James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

I am not upset but you have no idea how much a cable can contribute to the sound of a system. Switching to Synergistic Research Tesla cables was easily the single biggest and most clearly audible improvement I have ever made to a system.

LM and Redwood,

I believe LM might be using "Active Cables". The speaker cables need to be plugged into the wall and the shield is activated with a DC current with return on a separate ground wire. A buffer circuit is added between the Shield and ground wire. About 30 Volts DC is applied. Details are, of course, proprietary, although anyone with $3000 or so to burn could cut them open and check the circuits.

Speaker cables with active power and buffer circuitry will without doubt have the potential for much greater impact to the sound than ordinary wire. No wonder it made such a big difference to LM! Far from having an ordinary brown dog or black dog, you could say LM has a white unicorn - you know something entirely different and quite rare...not even the same species as what ordinary folks would consider a dog.

Dave Clark of Positive Feedback says of Pear Anjou Cables,

…way better than anything I have heard…Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace – these cables smack that right on the nose big time.

Is this what he means by danceable cables?

Leica Man, I see your point that the testee should be able to choose his own cables, but surely a professional cable reviewer (among other things) should be able to tell the difference between Pear Anjous and Monster Cable whether the Anjous would be what he would choose as best cable or not.

For Fremer this should be like seeing the difference between a dark brown dog and a tan dog on a sunny day.

I went to the Pear site, and my assertion on dielectric degradation of the
signal is once again confirmed.

The only thing is, you really don't need to spend a fortune getting the same
result.

My take on Mike F.'s acceptance of the Randi challenge, and what it means for the Advancement of Humanity:

Much will hinge on what Components are used. A $5k system would prove incredibly difficult to distinguish which cables are used, whereas a $50k system would make it a lot easier! I think it's going to be debated results either way. I really don't see Randi coughing up $1m. I'm sure he'd find some aspect of the event to contest, thus balking at the payment. Remember, skeptics are never satisfied with results as long as their worldview is violated. Most would rather deny the results than change their worldview. Randi is not offering this test in order to determine which perspective he will have; he is offering it to browbeat anyone who disagrees with him. I find it interesting how quickly the mockery on the skeptic's side of the debate has turned to complaints and misinformation now that the challenge has been taken up. Already, many are suggesting they would not accept the results EVEN IF they demonstrate a difference in cables! It's very difficult to change another's tightly held opinions. Audiophiles should know that going into this con(test) - likely very few opinions will truly be changed.

In an environment as public as the contest, Pear Cables has very little to lose and quite a bit to gain. Only the perception (i.e. moral victory) that high end cables have been validated needs to occur in order for the company to score a major marketing coup.

Related: I just saw an article the other day that suggested that the waves produced inside the ear are more complex than previously thought. Here's the premise:

MIT Professor Dennis M. Freeman, working with graduate student Roozbeh Ghaffari and research scientist Alexander J. Aranyosi, found that the tectorial membrane, a gelatinous structure inside the cochlea of the ear, is much more important to hearing than previously thought. It can selectively pick up and transmit energy to different parts of the cochlea via a kind of wave that is different from that commonly associated with hearing.

The entire article is here:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/hearing-1010.html

I have written of the benefits of quality cables, so I am not a skeptic. I believe both that differences exist between cables, especially cables of high disparity of quality, AND that humans are notoriously inconsistent, incapable of performing with a high degree of confidence in DB tests. A new book out, called "Supercrunchers" supports my hunch.

In other words, Randi and Audiophiles both have a piece of the truth.

The funny thing is that if Mikey comes out of it with flying colors, watch how many audiophiles flock to Pear Cables, completely oblivious to the fact that those cables may not be suitable for their systems. Pear Cables has offered to supply the weapon for the contest, but it very well might not be the best "weapon of choice."

Finally, the contest will be very difficult if IC's are not allowed to be tested. Randi may be quite aware of this when he set up the contest. It is VERY difficult to hear sea changes in sound with only one pair of cables! I have tried dozens of cables and my experience is that only when an entire set of cables (power, IC's, speaker) is compared can one EASILY hear the distinction. In a test like that proposed by Randi, it may be neigh unto impossible for Mikey to hear any difference. That doesn't mean the difference didn't exist, just that the test couldn't reveal it and the ears can't distinguish it since the threshold of change was not sufficient to identify.

My suspicion is that the trench warfare between the two sides will continue long after this battle.

With one set of speaker cables, it is very likely Randi will win on a technicality. It's possible the audio rig selected and the lack of systemic cabling will ensure it.