James Randi on audio equipment

For those of you not familiar with James Randi (AKA The Amazing Randi), he runs an organization dedicated to the debunking of the paranormal, the exposure of quackery, and other such matters. He is probably most famous for offering a one million dollar prize "to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." There is a weekly column on his website www.randi.org, and a part of this week's column deals with audio equipment. I thought some of you might find this interesting:

------------------------------

THE LOWDOWN ON HI-FI

From reader Aaron Drabbitt in Victoria, BC, Canada, a confession and some sound advice…

I recently sent an email to somebody who was asking my advice about upgrading their audio system. I don't think they were expecting my response:

Let me preface that being an audiophile is as much about "faith" and psychology, as it is about electronics and acoustics. I have run the gamut from crazy audiophile fundamentalist, to my current status as audiophile atheist...over a period of around 27 years. I've studied electronic engineering at BCIT, and I even ran a small business for a while designing custom systems and custom loudspeakers for rich people.

It comes down to this: You'll hear what you want to hear. If you spend $2000 on a new AV amplifier, then you'll hear $2000 worth of improvements, even though I could probably double blind a test where you'd never tell the difference. I've heard all the arguments of why double blind tests aren't any good....but the truth is that all a double blind test does is remove the psychological bias. It takes the "religion" out of audio reproduction.

This brings me to bi-wiring and bi-amping. Don't bother. It really doesn't make a difference that is in proportion to the cost of doing it.

I believe that if more people spent half as much treating the acoustics of their listening space as they do on upgrading their equipment they'd be much happier for it. Acoustics is extremely important, and accounts for 75% of the THX program, it'll make a far bigger difference to the sound of your system than any change in amplifier.

There's more magic, pseudoscience and fraud in the audio industry than there is in a homeopathic chiropractor's office....

If you are on a budget, and want great sound, I would start by learning everything you can about acoustics, and how to improve the acoustics of your listening space. Spend some money there. Then once you've done all you can to eliminate standing waves, and spurious reflections, start analyzing your system for weaknesses that will cause the most obvious improvement if changed. That will probably be the speakers. The last thing I would even contemplate would be interconnect wire, and speaker wire. (tip: the best speaker wire is Cat5 network cable, twist all the "white" wires together, and all the "colored" wires together. Then add more and more cables as the length required increases. You can braid them together to make one cable too).

Hope that helps some!

Thank you, Aaron. As readers will know, I’ve battled with those at Stereophile Magazine who endorse all sorts of crackpot products and show no sign of discriminating between blatantly obvious scams and doubtful claims. Efforts to get them to be involved in proper double-blind tests – with the JREF million-dollar prize available for a positive result! – have made them run for the woods precipitously.

Just think of that for a moment, folks. We are offering a prize of a million dollars, legally and irrevocably committed to that end, if Stereophile Magazine – or any of the other agencies or promoters who tout such nonsense – would simply agree to a simple, appropriate, definitive test of their beliefs and/or claims! A million dollars! How plain can that get? To me, it appears that there can be only one reason for such reluctance: those who make and/or support such claims know that they’re wrong, that they cannot support their claims, that the product or service they offer is a scam and without merit – yet they continue to offer this swindle to their clients, knowing that it’s a fake. I cannot think of any alternative.

I was amused to read in Stereophile their criticism of me and the JREF million-dollar prize, an article which was concerned mainly with the fact that I had legally changed my name to suit my showbusiness needs. I cannot imagine a better reason for turning down the prize…. See www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/1104listening/index1.html and do a search for “Amazing.”

 

Typical audiophile stereotyping...and decidedly against the rules of discussing double blind tests.

 

Unfortunately, Art Dudley's dismissal of James Randi is as illogical and strange as any Tice-treated clock or bag tie.

Randi uses a stage name so therefore everything he says is suspect in Art's eyes? How dumb, irrelevant and arrogant is that? Guess Art threw all those Mark Twain books out of his library as well.

 

Hmmm - I wonder what James Randi thinks about mastering techniques?

 

So does this mean John Lennon wasn't contacted on an EVP?

 

Art's the least arrogant man I have ever met. In any event, I think it's always interesting that the so-called "cash" offered in these big contests is never held in escrow and paid out by a neutral party.

 

I don't know much about James Randi , but he seems like a slimy guy.

 

I don't think he's necessarily slimy, but he often seems fanatical in his zeal to debunk things that he sees as unscientific. I suppose that there's a certain value in skepticism, but when one applies it to everything, and one keeps offering cash bounties to anyone who can "prove" certain things to the challenger's own satisfaction, one risks looking like a kook.

I don't think there's anything necessarily dishonest about Randi, but he does seem to be the materialist equivalent of a fundamentalist. Only the truly obsessed are likely to be interested.

 

I agree with everything you just said, and in my view that's slimy. If it's not in your view, that's fine.

 

That's a wonderful description.

 

I believe humanist is the best descriptor for Randi and I share his belief that no one's interest is served by confusing the physical world with the metaphysical.

I had the pleasure of working with Randi briefly several years ago when I was a student. My major advisor and another faculty member at my university were members with Randi of a group dedicated to evaluating claims of paranormal phenomena. He's an engaging, intelligent man with, indeed, a zeal for what he does.

