Panicos K said:
The claim is simple:
"I can hear a difference between cable A and cable B"
The challenge is:
"Prove it"
The procedure is to develop a test protocol with the JREF that you BOTH AGREE ON. Once agreed upon, neither side can change the rules without further MUTUAL agreement.
Read the rules, and send in your application.
Insist all you like, this is an opportunity to convince others that you're not imagining it....plus get paid $1 million US dollars.
Unless, of course, you're just admitting that this is an irrational belief (like religion) and it will fail any well designed test.
If that's the case, then I can respect that too.
Just to clarify the point of the 1 million dollar challenge:
James Randi is not a scientist. He's never claimed to be. He's a conjuror -- a magician. He fools people into thinking they just witnessed something they didn't. That's his profession. The reason that he challenges paranormal claims is because all of them are tricks.
If you need to design a better lock for your safe, hire a safecracker. If you want to protect your valuables, hire a thief to advise you how to do that. If you want to uncover a trick packaged as a paranormal claim, hire James Randi.
If you don't believe that what we are discussing in this forum is in the same category, then TAKE HIS MONEY!
All other opinions and claims that the challenge is rigged, or the money doesn't exist, etc. are addressed on his website.
I'm not going to waste any more of your time on it in this forum.
If you think you can hear the difference, just make the application, it's that simple.
James Randi is not a scientist. He's never claimed to be. He's a conjuror -- a magician. He fools people into thinking they just witnessed something they didn't. That's his profession. The reason that he challenges paranormal claims is because all of them are tricks.
If you need to design a better lock for your safe, hire a safecracker. If you want to protect your valuables, hire a thief to advise you how to do that. If you want to uncover a trick packaged as a paranormal claim, hire James Randi.
If you don't believe that what we are discussing in this forum is in the same category, then TAKE HIS MONEY!
All other opinions and claims that the challenge is rigged, or the money doesn't exist, etc. are addressed on his website.
I'm not going to waste any more of your time on it in this forum.
If you think you can hear the difference, just make the application, it's that simple.
macgyver10 said:
I am sorry but would any audiophile do that? By not putting ourselves to an objective, verifiable and observable test, we lose our credibility. But more importantly, we lose our ability to feel superior to those who don't have supernatural hearings (aka normal human beings) that we otherwise don't enjoy in real life.
there is no gain but 100% lose for us to take this test. That is why audiophiles the world over are drooling but not biting that cool usd 1 million.
Instead, we would rather hide behind empty techno jargons, complicated sentences, stuff that sounds sophisticated but otherwise means exactly nothing.
We will leave fact-finding to the intelligently challenged,
.I consider myself an audiophile too. I love music. Performing it, listening to it, building components to reproduce it.
But I'm a skeptic at heart. I just can't be anything else. I've never considered the word skeptic in anything but a positive light.
If you want me, or my ilk, to believe what you claim -- there has to be better evidence than "because I say so". I'm completely willing to be convinced that there's an audible difference between speaker cables. Anecdotes don't cut it, pseudoscientific technobabble doesn't cut it. A well designed double blind test that produces a clear irrefutable result is all I need. Until then I'll simply remain unconvinced. I'm very patient.
I'll even admit that I thought I heard a difference between cables on occasion. The difference is that I don't have the conceit of trusting my hearing above reason.
When I thought I heard a difference, I set out to try and find out if I REALLY did. So far, I have to say, I'm skeptical that I actually heard a difference.
As a skeptic, I don't have a position to defend. I'm not making any claims. I'm asking that those who do make their claims, defend their positions.
But I'm a skeptic at heart. I just can't be anything else. I've never considered the word skeptic in anything but a positive light.
If you want me, or my ilk, to believe what you claim -- there has to be better evidence than "because I say so". I'm completely willing to be convinced that there's an audible difference between speaker cables. Anecdotes don't cut it, pseudoscientific technobabble doesn't cut it. A well designed double blind test that produces a clear irrefutable result is all I need. Until then I'll simply remain unconvinced. I'm very patient.
I'll even admit that I thought I heard a difference between cables on occasion. The difference is that I don't have the conceit of trusting my hearing above reason.
When I thought I heard a difference, I set out to try and find out if I REALLY did. So far, I have to say, I'm skeptical that I actually heard a difference.
