AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

James Randi’s attack on high performance audio

119K views 2K replies 102 participants last post by  Dizzman 
#1 ·
A friend sent me an article from Gizmodo mentioning a challenge to audiophiles by James Randi, famed debunker of charlatans who claim paranormal powers, to demonstrate their ability to detect differences in cables in a listening test.


He said that the claims that some reviewers made about the cables fall into the range of the paranormal.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-b...ter-305549.php


For people unfamiliar with James Randi, he has helped fight the forces of irrationality, denouncing spoon-benders, mind-readers and mediums, in a very showmanlike fashion. And he has a million-dollar prize as bait to get people to try to prove themselves capable of whatever paranormal talent they claim to have. This prize is also used to taunt people who may not feel inclined to submit to his examination of their claims.


So a few years ago, when he got intrigued by some nonsensical sounding devices that had been positively reviewed in the audiophile press, he issued challenges to the reviewers involved. When none came forward, he publicly taunted them about it.


Now he has become convinced that expensive cables must fall into the realm of hi-fi mythology. He seems to have simply decided that expensive cables are fair game, and has selected one company among the many purveyors of expensive cables, to go after. A reviewer who used some of the rather flowery terminology that reviewers are prone to use got his this is just plain silly engine going, and he declared his great big Million Dollar Challenge toward that reviewer and others quoted by the cable maker, Pear Cable on their site, http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm .


Up until 2 days ago, I'd never heard of them, so I guess Randi may be doing something to bring them notoriety (whether or not they're enjoying it is another matter). They claim to make Ultimate Speaker Cable and go about backing up their claim by strictly technical assertions of what they do to make the cable, and what kind of electrical characteristics it has. But they also quote Dave Clark who said:


"Highly Recommended.


"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to be its PRAT. 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 pacethese cables smack that right on the nose big time."



- Dave Clark, Editor Positive Feedback Online


Now I can recall being amused decades ago the first time I read a review of a preamp that had a butterscotch midrange and thinking that was silly. Hi Fi reviewers use language the way wine reviewers do, imaginatively and evocatively, as our standard language is so lacking in terms specifically for the flavor of sound or the nuances of wines. But for audiophiles, this kind of writing is exuberant, a way of saying gosh I really liked it!


I wrote a letter to Mr. Randi, telling him that I felt he had crossed over a line into a realm where he was not debunking paranormal claims, and that based on my personal experiences, there are quite a few people who could easily demonstrate their ability to discern differences in cables, given a fair setup (i.e. a sufficiently revealing system that cables could be revealed as weak links).


All he's saying people need to do is tell the difference between a set of Monster Cables and these Pear Cables. (Of course, there DO seem to be some catches so don't go cashing that big check until you find out what they are.)


I advised him to stand down from this particular challenge, telling him that it is akin to challenging wine snobs to detect the difference between a terribly expensive wine and something from the supermarket.


He was good enough to get back to me, but informed me I cannot and will not stand down from the challenge, since I made it and must stick with it. I'm a man of my word, and I don't back down, ever.


Those are such strong words that I doubt that offering him further information would help.


For him to say teleportation is impossible is fine with me. For him to say $7,000 is too much to pay for speaker cables is another kind of statement entirely.


There are two things about this that really bother me. One is that Mr. Randi's credibility is compromised. It would be a disaster for him to give up his prize and lose his incentive to go after true charlatans. I would like him to go on calling out the spiritualists who prey on the bereaved, the prayer-cloth healers who defraud little old ladies of their life savings. I don't want the bait snatched out of his trap.


But the other problem I have with this is personal.


If high-performance speaker cables are in the realm of pure Voodoo then where do you draw the line? This is shades of gray: he decided Monster cables are as expensive as cables could reasonably be without having paranormal claims attached to them. Are $20,000 loudspeakers in the same category? Is a pair of $1,200 speakers in that category? Is all Theta equipment? Is my whole career a fraud?


I spent 15 years helping people hear for themselves the differences between hi fi components, in the store Absolute Audio in southern California. I have always been proud of what we did for people.


Now there are people posting comments over at Gizmodo about how all audiophiles are deluded suckers.


Comments?
 
See less See more
#1,707 ·
krabapple, I see where you're coming from, but in fact I'd really like to see a blind test done with the Transparents as well. It would be a kick if it turned out that the equalizers weren't detectable under blind testing.
 
