James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

The exclusion of people without a "media presence" and the open ended condition of proving that Pear Anjou speaker cables "perform better" than the equivalent Monster cable, (NOT to prove the ability to distinguish one from the other), makes the contest impossible to win.

Personally I think it would be easy to distinguish Pear Anjou from Monster in a high resolution setup (the Anjou's have ultra low inductance numbers while keeping capacitance in check). But if were we take pick an "unbiased" sample group of listeners from the street for blind testing to prove cable A "performs better" than cable B, does any one of us really believe we will be able achieve statistical significant positive result?

Thus a "media presence" person foolish enough to take up the challenge will simply invite ridicule from Randi.org on being a "failure", which they will no doubt portray the attempt as.

To me this challenge is simply a publicity stunt to gain notoriety. Cable naysayers have no doubt lapped this up and are taking this opportunity to gloat. The disingenuity of their claims that no one is up the challenge is rather telling.

Shardone:
"Then why do you think John Atkinson and Dave Clark do not take up the challenge?

If it is "easy to distinguish" then surely the time/effort would be worth a million bucks?"

If the challenge to be able distinguish one from the other in a listening test I think it would be VERY easy indeed! But the challenge is to prove that Pear Anjou "perform better" than the equivalent Monster which is the catch. Since we are talking about listening here, isn't "better" in the ear of the beholder?

BTW, the Pear Anjou cable already does "perform better" in its ultra low inductance measurements. On that count alone they ARE better. But Randi seems to to think properties such as capacitance and inductance matter only to nut cases (read the writeup in his website).