jlsem said:
There was no deadline established.
And he'd had two days to confer with his "advisers" before his trip to the hospital on Friday.
Also, even if he had rejected Fremer's Tara Labs cables, the Transparents were still on the table at the time Randi closed the challenge.
He subsequently declared that he wouldn't have allowed Fremer to use his Tara Labs cables because Fremer might be able to alter the cable in order to be able to discern some difference, or he could have installed some sort of transmiter, etc.
But that's beside the point. Again, the Transparents were still on the table. Not to mention that there are any number of other multi-thousand dollar cables out there which would have been just a suitable for the purposes of the test as those which were under consideration at the time Randi disingenuously pulled the rug out from under Fremer.
Perhaps so. However that doesn't excuse his disingenuousness.
se
There was a letter writter by MF during the discussions on the great stereophile amplifier dbt; Fremer was at that time affiliated to TAS:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index6.html
This covers mainly what i remimbered about that; i had forgotten that Fremer organized the test himself, after beeing challenged.
Was there any other description or any article that gave another version of this story?
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index6.html
This covers mainly what i remimbered about that; i had forgotten that Fremer organized the test himself, after beeing challenged.
Was there any other description or any article that gave another version of this story?
Steve Eddy said:
Steve, I thought you had soured on Randi before that - after helping an AA inmate attempt to take the challenge (which also fell through)?
Of course. His stated reasons for pulling the plug are disingenuous, based on my reading of his earlier blog posts. The whole episode becomes confused at the end from Randi's putting up a smoke screen then disappearing from the scene. The original blog postings appear on the Wayback Machine.
I was and still am to some extent a fan of his. However, I don't worship him and, like any other commentator I admire, I can tell when he has stepped outside his field of expertise. I am not foolish enough to take every word his says as gospel truth.
John
SY said:
Here is your claim as you made it originally:
The one chance he got, he insisted on breaking the controls, then refused to be tested.
So you did indeed also claim that he then refused to be tested.
That's incorrect.
He proposed three options to Randi:
Since I have not heard either the Pear Anjou or the Transparent Opus, and since I don't necessarily think that "expensive equals better," there are three options:
1) I request a set of Pear Anjou cables to hear what they sound like and then decide whether i can hear the difference between them and whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."
2) request a pair of Transparent Orpheus cables to hear what they sound like and then decide whether i can hear the difference between them and whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."
3) have you sign off on okaying me to use my reference TARA Labs Omega cables ($16,000 pr.) versus whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."
Once this is clarified we will take it the next step and I will state clearly what abilities I intend to demonstrate.
He never wrote off either the Pears or the Transparents. He simply wanted an opportunity before the test to see if he could perceive any differences between them and the Monster cables before he agreed to the test.
While the point remains that he was never given that opportunity because Randi disingenuously pulled the rug out from under him and declared the challenge closed after Pear withdrew their offer to supply the cables, Randi actually said he PREFERRED option 3, pending discussion with his "advisers."
I think I?d go with option 3, for simplicity, but I?ll have to consult with my advisors, first?
And perhaps the Z2R ML 10/10 ? if a 10? cable is okay with you.
All subject to advisors?
And just to reiterate once again, at the time Randi pulled the plug, the Transparents were STILL ON THE TABLE.
Randi simply used Pear's withdrawing their offer to weasel out of the challenge and to impugn Fremer in the process.
se
andy_c said:
You're right. I did sour on Randi over the Michael Anda debacle.
Thanks for reminding me.
se
Steve Eddy said:
I read through the Randi/Fremer soap opera at the time it was happening. You were one of the few voices of reason in the whole discussion as I recall.
Even though I was thoroughly disgusted with that joke of a "danceable cables" review of the Pear Anjou cables, I thought Randi conducted himself very poorly in the whole thing, in effect discrediting the very view he was trying to promote.
Funny, there seem to be lots of Michael Fremer haters on this forum. But in the few email excahnges I've had with him he has always been the perfect gentleman. Had no idea he was so well known - liked and disliked.
But we were not talking about cables, just boring stuff like music and people we know.
But we were not talking about cables, just boring stuff like music and people we know.
Thanks for chasing this down Steve Eddy. It's my understanding as well. If Randi's 'challenge' was solely Pear-specific he wins a completely meaningless paper victory. If it was instead one regarding the general audibility of cables, he's a liability to real skepticism.
You are correct. I must have assumed there was one since the Friday visit to the emergency room prevented him from seeing his advisors that weekend and he subsequently put the kibosh on the whole venture.
Randi may have also been overwhelmed by Fremer's show of complete confidence. His expertise on the behavior of personalities may have indicated to him that Fremer's self-confidence was genuine and not a bluff, as would have been the case with his dealings with the likes of Uri Geller.
John
Well I have met and spoken with Mikey F many times. He is probably one of the most genuine people I know. He has a love of audio and a really big heart for audiophiles. He also has put up with a lot of bashing over the years and usually deals with it in a genuine gentlemanly manner.
