$1 Million if You Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Any Better Than $80 Speaker Cables

from the $302-per-foot-of-cable dept

There's just something about extreme audiophiles that is either amusing or depressing, depending on your point of view. Now, as a music fan, I've got nothing against trying to make things sound better -- but there are serious diminishing marginal returns after a certain point (and, of course, there are some really fantastic musical compositions that were recorded on such crappy equipment that it's never going to matter). However, there is a group of audiophiles who really seem to stick up their nose at anyone who dares to suggest they've taken things too far. Professional skeptic James Randi apparently wants to put them in their place -- and is offering up $1 million to make his case. As pointed out by Slashdot, Randi is now offering $1 million to anyone who can prove that there's any real difference in performance between a pair of $80 Monster HDMI cables (which many will claim is already overpriced) and the astoundingly priced $7,250 12-foot "Anjou" audio cables from Pear Cable. As Randi notes, the key is in the actual performance -- not in "qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation."

Filed Under: audiophiles, skeptics, speaker cable


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Area593, 10 Oct 2007 @ 1:36am

    Re: Re: Re: YES!

    Actually due to the lossy compression used when ripping to MP3 there is quite a lot of artifacts present in the compressed copy. Firstly the signal is bandlimited, then certain phasing in the signal (between L & R channels) is removed, then on top of that you end up with a weird form of aliasing in the signal due to the final steps of the compression process.
    I have been a sound engineer for a while now and I have tested 'normal' people with untrained ears to see if they can tell the difference and 75% of them can. Even though the information that is removed from the CD signal is supposed to be impreceivable, it still interacts with the parts of the signal that are perceivable, meaning that when the "impereceivable" stuff is removed there does end up being audible changes in the compressed version.
    Don't get me wrong, compressed audio can sound good, but only if done properly. Although it will never replace the uncompressed 192kHz 24bit that I listen to in my studio :)

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.