#1,708 ·
Say what you want about the DartZeel, I have a friend that uses the DartZeel with a pair of Von Schweikert VR-9's, and it sounds incredible. Maybe it has it's quirks, but so do most highly sophisticated, finely tuned pieces of equipment. And just to twist the knife a bit Krabapple, he also uses a pair of MIT Oracle MA's with this setup as well.
 
#1,710 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar /forum/post/12228050


Maybe it has it's quirks, but so do most highly sophisticated, finely tuned pieces of equipment.

Actually that’s not reality. Most amps are not biased to a potential egg frying point.. also why be soo concerned with impedance matching at audio frequencies? Also:
Quote:
http://www.dartzeel.com/PDF_Files/AudioManuEN.pdf

Finally, the balanced signal is amplified and routed to the speakers.

Yeah aka Alternating Current! His comment suggests double ended designs are lacking something! They are not.
Quote:
…come to think of it, are loud speakers balanced or not?

Well if a single ended signal does NOT have its bias removed by either a coupling capacitor or isolation transformer the speaker is only going to move in one direction. So to answer his question, a speaker is an AC device and would not be very effective with a simple single ended un-balanced input.
 
#1,711 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant /forum/post/12227953


krabapple, I see where you're coming from, but in fact I'd really like to see a blind test done with the Transparents as well. It would be a kick if it turned out that the equalizers weren't detectable under blind testing.

I wish I tagged the link to a post where someone placed a speaker cable with boxes on it through a spectrum analyzer and it didn't show anything beyond normal cable loss at 10kHz-20kHz region. The box was a RF filter.
 
#1,712 ·
i am not qualified to argue or justify the design of the darTZeel amps.


OTOH i do have lots of experience listening to many high end amplifiers both in my room and many other high end systems.


assuming that the speaker has a reasonable level of efficiency and a reasonable load (over 89db efficient and 4 ohm or better nominal) the darTZeel is my favorite amp.


the darTZeel has 2 different modes; DC compensation 'on' or 'off'. the dart is more refined and transparent with a slightly sweeter tonal character with the DC compensation 'off'. the dart has a bit more grip and can more easily deal with tougher loads with the compensation 'on'.


i use my dart with the DC compensation 'off'.


the attraction of the darTZeel sonically is that it combines the best attributes of solid state (low noise floor, low end punch and lineararity, lack of color, extended high frequencies, and low hassel factor) with the best of tubes (breath of life, a pure smooth mid-range, smooth natural high frequencies, and an overall sweetness)......and it does not sound like solid state or tubes.....it sounds like music.


regarding Herve Deletraz; please read all the stuff on his website......then read the reviews, then read his 2001 article in Stereophile regarding impedence in cables. if you have questions e-mail him; he is a gentleman and will gladly answer any questions.


then listen to his products.


as far as Krab's continual inference that somehow the darTZeel amp is 'unusual'......it is only so in the sense that it is so minimalist. there is no protection circutry in the signal path.


the very best sounding amps all are about 'less is more'.......trading a level of 'idiot-proofing' for ultimate levels of refinement. just like cables when you are at a high level of overall system refinement removing 'veils' from the signal path makes large performance gains.


if there is a better preamp or amp out there i have not heard them.
 
#1,713 ·
i just posted the below comment regarding a possible testing protocol for my pending blind test......any comments?


from the MDC forum on the JREF website;


******************


without specifically debating ABX as it's concepts are not that familar to me; i agree that there is no real protection from intentional or unintentional hints being dropped in the above protocol.


my only justification is that i am not going thru this process to waste my time or the time of JREF or my friends. i need to know now whether my claims are real. it is more important to get this step out of the way than to complicate it or slow it down unneccessarily. i do not want a false result......as i proceed further this likely will cost me a good deal of my money one way or the other. if i can get hints i will stop the testing and we will begin again.


if we can find ways to eliminate any possiblity of hints then we will do it.


the sequence of tests as to 'A' and 'B' would be selected by flipping a coin by the switchers and recorded prior to the start of the test in a place where only them and the switching observer were present. from that point on they could have no contact with myself or my observer.


i suppose i could leave the room each time with a guide and go to another part of my barn. the cable switchers would switch the cable and then drape a cloth cover over the cables. the switchers would then leave and go outside. i would re-enter the room without having contact with the switchers. i could still be blinded but maybe have a guide to sit me. there could be one observer who would insure i did not look under the drape while listening and then record my choice. the cable switchers would record their information and the observer would record my choice. at the end of the test series the two recorded choices would be compared.