No, he's not the perfect audiophile, and I don't agree with everything he says or hears. But he has heard a lot of stuff and has professional experience over many years discerning differences between all of it. I would certainly say he has a professional ear where this is concerned, compared to all of us amateurs.
Bob
No, he's not the perfect audiophile, and I don't agree with everything he says or hears. But he has heard a lot of stuff and has professional experience over many years discerning differences between all of it. I would certainly say he has a professional ear where this is concerned, compared to all of us amateurs.
Bob
Blah, blah, blah. EVERY time you have been asked on SNA, you do not come up with anything, and I see it's the case again. No substance, but that's to be expected. YOU know where this information is (after all, didn't YOU post it) so why do you have an issue letting us know? Perhaps it's floobydust.Andy G said:
You have taken the easy way out again. For all the knowledge you purport to have regarding your ability to show how the 'science' is bad, I have never seen you link to ANY of it. When you had the opportunity to discuss or even explain to a researcher such as Dr Olive, you didn't. I'm sure he would have appreciated having someone of your calibre explain why all his time and effort (and Dr Toole's) is wasted or misguided. After they had had their misconceptions 'corrected' by an obviously experienced researcher such as yourself, they could have amended their ways and gone on to do some serious science.
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/showthread.php?p=242503#post242503
andy_c said:
Thank you for the kind words.
There was another poster, "mcg" who also saw through the smokescreen.
Yes.
Fremer let his temper get the better of him a few times and that didn't help him much, but that was just bad form. He didn't resort to the disingenuousness that Randi did.
se
rdf said:
Yes.
And the duplicity wasn't limited to Randi himself. Check out this from "RemieV," a "JREF Research Assistant":
Since Fremer is no longer taking the Challenge, we will instead be contacting others who have expressed interest to offer them the opportunity.
Unbelievable.
se
jlsem said:
I missed that, clearly Randi let himself be influenced by some of the less thoughtful objectivist contingent. The difference in C alone between the Tara Labs and Chardas top cables is two orders of magnitude.
What is the point in the snotty argueing about which parties behaved badly in that JREF fiasco? The JREF testing didn't happen.
How about moving on now?
Cheers.
ZAPNSPARK
How about moving on now?
Cheers.
ZAPNSPARK
@ Steve Eddy. Although I like the idea behind the Randi challenges, from reading his site I came to realise he is a showman and suffers from the same failures as the rest of us in the audience. I tend to agree that in this case he may have jumped in too deep too quick, and is his way of saving face was questionable.
scott wurcer said:
As happened when he repeated well meaning online comments, ultimately no more authoritative than hobbyist opinion, on the performance benefits of CAT5 speaker cable. Randi is amazing and did great work within his specialty, unfortunate like many others (though it pains me to say it of any RAAM rider, Shermer for example) the skeptic limelight encouraged meanderings far outside it.
Steve, I did not follow any discussions on AA, I am familiar with the public stuff that the JREF and Pear guys have said. The test was supposed to be Pear cables with Fremer being the "victim." Pear backed out. Now there's no test (a "paper victory?") The shrying all seems to be over the conditions for a totally different test.
A new test isn't negotiated because the proposed cables have enormously different (pathological?) electrical characteristics- the plain old LCR that the rationalist crowd can simulate with a few cheap parts.
OK, what am I missing?
.edit: To be precise, Pear didn't exactly back out, they just changed their mind about loaning the cables and being involved in the test in any way. They were perfectly happy to have Randi shell out $8000 or whatever to buy some.
A new test isn't negotiated because the proposed cables have enormously different (pathological?) electrical characteristics- the plain old LCR that the rationalist crowd can simulate with a few cheap parts.
OK, what am I missing?
.edit: To be precise, Pear didn't exactly back out, they just changed their mind about loaning the cables and being involved in the test in any way. They were perfectly happy to have Randi shell out $8000 or whatever to buy some.
Evidently - according to another forum - "most Randi challenges seem to die in the stage where they agree on the exact testing protocol." Things do not seem to have changed.
Although I believe from some 35 years experience that differences can often be easily heard during cable-rolling in a system whereas Scientists may well claim that such differences are imaginary or explainable by the effect the cable has on the equipment which it co-joins. I have read much in this thread which tells me that I am not alone in this. My view is that whatever the truth actually is, the time will come when any such differences as may exist will be adequately understood as knowledge increases and understanding expands. We have NOT yet reached such a point on either quality.
Although I believe from some 35 years experience that differences can often be easily heard during cable-rolling in a system whereas Scientists may well claim that such differences are imaginary or explainable by the effect the cable has on the equipment which it co-joins. I have read much in this thread which tells me that I am not alone in this. My view is that whatever the truth actually is, the time will come when any such differences as may exist will be adequately understood as knowledge increases and understanding expands. We have NOT yet reached such a point on either quality.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.