in their product, who knows)
However, since the purpose of the test is to prove that no differences exist in exotic versus cheap cables, then Pear withdrawing should not be the end of the test... Why wouldn't Randi consent to using a brand Fremer was familiar with instead?
As to Fremer not buying the Pear cables: He said he wanted to borrow a pair first to determine if in regular listening they sounded different from the Monster Cables! Keep in mind that he had not previously reviewed the Pear Cables, so hence had no idea whether they actually sound different from Monster... He already got the Monster and compared to his reference cables and was sure he could tell the difference... Pear are ones he had never tried... So suppose he bought them and found that they were no better than Monster? He'd have just wasted $7,500...
The comments and ongoing discussion thread below made for interesting reading; the author 'johnnyabnormal' doesn't appear to be Michael Fremer's best pal! Amazing how divided opinions are on this particular topic.
I remember Dr. Ben Goldacre (Bad Science in the Guardian) running a similar article a few years back on this very topic. Don't think it was ever followed up and I never did receive a reply when I emailed him a year or so back - shame really as his column and take on things is pretty good. Looks like the trail's gone cold on this particular wild goose chase.
I remember Dr. Ben Goldacre (Bad Science in the Guardian) running a similar article a few years back on this very topic. Don't think it was ever followed up and I never did receive a reply when I emailed him a year or so back - shame really as his column and take on things is pretty good. Looks like the trail's gone cold on this particular wild goose chase.
dim_span:James Randi offered $1 million...
Five pages we managed before someone had to drag up that boring old chestnut...
Five pages we managed before someone had to drag up that boring old chestnut...
nice to see were back on the yes they do no they dont part of the cable debate
personally im happy with the fact that theres no difference between digital cables assuming they meet the industry standards
for those who doubt that consider spotify for if there was a difference youd here it many times a song because the stream has to go through wire and optical cable to you not to mention by different routes with different numbers of steps and transformations enroute same goes for live steaming of concerts etc too
analogue is another story but youd be hard pressed to hear differences between interconnects unless you had supremely revealing gear perfect hearing and the cable did do some kind of processing there are times when ive thought ive heard differences and times when i havent but in the end decided interconnects didnt do enough to be considered upgrades so i have never changed them since
getting back on topic i dont think the reason people dont hear differences is because were not trained enough or dont listen enough i just think there genuinely are no differences between certain types of cables
as an aside its interesting that those who find differences are also those who either refuse to take part in or attempt to discredit blind tests which you would think would prove their case whereas the other side have as much to lose but seem happy to take part
all of which pales in comparison with that 7 2 scoreline that gave mv nightmares last nuight
personally im happy with the fact that theres no difference between digital cables assuming they meet the industry standards
for those who doubt that consider spotify for if there was a difference youd here it many times a song because the stream has to go through wire and optical cable to you not to mention by different routes with different numbers of steps and transformations enroute same goes for live steaming of concerts etc too
analogue is another story but youd be hard pressed to hear differences between interconnects unless you had supremely revealing gear perfect hearing and the cable did do some kind of processing there are times when ive thought ive heard differences and times when i havent but in the end decided interconnects didnt do enough to be considered upgrades so i have never changed them since
getting back on topic i dont think the reason people dont hear differences is because were not trained enough or dont listen enough i just think there genuinely are no differences between certain types of cables
as an aside its interesting that those who find differences are also those who either refuse to take part in or attempt to discredit blind tests which you would think would prove their case whereas the other side have as much to lose but seem happy to take part
all of which pales in comparison with that 7 2 scoreline that gave mv nightmares last nuight
Andrew Everard:
dim_span:James Randi offered $1 million...
Five pages we managed before someone had to drag up that boring old chestnut...
exactly! .... after 5 pages of waffle and speculation, it puts things in perspective
and don't think many people knew the facts about the Randi challenge ... (I had only heard about it but had never read up about it until this thread)
thought it makes for interesting reading ... obviously, you don't
dim_span:James Randi offered $1 million...
Five pages we managed before someone had to drag up that boring old chestnut...
exactly! .... after 5 pages of waffle and speculation, it puts things in perspective
and don't think many people knew the facts about the Randi challenge ... (I had only heard about it but had never read up about it until this thread)
thought it makes for interesting reading ... obviously, you don't
dim_span:after 5 pages of waffle and speculation, it puts things in perspective
Yes, nothing like a widely-publicised challenge from a self-aggrandising former stage illusionist and magician to get us closer to the truth...
Yes, nothing like a widely-publicised challenge from a self-aggrandising former stage illusionist and magician to get us closer to the truth...
Andrew Everard:
dim_span:after 5 pages of waffle and speculation, it puts things in perspective
Yes, nothing like a widely-publicised challenge from a self-aggrandising former stage illusionist and magician to get us closer to the truth...
as far as I am aware, the million is still up for grabs .... yet there are 'no takers'?
dim_span:after 5 pages of waffle and speculation, it puts things in perspective
Yes, nothing like a widely-publicised challenge from a self-aggrandising former stage illusionist and magician to get us closer to the truth...
as far as I am aware, the million is still up for grabs .... yet there are 'no takers'?
Ah, that proves it then. In other news, Bats - can they predict asteroid impacts?
All that and more after this break...
All that and more after this break...
Andrew Everard:
Ah, that proves it then. In other news, Bats - can they predict asteroid impacts?
All that and more after this break...
don't know, ... but can predict that England are not 'batting' very well in South Africa
Ah, that proves it then. In other news, Bats - can they predict asteroid impacts?
All that and more after this break...
don't know, ... but can predict that England are not 'batting' very well in South Africa
Ah, sport. Does nothing for me, I'm afraid.
Anyway, I think I'll stop this now before you start threatening to come round and punch people in the face again.
Anyway, I think I'll stop this now before you start threatening to come round and punch people in the face again.
Andrew Everard:
Ah, sport. Does nothing for me, I'm afraid.
Anyway, I think I'll stop this now before you start threatening to come round and punch people in the face again.
yes, suppose 'one' has to sometimes be wary about what one says and insinuates about others on an international forum
Ah, sport. Does nothing for me, I'm afraid.
Anyway, I think I'll stop this now before you start threatening to come round and punch people in the face again.
yes, suppose 'one' has to sometimes be wary about what one says and insinuates about others on an international forum
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram