The Latest on PEAR Challenge Refusal. PDF Print E-mail
Latest JREF News
Written by James Randi   

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. Let’s just go over it in detail:

(1) By backing out of their own challenge [the James Randi Educational Foundation]…

No. we have not – ever – backed out of a challenge. Next:

(2) …but now apparently claiming that they just made an incorrect assumption…

No, we have never made that claim. Next:

(3) …the James Randi Educational Foundation has validated Pear Cable’s reasons for not participating.

No. Since those two cited claims were never made, still nothing by Pear Cable has been “validated,” though we are still ready and willing to validate their magic cables…

(4) Using standard magicians tricks, the semi-retired magician James Randi focuses attention on 1 million dollars, which does exist, while hiding the fact that he reserves the right to change the rules of his contest so that no one can win.

No “magician’s tricks” were used, except perhaps a waved wand to make these folks try to stay with reason and sobriety – which I must admit, failed. As a magician, I am retired, but as a gadfly and rationalist, I’m more active than ever before, which annoys the woo-woo artists out there… No, I do not, and never have, reserved the right to change any of the rules; in fact I have clearly stated that no one has that right. Next:

(5) In his latest trick regarding this challenge, he has falsely blamed Pear Cable in an effort to divert attention from the fact that he has backed out of his willingness to allow Mr. Fremer to use his own reference cables for the test (after suggesting that Fremer do so, subject to his advisors say-so).

No. The use of Fremer’s “reference cables” was a matter that I could not bring to the attention of my advisors due to the interference of the weekend and to the fact that on Friday I was rushed to the local emergency hospital with what turned out to be a false alarm. And – since the grubbies will quickly and eagerly brand that as a “lie,” I post here the wrist-band that was attached to me on that occasion. I did not “suggest” that Fremer use these wondrous “reference” cables; it was his idea, and I opted to refer the suggestion to my advisors.

Wristband

And, by the way, one such advisor is a person whose day-to-day work for the last 35 years has been in consumer and commercial electronics. He holds many patents, and his current position is as VP Marketing & Government Affairs for a billion-dollar plus electronic firm based in China. His position within the Consumer Electronics Association [CEA]: Currently he is the Co-Chairman of the Association – the "UN" of audio manufacturers and the sponsor of the Las Vegas Consumer Electronic Show – a technical working group setting audio wattage standards on amplification equipment, known as CEA R3 Working Group 8. Among approximately 2200 Consumer Electronic Association members he’s one of about 12 who hold voting rights on the full CEA Audio Committee, and last week he was in San Diego attending sessions, including his activities as Co-Chair, for the technical standards sessions. He was one of about 25 in the Audio Committee and works closely with many of the elite in engineering in the industry. He is very well known on both the audio and video and digital imaging sides, having worked for Eastman Kodak, Panasonic (and both their consumer Technics audio company and their professional RAMSA audio company), Thomson (parent of RCA, Technicolor and professional Grass Valley equipment), and Prima Technology. He is also the Chairman of the CEA Public Alert Technology Alliance, and a voting member on the Video Committee and a member of the TV Manufacturers Caucus, the CEA Government Affairs Council, and the CEA Environmental Committee.

For more of this man’s qualifications, a '”Google” of “John Merrell CEA” would bring something up, I'm sure. Of course, these qualifications may make this person far too down-to-earth to meet the standards of the audio fanciers’ world, but that’s for you to decide, of course.

(6) James Randi now falsely claims that he has very clearly stated all along that the test is limited to 2 models of cable only (his email correspondence with Mr. Fremer disputes that).

No. This is so very transparent, that it requires no attention. My correspondence with Fremer does not deny this, at all.

(7) Why is James Randi attempting to limit his thesis regarding audio cables to 2 specific models?

Why? Because those are the cables I’m questioning, dodo! I’ve clearly stated that speaker cables can vary widely due to resistance, impedance, orientation, insulation, spacing, configuration, etc., etc. Are you now suggesting that Pear cables can’t qualify for his golden ears…?

(8) Could it be that he knows it is highly unlikely that ANY manufacturer will participate in a challenge given by someone who is dishonest?

I would agree with such a decision. But, looking back over the foregoing 850+ words of this response, I’ll let the manufacturers – and everyone – decide who’s been “dishonest” here…

(9) Pear Cable stands behind the performance of its products and will continue to pursue its goal of building the most accurate audio cables available.

But they won’t participate in a test, even for a million-dollar prize…? I find that strange indeed…!

I could go on here, but I’ve not enough time to fritter away on juveniles. The rest, as the foregoing, is simply packed with misstatements and outright lies…