Calling BS on Overpriced Cables

[Jim]

unless he's a clairvoyant bat.

Hee hee. Just being clairvoyant would win him one of Randi's other challenges. He could stand to win two mil!

[arth]

As predicted, there will be no $1,000,000 challenge.
It was the cable manufacturer who chickened out, not the golden ears guy.

Result:
James Randi 1 - Pear Cable 0

[James Steele]

As predicted, there will be no $1,000,000 challenge.
It was the cable manufacturer who chickened out, not the golden ears guy.

Result:
James Randi 1 - Pear Cable 0

I need to go read that, but I can understand why the manufacturer would chicken out. There's far too much to lose and little to gain for them to participate in this.

[rentadrummer]

As predicted, there will be no $1,000,000 challenge.
It was the cable manufacturer who chickened out, not the golden ears guy.

Result:
James Randi 1 - Pear Cable 0

Is it just me, or could the article be any more confusing?

[arth]

I need to go read that, but I can understand why the manufacturer would chicken out. There's far too much to lose and little to gain for them to participate in this.

On the contrary, I think it's the other way around.

Not participating in the challenge sends the same signal as participating and losing: The $7k cables really aren't better than $60 Monster Cables.
And, even worse: They themselves don't believe it either.

Participating and losing the test wouldn't be worse than that. At least they could say that they were surprised at how good the Monster Cables were, and will now use the data from the test to improve their products.

Participating and winning, on the other hand, would be worth many million dollars of advertising. Pear Cables would sell like hot cakes, yes, even with the $7k price tag.

In other words, lots to gain and little to lose, in my opinion.

[twistedtom]

We have been batting this one around for years and most of us have said over and over BS is BS. A fool and his money are soon parted.

[James Steele]

I need to go read that, but I can understand why the manufacturer would chicken out. There's far too much to lose and little to gain for them to participate in this.

On the contrary, I think it's the other way around.

Not participating in the challenge sends the same signal as participating and losing: The $7k cables really aren't better than $60 Monster Cables.
And, even worse: They themselves don't believe it either.

Participating and losing the test wouldn't be worse than that. At least they could say that they were surprised at how good the Monster Cables were, and will now use the data from the test to improve their products.

Participating and winning, on the other hand, would be worth many million dollars of advertising. Pear Cables would sell like hot cakes, yes, even with the $7k price tag.

In other words, lots to gain and little to lose, in my opinion.

I respecfully disagree. It's the same reason incumbents with large leads in the polls aren't eager to debate challengers. They have nothing to gain. For the sake of argument, let's assume Pear would lose this test. By not participating they can claim that the test would have been biased or throw out red herrings about the methodology, etc. This gives them an out. It also gives an out to the fervent "believers" in this cable who would have a difficult time justifying their beliefs it the cable were clearly beaten.

Pear is actually just refusing to provide loaner cables for the test. Randi has said there's no way he's going to BUY cables for the test. If you read the comments, it was suggested that Monster pay for the Pear cables for the test, which sounded like a great idea to me at first. Then, another insightful person commented that Monster actually wouldn't want to do that either, for fear that it doesn't do them good in the long term to contribute to debunking the boutique cable mythology. If they help to demonstrate that there's no *audible* difference between a competitor's $7,000 cables and their $200 cables, consumers might start to wonder if it might logically follow that their might not be an audible difference between their $200 cables and a different competitor's $40 cables.

These esoteric interconnect cables are a racket and a way to fleece the consumer. It's quite lucrative for all participants and Monster can't risk helping educate the consumer without risking educating them TOO MUCH.

[arth]

These esoteric interconnect cables are a racket and a way to fleece the consumer. It's quite lucrative for all participants and Monster can't risk helping educate the consumer without risking educating them TOO MUCH.

True. And Mr. Fremer will certainly not pay for cables either. And someone else lending them is out of the question too -- then they can be tampered with, and Mr. Randi can't accept them being tested.

Speaking of Monster cables, sometimes, I feel like telling the people lined up to pay for their $100-200 cables that what they're going to listen to was recorded using $12.99 interconnect cables from Radio Shack, and won't get any better than that.
But then I realize that people want to believe they are getting good value, and that telling someone they're being fools will always be unwelcome, no matter how indirectly you do it.
As the playwright Ibsen said, rob the average man of his life-lie, and you rob him of his happiness too.