As a skeptic, I don't have a position to defend. I'm not making any claims. I'm asking that those who do make their claims, defend their positions.
OK, now that I know what "high beta" supposedly means, I'm calling your BS.planet10 said:
You don't know what "high beta" means. And "irregardless" isn't a word. "Irrespective" and "regardless" are real words.
Please explain why ABX tests, "irregardless of the number of trials," are statistically invalid.
(Hint: You can't do it.)
quote:
Originally posted by TerryO
Modern scientists have lost their position, funding and status within the scientific community when they're discovered to have pulled the same sort of thing.
Best Regards,
TerryO
"Still don't see the relevance to what's being discussed."
What the relevance is, and I note that the quote was taken out of context, is that of perception, theory and proof.
To make it short and sweet, Galileo had an intuitive sense of how things worked, but rather than doing the hard work of actually proving it, simply took a short-cut and used bogus or false data to substanciate his claims. He got caught, was given another chance and tried to pull another fast one. As they say, the rest is history.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Originally posted by TerryO
Modern scientists have lost their position, funding and status within the scientific community when they're discovered to have pulled the same sort of thing.
Best Regards,
TerryO
"Still don't see the relevance to what's being discussed."
What the relevance is, and I note that the quote was taken out of context, is that of perception, theory and proof.
To make it short and sweet, Galileo had an intuitive sense of how things worked, but rather than doing the hard work of actually proving it, simply took a short-cut and used bogus or false data to substanciate his claims. He got caught, was given another chance and tried to pull another fast one. As they say, the rest is history.
Best Regards,
TerryO
"Audiophile" and "skeptic" are not mutually exclusive.macgyver10 said:
If you check the ABX website, you find that transducers (phono carts, loudspeakers) DO have audible differences. Ludicrous ********, like high-end interconnects and speaker cables, are correctly debunked.
Being an "objectivist" skeptic doesn't mean that you believe all audio components are equal. It means that you concentrate effort on the aspects that matter.
Here is the deal: people who spend all kinds of effort on interconnects and speaker cables CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. They can't build amplifiers, they can't understand speaker design, so they spend all their time with snake oil.
TerryO said:
Okay, so now I understand the origin of the quote, Panicos K's comment makes even less sense.
If he's equating my stance as somehow similar to a dogmatic regime like the Catholic Church, then he's obviously confused about what my position is.
The subject at hand is no where near as complex as planetary orbits, and heavenly observation (both rational and not).
It's quite simply "can you hear the difference between cable A and cable B in a double blind test with better than chance accuracy?"
I don't know the answer to that question. Let's find out.
Because, quite frankly, if you can't hear it every time with near perfect accuracy, using only your ears, then what's the point?
If Panicos K can't hear the difference, no future historical perspective is going to vindicate his assertions that he can.
Even more relevant is the fact that if he can hear the difference, then my position hasn't changed. I'm still a skeptic, but now I have evidence that cables make a difference. That's a good thing for me, because knowledge has been gained. I win in either case.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
I guess that explains some of the reference to galileo.
A sceptic - a true one - has to have also a sceptical approach to his scientific method, and his results and the interpretation thereof, and that is why peer review works - cut the bs or the feet from under claims ala fleischman and ponds, verify the findings using the posted method and if not dump the stuff on the trashheap.
Galileo violated his own experimental approach he so carefully maintained in his motion studies.
The article also shows very clearly that the catholic church - as opposed to christian f...lists - does see the bible not as a scientific textbook.
I guess that explains some of the reference to galileo.
A sceptic - a true one - has to have also a sceptical approach to his scientific method, and his results and the interpretation thereof, and that is why peer review works - cut the bs or the feet from under claims ala fleischman and ponds, verify the findings using the posted method and if not dump the stuff on the trashheap.
Galileo violated his own experimental approach he so carefully maintained in his motion studies.
The article also shows very clearly that the catholic church - as opposed to christian f...lists - does see the bible not as a scientific textbook.