.......or something like that where the personal interaction oportunities would be eliminated. the set-up of my barn would allow this to be quite easy to do.


you could even have one observer for the cable switching and another observer for my trial so there would be no communications at all between the two processes. there could be a 'traffic cop' outside the room who would sound the 'all clear' when either party left the room to go to their waiting area. this person would have no knowledge of anything inside the room and would provide an information buffer.


we could even have a video recorder recording continuously all thru the test to record the fact that no one lifts up the covering cloth while i or my observer is in the room as an additional control. it would have to be completely silent and unobtrusive.


any comments?


understand that my motivation is only for the truth........


*****************
 
#1,714 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike lavigne /forum/post/12228999


OTOH i do have lots of experience listening to many high end amplifiers both in my room and many other high end systems.

Herve's provocative and controversial view on impedance matching for connections is far from being validated that I'm aware of. I'll attempt to email him but what I've read, his views already contradict accepted empirical data.


Mike for what it's worth the logic i.e. if I hear it, there is something there is an artistic statement. It could be certain type of distortions sounds good to you, while on the other hand something that is truly transparent seems inferior are harsh. The danger here is that people who hear something they like may in turn associate said better sound with higher accuracy.
 
#1,715 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet /forum/post/12233257


Herve's provocative and controversial view on impedance matching for connections is far from being validated that I'm aware of. I'll attempt to email him but what I've read, his views already contradict accepted empirical data.


Mike for what it's worth the logic i.e. if I hear it, there is something there is an artistic statement. It could be certain type of distortions sounds good to you, while on the other hand something that is truly transparent seems inferior are harsh. The danger here is that people who hear something they like may in turn associate said better sound with higher accuracy.

fair enough.


it all comes down to one's reference for what is real......which is purely subjective.


regarding Herve's impedence article......if you were to hear his 50 ohm BNC cables compared to other cables you would possibly give him the benefit of the doubt. i don't have the technical knowledge to debate it but listening tells me his approach is more correct than any other i have heard.
 
#1,716 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet /forum/post/12233257


The danger here is that people who hear something they like may in turn associate said better sound with higher accuracy.

I'd say that's no danger at all. The thing is, when it comes to music enjoyment, the proof is in the pudding. If it sounds good, it is good. Measurements, accuracy, etc., are the 'means' to the end, and not the end itself.
 
#1,717 ·
Mike I applaud your fairness as well. I certainly can relate to your passion for subject matter and I'm waiting with bated breath on the results of your testing. I wish the ingredients (amp & cable combo) were different. i.e. the information I've read regarding your amp leads me to believe it's quite possible for your cable to make a big difference, I think it's likely the amp will actually sound and perform much better considering how it interacts with different speaker loads coupled with how Herve intentionally imparts a custom sonic signature to his design.


thomas
 
#1,718 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet /forum/post/12233257


Mike for what it's worth the logic i.e. if I hear it, there is something there is an artistic statement. It could be certain type of distortions sounds good to you, while on the other hand something that is truly transparent seems inferior are harsh. The danger here is that people who hear something they like may in turn associate said better sound with higher accuracy.


Yes, of course. If I'm not misstaken, Mike use tube amps.
 
#1,719 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 /forum/post/12233880


Yes, of course. If I'm not misstaken, Mike use tube amps.

my darTZeel preamp and amp are solid state; i have no tubes in my system currently.
 
#1,720 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar /forum/post/12228050


Say what you want about the DartZeel, I have a friend that uses the DartZeel with a pair of Von Schweikert VR-9's, and it sounds incredible. Maybe it has it's quirks, but so do most highly sophisticated, finely tuned pieces of equipment. And just to twist the knife a bit Krabapple, he also uses a pair of MIT Oracle MA's with this setup as well.


That's some knife you use -- it induces laughter instead of pain.
 
#1,721 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar /forum/post/12233608


I'd say that's no danger at all. The thing is, when it comes to music enjoyment, the proof is in the pudding. If it sounds good, it is good. Measurements, accuracy, etc., are the 'means' to the end, and not the end itself.


If it sounds good, it is good, but the purported reason 'why' its sounds good may be wrong , or even imaginary. That's where audiophiles often depart from reason... they claim to know why.
 
#1,722 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple /forum/post/12234561


If it sounds good, it is good, but the purported reason 'why' its sounds good may be wrong , or even imaginary. That's where audiophiles often depart from reason... they claim to know why.

