Pear Cable Calls James Randi’s $1 Million Offer a Hoax
Last week, magician and paranormal debunker James Randi (pictured above left) offered the makers of Pear speaker cables $1 million if they could prove in double-blind testing there was a difference between their $7,250 cables and ordinary Monster Cables. Now, Adam Blake (pictured above right), CEO and co-founder of Pear Cable, has called Randi’s offer “a fake” and a “joke”. We’ve contacted James Randi, asking if he’d like to get together with these Pear dudes for some double-blind testing. We’ve also contacted Adam Blake, asking if Pear planned to participate in Randi’s double-blind test. After the jump, see the full text of Pear Cable’s accusations that Randi’s million-dollar offer is a hoax. We’ll keep you posted if anyone responds.Here’s Pear Cable CEO Adam Blake’s response received by Don, a member of the forum at DIY Mobile Audio:
Hello Don,
Nice to hear from you. Yes, by now we have heard about this challenge (although we were never contacted directly). Unfortunately, like most offers of $1 million this one is a hoax. While James Randi is claiming to offer a $1 million dollar prize to differentiate between these speaker cables, by reading the official rules of the challenge, it becomes immediately clear that the offer is not valid. One must be able to “demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability” in order to qualify. Since there is a wealth of scientific information explaining the differences between speaker cables, the offer is not a valid one (and James Randi knows it).
While we publish a frequency response plot demonstrating the differences between cables on our own website here: http://www.pearcable.com/sub_product…cyresponse.htm, there are also independant measurements and data that can be found for example here: http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto…leID=201807390 In addition, the High School eductated James Randi who claims to have consulted unnamed experts on the matter makes unsubstantiated claims that our science is junk. Unfortunately true experts do not agree. For example, despite his claims that RFI is not a problem in speaker cables, according to publications by the Amateur Radio Relay League, RFI has been documented as a known problem that can exist in speaker cables.
In addition, according to the editor of Stereophile magazine John Atkinson, James Randi has completely fabricated the statements about Atkinson made in this “challenge”. Furthermore, another audiophile who goes by the moniker “Wellfed” on the AudioAsylum forums, says he tried to take the challenge twice for what I consider a more dubious audio tweak (the GSIC chip), but was denied the opportunity and was lied to by the Randi Foundation. Finally, according to these forum posts: http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/…es/719041.html at least one person has tried to take the “challenge” previously to show that they could differentiate between loudspeaker cables and they were denied by Randi who said “Wire is not wire. I accept that”.
So, at the end of the day we have claims made by a high school educated retired magician, which are refuted by independent studies and publications conducted by experts. Most importantly, James Randi’s “challenge” is backed by nothing. Many audiophiles have already expressed interest in taking the challenge, but they are barred by the contest rules unless they are part of the media. And, in the past, Randi denied audiophiles the chance to take the “challenge” with regard to differentiating between speaker cables.
At Pear Cable we publish objective measurements to demonstrate the improved fidelity of our cables. In addition, we publish reviews and opinions that are based on both blind and non-blind testing. In fact, the comments made by Richard from the Bay Area Audiophile Society on the Comice Silver Interconnects were the result of a blind test he conducted.
We have not yet put together an official response to this joke of a “challenge”, so we are not currently participating in the many conversations going on in audio forums as we speak. In any case, I hope you find the above to be informative.
Sincerely,
Adam Blake
- Next Post: FALTIMA 010 Saves LPs to Just About Anything »
- « Previous Post: iRiver Siren DP350 Released in Japan Today
Comments (AU Comments | US Comments)
It’s embarrassing that no one has the guts to just say: “I can tell the difference” and take the challenge. The educated world knows the million dollars is real and that James Randi is genuine. The claims made for these cables are neither of those things.
The educated world doesn’t realize that James Randi is pulling their bobbers.
I found the “Pear Cable” site via New Scientist. I’m guessing this is an elaborate hoax to embarrass extreme audio-nutters. Evidence (all copied from Pear Cables site):
1a. Foamed Teflon® is never used in Pear Cable products and should not be used in any high fidelity audio cables.
1b. Finest Materials
The ANJOU Speaker Cable utilizes the finest materials to maximize sonic performance and provide years of stable operation. Teflon, air, cotton, and fully annealed 99.999% pure oxygen free Copper are the 4 fundamental materials utilized in the cable. 32 individually insulated solid conductors resulting in a net 10 AWG cable are precisely manufactured to all have the exact same length per unit of finished cable. Solid Teflon, foamed Teflon, Teflon air tubes, air, and cotton combine to minimize dielectric absorption while still providing superb mechanical integrity. (Apart from all the wires being the same length - wow!)
2a. Don’t buy plated conductors!
Many audio cable companies plate or clad their conductors with a different metal than the one used in the core. Usually this is either silver or tin plating on copper. All metals have different resistivities. Because the skin effect will push high frequency information to the outside of the conductor, it will encounter the different metal on the outside of the conductor. In the case of the silver (which has a lower resistivity than copper), the high frequency signal sees a lower impedance than the low frequency information. This will cause a distortion in the relative amplitudes of the high and low frequencies of the audio signal.
2b. Connection
The ANJOU Speaker Cable utilizes connection methods consistent with the design principles utilized in the cable itself. To begin the process, conductors are terminated with a gold plated copper crimp, installed under extreme pressure promptly after the removal of insulation, resulting in a permanent and stable cold weld. Following crimp installation, WBT 0645, 0660 Cu, or 0680 Cu spade or banana connectors are installed. These connectors all ensure a solid mechanical connection at each contact point to prevent vibration or time from compromising the connection. Gold plating eliminates deterioration from corrosion.
I could go on, but why bother. This site is either hilariously funny or is imposing a tax on stupidity. Either way I’m happy.
I’m an audio engineer and I’ve never seen Pear cables used in a high dollar studio. Many people use Canare. It doesn’t cost $7000. Get someone like a Bruce Swedien, who’s engineered and produced Sinatra and Michael Jackson to do the blind test and have someone who doesn’t know anything about sound be the one who switches them back and forth. I’m not saying those cables are bad, but I think the company is just playing to the audiophile who wants to brag that they’ve spent so much money on cables.