James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

>>>Components clearly sound different and that is what I buy on. This can be repeated blind. Cables cannot.<<<

Perhaps you are listening to the wrong cables- I easily hear the difference.

brizonbovizier, all I can say is that we differ greatly on what is science and statistical significance, and how we personally choose components. I think that my listening pleasure would be sharply reduced were I to be driven in making decisions on audio based on limited engineering concepts that you view as fundamental. I think EE has very limited understanding of why things work and uses a fundamentally unscientific "good enough" perspective on circuits, parts, wire, and even what is safe.

What you say about statistical significance is in error. As I said, you are talking about probabilities, not statical significance. To use significance is to make believe that you are talking about meaningful significance when you are not.

Leica - Lets see you do it in a blind test. So far many have made the claim but none have been able to deliver - which is why the $1M remains unclaimed and no cable manufacturer ever puts on a comparative demonstration.

TBG - all audio components are designed using engineering principles - either theoretical or empirical. EE has a very good understanding on how components work - they would not do so without it! It is not some alchemical art no matter what the magazines would have you believe. Your statements about statistics are also in error - I have a PhD in mathematics and work in advanced statistical on a daily basis techniques in a scientific field way beyond anything under discussion here. Probabilities are statistics are linked at the most fundamental level - even a basic understanding should show you that.

Brizonbiovizier,

I have proven on my system expensive cables are a joke. They all vary on how much they roll off or cloud the signal. More expensive cables generally do the most harm. Most people never notice the dielectric foaming of the signal, because that distortion is buried in other component noise.

One thing I found that does make a difference is wire geometry. I have found very thin SCs to be great at extremes extension, while round wires produce a mid range bulge.

Brizonbiovizier, wrong on both counts. Yes, electronic components work, but that does not mean that we really know what variations might improve them. Certainly, to think that resistance, capacitance, and inductance are all that matters is simplistic. What about the geometry, what about the insulation, and what about the impact of RFI and EMF?

You are right about probabilities and statistics being linked at a fundamental level but it is still the case that statistical significance is the proper term, not significance as the single word believes the fact that what is statistically significant may be of little value. If you don't realize that statistical significance can be greatly enhanced by increasing the size of the sample, your understanding is deficient.

Statistical significance center entirely on the question of whether sampling error could mean that our random sample based findings could with a certain probability have come from a population where there was no relationship between the variables in our hypothesis. We are willing to risk type I error and reject our null hypothesis lending credence to our hypothesis if the probability of such an unfortunate sample is below typically below 5 in a 100 samples.

I have a PhD in both political science and psychology where I got most of my methods training both in experimental and sample based research. I have taught research methods and statistics for 40 years and published broadly in refereed journals, not that this really matters.

I still say that your dismissal of the possibility that wires sound different is inherently unscientific and unjustified by anything you mention. Furthermore, I cannot understand why any audiophile would not avail themselves of the opportunity to listen first before dismissing possible improvements.