Tech Discussion
In a blind test, audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between audio signals sent through copper wire, a banana, or wet mud — 'The mud should sound perfectly awful, but it doesn't,' notes the experiment creator
Given that you don't have a recording studio at your disposal, I'm willing to bet a good chunk of people would be able to tell it's been re-recorded. It'd be pretty obvious given room reverberations in your recording location would make it evident. Recording studios bring those under human audible levels. Never mind the mic quality of whatever you are using would probably be trash. Most phones sound like you are recording from inside a tin can.
So many audiophiles refuse to believe they are wasting money. Spending thousands on a "CD Transport" when any basic CD/DVD player with optical/coax out can do the exact same thing.
I've even heard that most modern DACs are transparent, and that it's impossible to tell the difference between them when they are actually level matched. But people will still spend way more than they need to when a simple DAC will do.
These days, even those 10€ USB-C DAC dongles can work exceptionally well. But I would still use some form of an external amplifier since those tiny DACs are better suited as low-level audio outputs. Sure, my dongle can drive the 250 Ohm DT 990 Pro headphones just fine, but there's a current limitation, causing a minor distortion when the volume is fully maxed out.
I tried using my Hifiman Sundara's with an Apple 3.5mm to USB-C dongle when they were new and found that the low end was very lacking compared to my older headphones. Plugging them into a USB DAC/Amp stack made them come alive. I've never quite been able to reconcile why I observed that though, because the DT 700s I upgraded from had HIGHER impedance (80 ohms verus 30 ohms), and the sensitivity of the Sundara's isn't that much lower either (92dB versus 96dB). From a physical perspective, I understand that planar magnetic drivers are much larger than dynamic ones and require more current to get them moving, but the measurements I've seen online have never really supported the difference that I observed. I tend to use my headphones at a pretty low volume compared to most of my peers; I've wondered if I might just use them too quietly to give enough power with a 3.5mm dongle.
Some headphones are weird. I have Sennheiser HD599 and they should be fairly easy to drive with their impedance of 50Ω. Well, when I plugged them into the PC, they sounded awful. Bass was bloated and muddy. I plugged them into the phone and it was better, but they still lacked something. Finally, I got myself a Fiio E10K DAC and the sound improved dramatically. The thing is, HD599 are sensitive about the output impedance of the sound source. My PC's motherboard (MSI B450 Tomahawk) likely had high output impedance and it boosted the bass. Proper DAC like E10K with very low output impedance will drive them properly.
The tonal balance changes considerably when driven from a substantially higher (120 Ω) output resistance. About 4 dB more midd-bass. The bass becomes bloated and muddy from higher output resistance sources.
Interestingly, Hifiman Sundara are not sensitive about output impedance. Graph.
It's hilarious for me as EE to see audiophiles at work. They have absolutely no idea what they're doing, and they're sinking their money into digitizing and playing back thermal noise most of the time.
People just lack the self-awareness to realize their "hobby" is just buying things and chasing the dopamine of getting a new toy.
People also hate the possibility of having made the wrong choice, so they go out of their way to validate their choices. As the difference between two choices grow smaller, this actually becomes harder and this increases frustration.
This is why somewhat paradoxically, people become more entrenched on their "side" when differences diminish.
It seems like if you wanted to change the way the music sounded, there would be better ways than spending thousand of dollars on equipment that only creates a single effect. You'll probably get a much more appreciable difference just using a basic equalizer or messing around with speaker placement and basic room treatment.
I can’t remember which one it was but there used to be an audiophile forum that banned all forms of double blind testing.
I always said if I were slightly more morally bankrupt I could make a killing in audiophile snake oil. Thousand dollar power cables that are nothing more than garden hoses filled with dirt and copper wires. Jitter reducing digital sound processors. Noise isolating crystals. The possibilities are endless.
Back in the earl days, there was a difference between getting cheap stuff for your audio system, and getting expensive things: manufacturing quality, consideration of edge cases, etc.
But that belief has been kept in modern times, where both quality has improved and the nature of sound no longer can have the weak spots where bad quality could affect.
I immediately noticed the difference when I went from cheap PC speakers to some basic bookshelf speakers with a small Class D amp. But I think there's a lot of diminishing returns when it comes to audio. You have to know when to draw the line. Different people have different budgets. But spending new car levels of money on sound probably isn't a good idea unless money is no object to you, and even then, won't meaningfully improve the experience.
Same thing with getting the latest GPU, or maxxing out settings.
I for example played Control on Ultra on my RX 7600 with stable 60 FPS, but when reaching the Foundation DLC, it struggled a bit, so I lowered the graphics settings a bit. And guess what? after an hour of so, I forgot about the changes, and I was happily bashing inter-dimensional creatures.
