Stereo Cable $1,000,000 challenge accepted

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Monster Cables are the cheap ones in this test???

I think only because they don't want things like poor build quality and such (things that can affect sound) to be an issue.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Cables of virtually any kind have to be some of the most ######edly expensive things out there. I have no idea how anyone can justify those prices (and I'm not talking about the $7000 ones). Any in the field know if they actually cost that much to make, or is it just a crazy markup?

Rediculous markup. The best part is when these companies try sell high end cables for digital protocols (HDMI, DVI). It's digital. It either works, or it doesn't. You can't make something that just turns on and off higher quality unless the cheap cable just plain isn't working.

[troutman]

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=104&Itemid=2

A frantic objection was apparently hastily posted just now by Pear Cable, desperately trying to fend off the hail of criticism they’ve received by withdrawing their product from the proposed JREF test.

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=105&Itemid=2

[llama64]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=104&Itemid=2

A frantic objection was apparently hastily posted just now by Pear Cable, desperately trying to fend off the hail of criticism they’ve received by withdrawing their product from the proposed JREF test.

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=105&Itemid=2

I'm confused by that page. Who withdrew from the contest?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

It's digital. It either works, or it doesn't.

In theory, you are correct. However if you get a significant level of packet loss, you will have less than perfect results from an imperfect cable. Then there's issues with corrosion and oxidation. A cable that just barely works out of the box may stop working a lot sooner than one that has a good solid connection.

We saw this with optical cables back in the 90's. Cheap ones used plastic instead of glass, and over time the plastic became cloudier to the point where packet loss ended up being choppy audio.

I'm not saying that anybody should be going out and buying $100 cables or anything; just saying there is a difference between the highest end and the lowest end.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm confused by that page. Who withdrew from the contest?

The guy who was going to take the test was a writer for Stereophile magazine.

Pear Cables decided they did not want to be involved in the test and refused to loan him a set of their cables.

Randi then said unless the writer bought a set of the $7,250 cables (or a set of $43,000 Transparent Opus cables ) the challenge was over.

The writer then became irate saying he would do it and he wanted to use a set of his own reference cables. But Randi said the purpose of the challenge was to compare the outrageously expensive Pear cables to Monster cables, and since Pear backed out of supplying cables, either the writer could buy his own set of Pear cables to use or the challenge was over.

So now the writer is saying Randi backed out, Randi is saying the challenge still stands.

It sounds to me like Pear Cables doesn't really trust the writer enough to believe he will win.

[photon]

No one really withdrew; Pear basically just disassociated themselves from the test saying they wouldn't provide cables to Fremer for free, that they'd have to be purchased or that Fremer should use his even more expensive cables that he already owns.

So Randi roasted them over that saying the current challenge was basically closed as Pear backed out.

Fremer then it seems overreacted thinking that Randi was backing out, but Randi just means that he can't offer the challenge to Fremer directly based on cables he knows nothing about. If Fremer names his cables then Randi can decide if that's acceptable in the protocol (ie if the cables he suggests have a measureable difference in some value that we know would alter the sound quality, then of course the test wouldn't make sense).

EDIT: I think they're both overreacting a bit.

[troutman]

These are comments selected from the Gizmodo tinyurl.com/ytlpen site

What I expected: this Pears position is indefensible. They know they are selling a SCAM and this is what SCAM artists do. Any professional audio engineer will tell you that lamp cord is as good as anything. Pear is selling snake oil. I for one will be asking other audio manufacturers (I am one), and will be asking ALMA, as well as AES to shun the snake oil scam artists. I am working to get Monster to take them on head to head.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by ken0042

In theory, you are correct. However if you get a significant level of packet loss, you will have less than perfect results from an imperfect cable. Then there's issues with corrosion and oxidation. A cable that just barely works out of the box may stop working a lot sooner than one that has a good solid connection.

We saw this with optical cables back in the 90's. Cheap ones used plastic instead of glass, and over time the plastic became cloudier to the point where packet loss ended up being choppy audio.

I'm not saying that anybody should be going out and buying $100 cables or anything; just saying there is a difference between the highest end and the lowest end.

Absolutely, but with digital, it is usually very obvious when you have degredation. Your picture doesn't get fuzzy, it goes black or turns to blocky junk. You can buy 2 sets of the cheapest cables you find and they will likely outlive you.