James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

As no audible difference exists between cables (which does not relate to LCR and it's interaction with components and then only in the most extreme of circumstances - passive preamp etc) then randis money is quite safe.

Comments regarding people making sighted preferences in their own systems are irrelevant - in unsighted tests these preferences disappear as they do not exist and are merely a function of the imagination of the observer during sighted tests. Cables are susceptible to this methodology and no amount of excuses by enraged cable fans will change that.

I use Brystons cable loom for the connections between the amps crossover and speakers. It was supplied all in. The rest is balanced star quad cable with high quality neutrik connectors. £50 for 3m pairs or blue jeans cables balanced also for about £20 for a metre pair. Probably 90% of the cost of each is connectors.

Why do I say cables make no difference? because there is no theoretical or experimental evidence to support any thing other than LCR shielding and earthing affecting the interface of two components via cable. In scientific process the onus on the pro-cable believers to provide evidence. Proof positive.

Mr tennis. Actually that is not true it takes multiple tests subject to statistical significance as someone can can produce a random guess that gets better than the pure chance odds correct. You have to look at the distribution of results, the number of tests and subjects etc to determine if a conclusion is significant.

TBG. But what you like - but you cant claim it exists without proof. Otherwise it is belief and not fact.

The main point = even if cables did make a difference (unlikely) then it is so small that spending the difference elsewhere will make orders of magnitude more difference regardless of system cost. Especially when room treatment is often completely neglected in these systems!

Components clearly sound different and that is what I buy on. This can be repeated blind. Cables cannot. The likelihood of a particular random outcome can be assessed from the sample size and test regime. For example if you have one listener (you) telling apart two cables in a test on one occasion you have a 50% chance of being right just by chance. You would need to repeat the identification a statistically significant number of times in repeated tests for it to have 99% significance. Noone has ever done this and i doubt you would either. Significance - means a significant deviation from chance distribution given the test conditions.

The connectors are hardly expensive - probably £10 a pair. They break earth last which is why I buy them so I can hot swap without turning components off. The importance of good connection can also be demonstrated repeatably if you put purposefully make a poor connection the sound quality suffers. Good quality connectors also minimize RF issues. Again - all well understood science. I have compared with expensive cables lent by numerous shops and they made no difference. Also I have observed ridiculous claims like skin effect and cable directionality. I used to work in rf engineering testing and i recognize this is all ridiculous and just marketing BS.

Leica - Lets see you do it in a blind test. So far many have made the claim but none have been able to deliver - which is why the $1M remains unclaimed and no cable manufacturer ever puts on a comparative demonstration.

TBG - all audio components are designed using engineering principles - either theoretical or empirical. EE has a very good understanding on how components work - they would not do so without it! It is not some alchemical art no matter what the magazines would have you believe. Your statements about statistics are also in error - I have a PhD in mathematics and work in advanced statistical on a daily basis techniques in a scientific field way beyond anything under discussion here. Probabilities are statistics are linked at the most fundamental level - even a basic understanding should show you that.

I worked in RF engineering for many years. Electronic circuits are well understood - the mode of operation is one of design according to theory. It is not guesswork and the limitations are well known as are what would be required to improve them. Usually the active devices in such components. With respect to cables, LCR and the shielding are sufficient to categorize any variation in behavior of the two connected components. No-one has ever produced any rigorous evidence that has stood up to scientific scrutiny that shows otherwise. Therefore accepted scientific theory (which is contradicted by the unsubstantiated claims of the pro-cable argument) has nothing to answer. If such evidence is ever produced then you will have a case. That is the scientific process - which I might add created all of audio in the first place.

As a rule political science and psychology are those fields where statistics and scientific method are most inappropriately applied - much to the merriment of true statisticians - and cables are another prime example. I stated in my post that sample size is important so I am bewildered that you claim otherwise given that it was the point of my post. If I set up a series of trials and assess relative to random expectation then I can calculate the statistical significance of your performance (if any), employing certain controls to assess effects of bias or systematic issues etc etc.

If you can do as you claim then I suggest you step up and claim Randis $1M without making excuses. If you can do it Randi is on the level and will pay you I am sure so what have you got to lose?

Muralmanl - I agree. Many of the highest prices offenders deliberately contain anomalously high LCR values solely for the purpose of sounding "different" (in well understood ones) which can then be touted as "better" to justify the price.

Leica - then step up and claim randis $1M! have you considered that this "active device" may just be altering the LCR anomalously to achieve an effect? If it is just some sort of buffer then it is the buffer making the effect not the cable. In like manner beefing up the output stage of a component improves the sound quality often - it is distinct from the cable. In the absence of any real explanation it is impossible to say. Similar claims have been made for various cables in the past and without exception the ability to discern vanishes under blind testing.

Tbg - I am proper scientist - you are not and have had no scientific training in a rigorous scientific field. So much is fact. As is this - step up and claim Randis $1M and prove all us skeptics wrong. If you fail to do so then clearly your POV is called into question. Oh and please produce some peer reviewed material in a scientific journal that supports the pro cable lobby - oh but you cant because it doesn't exist!

For your information sampling theory refers to the digital realm not analogue interconnects. I suggest you take a brief tour of wikipedia on the subject. I have compared numerous cables myself - no difference exists that cannot be explained purely by LCR and shielding. I have no idea why you are making the erroneous assumption that I reject the pro cable lobby purely on the basis of theory.

Randi will pay out if you can prove your claims. So come on guys dont be bashful step up - what have you got to lose except your pride and credibility and a little bit of time?

Come on one of you - step up and claim the money from randi and silence all objection

I can hardly take you up on your offer Mr T as I am the other side of the world.

The blind test negates the difference not the switching box. There are many switches in every hifi after all and also in the recording chain....