What's (intentionally) not obvious from Dudley's assinine piece is that Randi is, by trade and training, a professional magician. I suppose that's somehow the equivalent of Dudley's "illusionist—a self-described liar and con artist" - but the inane indictment for changing his name becomes even more ludicrous when you realize that The Amazing Randi is nothing more than a magician's stage name! And, before becoming a professional debunker, Randi was regarded in the top tier of his profession with frequent television appearances in the US and abroad.

It was the rise of the paranomal celebrity that led Randi to spend more time investigating and less time performing. He was incensed that others were using the same skills he'd spent his life developing to dupe people into believing they had special powers when they were simply performing sophisticated and convincing illusions. Indeed, Randi frequently backed up with demonstration his public claim that he could replicate any "psychic" feat - with the assurance that no special powers were involved.

Randi's most famous coup was accomplished in collaboration with his friend, the late great Johnny Carson, himself a magician. At Carson's invitation, Randi secretly policed the set of the Tonight Show the day that the infamous "psychic" Uri Geller appeared to show off his paranormal prowess. Wise to the ways of illusion, Randi insured that none of Geller's tricks came off - including a particularly impressive display of moving objects on a table several feet away that had worked perfectly in Geller's previous talk show appearances.

P.

 

Randi

James Randi is a COINTELPRO psyops hitman fo the US Govt.
Look into his history.
Not that this is necessarily relevant to his audio advice of course

Brian.

"Man, if yous ain't paranoid yous must be DEAD!"

 

Nice.

 

I assume most people would be praising James Randi were he debunking psychics, mediums and faith healers, as per his usual. But when the same person suggests that a good portion of of the audio hobby is faith-based, suddenly he's a "slimy" materialist? You should far more suspicious of people who can't tell the difference between CD players, amplifiers, and interconnects until they know the name brand and price tag.

Remember, the sort of test demanded by the $1,000,000 challenge doesn't claim to measure anything, in the manner of a component's published specs. It only measures the ability of a listener to discriminate between two level-matched components. Frankly I'd respect audio journals if they'd conduct the occasional blind test, something even wine aficionados do.

 

I think debunking snake oil is a fine endevour but Randi has been a bit of a wrecking ball in his approach. he has made some sweeping generalizations and gone so far as to call out the wrong people with his challenge. when called on these mistakes he is very dismissive and seems uninterested in cleaning up his own sloppiness. He seems more interested in attacking personalities in audio than actually debunking products.

As for the 1,000,000 challenge it is IMO very problematic and borders on a bogus offer. here is the problem The skeptics are *supposed* to be the rational impartial thinkers in all of this. In science there is an philosophy that the more one wants something to be true the more that person has to be his own devils advocate. With a million dollars at stake one can hardly be impartial much less an advocate for being wrong just to keep one's own biases in check. There is an obvious incentive not to pay up the bounty. Impartial investyigation turns into grand standing and sensatonalism. Rational thought is replaced with politics and the will to win. That makes the challenge a bit of a joke form the perspective of a true skeptic.

 

Yep, that was my point.

 

But aren't scientific tests designed to eliminate all forms of bias?

WVK

 

Why do the journals and reviewers need a $1,000,000 challenge in the first place?

If the differences between a $800 stereo amp and a $12,000 pair of monoblocks are as substantial as the hyperventilated prose and carefullly ranked listings would indicate, there really should be no problem subjecting a reviewer familiar with the sound of both amps to a level-matched A/B/X test.

You'd think reviewers would jump at the chance to authenticate their observations in a controlled environment. It should be a standard part of equipment reviews.

 

They are supposed to be but if the scientist runs the risk of losing a million dollars of his institution's money then there is preasure that could influence the design and implimentation of any tests. This isn't conjecture either. there is plenty of evidence that even in legitimate research money has a profound influence on results.Just look at the dicey "privately" funded research into the hazards of artificial sweateners. *science* does strive to eliminate the human error factor but at the end of the day it's all being done by humans. Humans with a huge financial interests are more likely to let their biases affect their tests. IMO so much so in this case as to take the whole thing out of the relm of science and into the relm of politics and sensationalism.

 

Agreed. Dudley's remarks in the stereophile article are extremely childish.

 

What from the initial post quote, from a correspondent to James Randi, do people dispute? I've witnessed audiophile friends follow the recommended path of treating the room to very good sound:

 

Let me rephrase it: But aren't impartial scientific tests designed to eliminate all forms of bias and influence?

WVK

 

Which makes me want to know what the test would be. Where is a link to what is expected from you on the Hi Fi test?

 

I think Randi would have little problem with mastering techniques. You EQ the sound, you alter the frequencies, you hear the results. You master using different speakers, which sound different to the average listener, your end results will be different. You master exactly the same way on a Monday that you do on a Wednesday and expect it to sound different because of different electricity... that he might have a problem with...

 

That is the goal. Show me an impartial human being and I'll show you the real life Santa Clause. but real scientists know this and that is why they have peer review groups and always allow for refutability to all scientific claims.