You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote:
?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.
Bob Walker
Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should
be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
million dollars?
That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
laws of physics.
Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
for output devices, of course). There is also of course the whole
realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest
(or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the
first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that
category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs,
the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers,
cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like.
So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or
treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance
does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the
challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there
would be no known physical cause.
Last I heard, though, the challenge is being phased out, mainly
because no one has ever managed to even pass the preliminary tests,
and the 'big guns' of the flimflam world -- the Uri Gellers and the
Sylvia Browns -- are far too canny to submit themselves to certain
exposure as frauds. The JREF (whose money it is, not Randi's
personally) wants to use it more actively.
The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal.
Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara
cables dustup.
Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a
phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation
within scientific reasoning.
Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of
low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory
test, would fall within this usage.
Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as
paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even
create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special
category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]".
Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for
sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance,
resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on
frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect
measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI.
The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO.
In addition, as I described to you in my email, the 1/3 octave
equalizer example indicates that hearing something that.s not measured
does not indicate "paranormal" activity, ESP or any such thing. It
indicates something scientifically verifiable but not at the time the
observation is made and checked against available measurable
standards. The word "paranormal" is loaded. I don.t like it. If I pass
this test I will be declared to have "paranormal" abilities, which I
deny. It will be like the "lucky coin" business with the amplifiers."
And Randi replied:
"Sir, I assure you that I'm quite familiar with such things as
inductance, resistance, and capacitance as possible factors in
performance. Well, let's leave out the designation "paranormal", then,
since it seems that it intrudes on your sensitivity standards.....look
forward to discussing the parameters, location, and time for a test.
With great enthusiasm!""
In the end, the cable challenge disintegrated because Pear Audio -- a
ridiculous review of whose cables (they were declared 'danceable',
don't you know) sparked the dust-up --wouldn't lend Fremer a pair of
their cables. So Fremer (who hadn't been the reviewer of the Pears in
the first place) wanted to use his own Tara Labs cables. As of March
2008 Randi was still asking his readers if someone could lend them
some Pear Cables to test.
Randi has also called out challengers to claim the prize for
demonstrating audible effects of LP demagnetizing. AFAIk Fremer hasn't
taken him up on that one.
Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to
be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics
have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it
out?
You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles
tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by
multiple scientists doing careful experiments?
--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
|