Randi is not a scientist nor does he claim to be. He works cooperatively with real scientists to set up tests. He is a master of cheating, lying, and deception, as is any great conjurer. Scientists are notoriously bad at controlling tests against cheating, bias, and deception, and that's where guys like Rani or Penn and Teller come in.
So, I guess my real question is Has Randi ever conducted or supervised a cable-listening test?
John
John
I think I mentioned this before. How do you design your test around cables that have pathological interactions with the speakers? I could imagine dips and peaks in response that would not be easy or possible to equalize out.
I don't think that he or the Organization go about testing products at all. When someone makes a claim then they supervise a test. I think that they will go along with any reasonable fair test.jlsem said:
On another forum some of the guys tried doing the cable test, but their lack of blind testing skill and experience just wasted time with no results.
Hint: If you are going to do a blind test start with devices that are known to have a Noticeable Difference (NB) then move on to devices with a Just Noticeable Difference (JND). After you have all your protocols and procedures worked out then you can move on to tough stuff like interconnects or capacitors.
rdf said:
It's an aphorism, and an oxymoron. What more do you want? There are many assertions that are logically consistent but false-to-fact. Not all logically-inconsistent assertions do not illuminate a truth.
w
Sorry, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
> The OP post # 1 is a long diatribe that has nothing to do with what's on Randi's site. That post really is The Mother of all Misleading.
Jan, you missed the 'winkey' at the top of the thread for the humour-impaired - my original post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. For the record, I believe that Randi has done great work over the decades in debunking pseudo-science. However, audiophile cables didn't need debunking - it's really only meant for the snobs, and watching the snobs get conned is just pure entertainment. It's no different from the Wall Street investment banks buying toxic mortgage-backed derivatives that they themselves originated, and getting sunk in the process.
thargs, I'd categorize the 'practicals' as being a mix of the 'technicals' and 'subjectives', which is what most of us are, even if some of us would like to believe that we're 100% objective/scientific. There's nothing wrong with that category, if you'd like to add it.
Jan, you missed the 'winkey' at the top of the thread for the humour-impaired - my original post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. For the record, I believe that Randi has done great work over the decades in debunking pseudo-science. However, audiophile cables didn't need debunking - it's really only meant for the snobs, and watching the snobs get conned is just pure entertainment. It's no different from the Wall Street investment banks buying toxic mortgage-backed derivatives that they themselves originated, and getting sunk in the process.
thargs, I'd categorize the 'practicals' as being a mix of the 'technicals' and 'subjectives', which is what most of us are, even if some of us would like to believe that we're 100% objective/scientific. There's nothing wrong with that category, if you'd like to add it.
linuxguru said:
Ohh. Yes, I missed the winky. I was kind of puzzled anyway to read something like that from you.
It's explained now. Apologies.
Jan Didden
Re: Re: The problem with James Randi's Pear Cable Expose
LOL! Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: How many Southerns does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Four. One to change it, and 3 to sit around and talk about how much better the old one used to burn.
FWIW, I submitted a speaker cable test to the Randi folks. It was rejected because they said it would actually show the difference between cables and they were not interested in that! 😕
Circlotron said:
LOL! Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: How many Southerns does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Four. One to change it, and 3 to sit around and talk about how much better the old one used to burn.
FWIW, I submitted a speaker cable test to the Randi folks. It was rejected because they said it would actually show the difference between cables and they were not interested in that! 😕
bwaslo said:
Basically a Wheatstone Bridge circuit with a loudspeaker as the "meter". So if there were a difference between cables, it could actually be heard.
SY said:
I'll see if I can dig up the letter - hope I still have it. But I'm in the middle of moving (agian) so it may not be posted right away, sorry. If I find it, I'll post it. =)
At the risk sounding like I want to be in category iii; there is one way an old rotary is better than a dial tone phone.
When you phone a company and have to go trawl through their automated system for about 30 mins before you can speak to a human being; pulse phones just don't work. A few seconds of clicking used to mean you'd normally get transferred to a human much sooner who can solve your problem (I suspect these days the assumption is everyone has a dial tone phone, so the system will just freak if you don't).
But it would almost be worth going back to rotary just so that I don't have to phone my bank, answer all their questions only to be put through to someone in India who asks me all the same questions again.
On a different note, is there another definition to the practicals, they pursue a better sound but that pursute is additionally governed by a practical idea of budget?
~Dan
Last edited:
Nowadays, a computer voice tells me time and again i haven't answered her.
Very life-like.
Just think how much valuable time a simulator like that, 40 years ago, would have saved.
The dial tone phone came decades too late !
The dial tone phone came decades too late !
I spend LOTS of time researching, designing and building the best audio electronics and speakers I know how to create, and then spend 97% of my time sitting over by the fireplace, way off axis, where the sound is one step short of pure cr*p... Up on the couch in the sweet spot area my system is very excellent. I'm very proud of it. Over by the fireplace, not so much... Is there an idiot category? That's probably where I belong.
George- Status
- Not open for further replies.