And what sounds good to one person may sound like doo doo to another. That is why when a claim is made by some company that XYZ will produce more bass, it can be measured to see if it is true. And many companies will say that the product they sell will increase bass or hi end etc... OK well that can be tested. Now if someone says XYZ has better "soundstage" well thats simply a artistic statement and may be true to one fellow while another may not hear it or like it.


It is easy for audiophiles to mix up science with art.
 
#1,723 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple /forum/post/12234561


If it sounds good, it is good, but the purported reason 'why' its sounds good may be wrong , or even imaginary. That's where audiophiles often depart from reason... they claim to know why.

Hmph... that's quite a gift you have, to know what all 'audiophiles' think. Besides, aren't you the one who's hung up 'why' it sounds good? I certainly haven't made that claim.
 
#1,724 ·
Well, we'll see if we can sit down and listen this weekend, I'm curious as much as anything to see not only what the findings might be with Mike listening, but I'm curious to hear myself. I've been pretty busy lately, so I haven't followed the thread, I'm sure that whatever we do report back will be assaulted for being improper methodology. but having done projector shootouts before, I'm familiar with that kind of criticism.
 
#1,725 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles /forum/post/12239027


Well, we'll see if we can sit down and listen this weekend, I'm curious as much as anything to see not only what the findings might be with Mike listening, but I'm curious to hear myself. I've been pretty busy lately, so I haven't followed the thread, I'm sure that whatever we do report back will be assaulted for being improper methodology. but having done projector shootouts before, I'm familiar with that kind of criticism.

thanks Chris for offering to assist. i have at least 2 other 'helpers' recruited at this point and possibly one or two others. they are techies; one is an engineer and the other a digital audio workstation designer (among their other many talents).


i'm the only non-techie in this group.
 
#1,726 ·
Does this test include a apples to apples? In other words comparing say Zip cable to Pears or whatever? Something besides the magic black box cables that we have no idea what they are really doing? Again I do not doubt there may be easy to hear difference betwen the opus and whatever as we have no idea what the black box is adding or subtracting.
 
#1,727 ·
Eveyln,


What's your take on the the reasons the high end audio scene is dry as a bone ?



I remember your Santa Ana store and your move to Tustin along with quite a few stores at the time ( Middelton White and Kemp, Ear Drum, Havens & Hardesty etc. )


I enjoyed it all and now?


Richard Hardesty at one time mentioned he thought it was partialy the high dollar wire

scenario (new potential audiophile comes into store__ but he won't get that sound unless he spends 400$ on interconnects and 800$ on those speaker cables..?.,."".)


I never bought into the wire debate myself, but do you agree with Mr. Hardesty?


Regards

David
 
#1,728 ·
Chris, will you have the opportunity when you visit to do some preliminary measurements with test tones and a VOM with each of Mike's cable selections?
 
#1,729 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by speco2003 /forum/post/12239461


Does this test include a apples to apples? In other words comparing say Zip cable to Pears or whatever? Something besides the magic black box cables that we have no idea what they are really doing? Again I do not doubt there may be easy to hear difference betwen the opus and whatever as we have no idea what the black box is adding or subtracting.

the only high end 'expensive' speaker cables we will use for this session will be my Transparent Opus. if i pass the test with the Opus then i will have to either get JREF approval for it or find a substitute. getting that issue figured out will be my next step after this weekend (asuming i can pass this test).


i do have some 'zip' cord which assuming we have time we will try for a couple of tests. the source of my 'zip' cord is unknown to me....if someone can specify a specific generic 'zip' cord i can purchase at the local Home Depot which 'should' be similar to the 10 guage Monster i will stop and purchase some so at least others can try that to get an idea of what we are listening to.


Speco; you have made it clear that you don't consider the Transparent Opus a legitimate test for the Monster or any other 'just cable' numerous times. regardless; this is my test and this is the way i'm going to do it. you are most welcome to purchase the Monster cables and find expensive cables on your own (the Pear Anjeau?) and do your own test.
 
#1,730 ·
I don't think there's any need for you to incur any more expenses Mike. What lengths are the wires/cables that you'll be using?
 
#1,731 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/12239659


I don't think there's any need for you to incur any more expenses Mike. What lengths are the wires/cables that you'll be using?

my Transparent Opus are 12 feet long, the Monster cables which Randi spec'd only come in 10 foot lengths. we can have 'zip' cord of any length....10 feet is what i will cut assuming i do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top