You know, for people who I presume maintain extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof you all do pull some whoppers. fokker believes 'audiophiles', as a pejorative, do everything to impress people like him. If you require a data point fokker, use me. I don't care to impress you. Dumbass writes
in forum full of contradictory evidence. If you bother with the expansion of macgyver10's link I posted you'll also see at least one set of ABX data that couldn't differentiate between three different phono cartridges. That alone should give any real skeptic, as opposed to skeptical pundit, pause about how well those tests were performed. An aside; for a long time, well before it became the Randi/Shermer show, I followed the skeptic literature closely. Have a bookshelf of it. Once the movement gained widespread visibility personalities rose to the surface and popular skeptics stopped being skeptical about themselves. When they stopped questioning themselves I dropped out.
Does Randi specifically mention a cable challenge? I found talk of Belt products, Tice clocks, power cords and CD treatments. Lots of correspondance with Stereophile but again, all Belt/Shakti stuff. Anything related to audio cable was minimal; an opinon by a designer at QSC, an anonymous person at Bryston, a few "letters to the editor", including one Randi takes at face value claiming the best speaker cable is a single run of CAT5, (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html) proving we're all susceptible to our beliefs. The only audio challenger I saw involved of all things Golden Sound Intelligent Chip of all things. I'm curious how it would done. I'm guessing there are obvious limitations, for example no 50' runs of 32 gauge speaker wire, no Naim/Polk Cobra cable combos, unshielded interconnects, etc..
in forum full of contradictory evidence. If you bother with the expansion of macgyver10's link I posted you'll also see at least one set of ABX data that couldn't differentiate between three different phono cartridges. That alone should give any real skeptic, as opposed to skeptical pundit, pause about how well those tests were performed. An aside; for a long time, well before it became the Randi/Shermer show, I followed the skeptic literature closely. Have a bookshelf of it. Once the movement gained widespread visibility personalities rose to the surface and popular skeptics stopped being skeptical about themselves. When they stopped questioning themselves I dropped out.
Does Randi specifically mention a cable challenge? I found talk of Belt products, Tice clocks, power cords and CD treatments. Lots of correspondance with Stereophile but again, all Belt/Shakti stuff. Anything related to audio cable was minimal; an opinon by a designer at QSC, an anonymous person at Bryston, a few "letters to the editor", including one Randi takes at face value claiming the best speaker cable is a single run of CAT5, (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html) proving we're all susceptible to our beliefs. The only audio challenger I saw involved of all things Golden Sound Intelligent Chip of all things. I'm curious how it would done. I'm guessing there are obvious limitations, for example no 50' runs of 32 gauge speaker wire, no Naim/Polk Cobra cable combos, unshielded interconnects, etc..
Too bad there isn't really a $ million prize for proving that speakers cables make a difference. I'd be glad to take the challenge!
There was a very good test proposed on this forum, but it was ignored. I'll pick it up in a week or two.
As for anecdotal evidence and double blind tests, I happened to fall into an accidental double blind cable test about 20 years ago. The test didn't "prove" anything, but it certainly made me more open to the possibility that the differences are audible, even subtle differences. I've been frustrated in my efforts to find magic cables for any system I've ever owned, though.
Of course there are published blind tests that “prove” even educated listeners can't tell the difference between amplifiers. I know that to be wrong – laughably so.
There was a very good test proposed on this forum, but it was ignored. I'll pick it up in a week or two.
As for anecdotal evidence and double blind tests, I happened to fall into an accidental double blind cable test about 20 years ago. The test didn't "prove" anything, but it certainly made me more open to the possibility that the differences are audible, even subtle differences. I've been frustrated in my efforts to find magic cables for any system I've ever owned, though.
Of course there are published blind tests that “prove” even educated listeners can't tell the difference between amplifiers. I know that to be wrong – laughably so.
panomaniac said:Too bad there isn't really a $ million prize for proving that speakers cables make a difference. I'd be glad to take the challenge!
There was a very good test proposed on this forum, but it was ignored. I'll pick it up in a week or two.
As for anecdotal evidence and double blind tests, I happened to fall into an accidental double blind cable test about 20 years ago. The test didn't “prove?anything, but it certainly made me more open to the possibility that the differences are audible, even subtle differences. I've been frustrated in my efforts to find magic cables for any system I've ever owned, though.
Of course there are published blind tests that “prove?even educated listeners can't tell the difference between amplifiers. I know that to be wrong ?laughably so.
I actually send in a mail to ask whether this subject is a valid one to challenge qouting what macgyver10 had posted. We'll see what comes up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.