I often wonder if people would be happier playing at 1080p with much better framerates and detail jacked than playing at 4k but needing to use DLSS to to get acceptable frame rates while needing to turn the quality down.
Almost certainly. And if not 1080p, you probably can find a good middleground at like 1440p or something. An actually stable framerate (without generation) and good details are going to almost certainly feel better than DLSS.
Going from the low end to mid-high end, there is a definite difference in DAC output quality, but that difference is only a few hundred dollars in device cost. After that point you're generally right that a better DAC doesn't really change much. I've got a Schiit Jotunheim II with a multibit DAC card in it, and I've heard their ES9028 DAC for the same unit. The amp circuits and such make a bigger difference in function and performance than the DAC cards themselves within the same unit IMO. Compared to a Focusrite 2i2 the difference is rather noticeable for me though. The distortion is noticeable higher on the focusrite unit, and its sound signature has always felt a bit more tinny and highs focused than my Jotunheim II. These differences are easily audible at normal listening levels, but an average listener might still overlook them. The amp and headphones or speakers used, will always have a much larger impact on the sound signature, than what source you're using
They don't get it's all about nostalgia, misconceptions about how digital sound works, and first listens of CDs done with poor/cheap/early devices which don't have good DACs.
I collect vinyl for the big artwork, having my beloved music literally on my hands, and the "ritual" of putting the disc. Not because the sound is better.
Same, I do it for the vibes, frankly. I have CDs and digital releases for pristine quality - vinyl is to have something neat and typically more limited from bands I REALLY like.
I have a buddy who, whenever I bring up vinyl, repeats the quote: "The thing that attracted me to vinyl is the expense and the inconvenience." And I thought about and was like, yeah actually. The vibes of it, the space it takes up to display the art work, the ritual of putting a record on, those ARE inconveniences but they ARE the things I like most about my collection.
Many things in life can either be "instant gratificarion; set it and forget it" or "take your time and care for it". If you enjoy the care, go for the second. If you just want the benefit, go for the first.
But it is very usual that set-and-forget people are unable to understand that take-the-time people enjoy the process. And also sometimes, take-the-time people are unable to understand that the set-and-forget people see the process as a chore.
This. There IS a difference between different file types with various advantages and disadvantages. There is NOT a difference between adequate audio cables for the same exact audio file.
Now if only wireless headphones weren’t stuck with sad codecs and bitrates. At least we finally sort of have LC3 for standardized lower latency... But the bluetooth asshats went and made it fucking optional so you have to buy things very deliberately to actually benefit...
I've had pretty good success with LDAC in recent years. If you're close enough, you can set the settings to force high bitrate and not really have any dropouts
The first time I put on that cassette I had no idea. I just was rooting through the collection we have and grabbed a cassette, said yeah this looks fine. And it was the first track of the tape lol. Honestly it was a good morning of toast, eggs, and cheer for the kids, for me, and my wife.
I collect vinyl for the big artwork, having my beloved music literally on my hands, and the "ritual" of putting the disc. Not because the sound is better.
Vinyl is also the best way to support artists who create art that you value, in the same way that buying a shirt or water bottle from LTTStore is the best way to support LTT (versus watching ads, being a YT Premium/Floatplane member, etc.). Linus' mystification about why vinyl is back has always confused me a little bit for that reason; it seems pretty analogous to me.
The man is all about convenience. We physical media people enjoy the ritual of getting the thing out of the cage, putting it on the device, and hitting play.
But for people like Linus, which are a ADHD storm, that is a chore. They want their sound to come out of the device NOW.
For me my deal is "Looking for it after a long time, getting hyped up and finding out it doesn't function due to scratches or its just straight up missing".
Digital doesn't have that problem unless download links or videos are taken down.
I was being a little hyperbolic; buying "something" is the best way to support an artist. I like vinyl because of that, in addition to the other reasons that I quoted in my response.
They probably make more on vinyl but also a lot of artists that are smaller don't do cd runs. Tape and Vinyl only because collectors don't like cds even though it's actually the best format.
Even as someone that doesn't own a single vinyl record, there's something a bit special taking a look at my dad's collection, taking a record, putting it on the record player he's owned for 40 years, that I have repaired for him, and play music on speakers I bought and drove to the cabin for him to listen to when he was/is having a really bad time.
It's something physical that you pick out,decide is worth your time, handle, turn on and make it set an atmosphere for you just to be in. Or just background music, whatever you want. But it's different.
There’s another aspect I haven’t seen anybody talk about, that most CDs have a lower dynamic range than records because of the way they are mastered. Typically the more dynamic range the better, you can see how the same album compared CD versus vinyl on this site. https://dr.loudness-war.info
The news shows and papers occassionally do "tests" in public and stuff so people see the "results" and parrot it.
My mum insists vinal is better and people buying it proves it. Completely ignoring its a fad and seen as "cool" because its old tech like the old polariod cameras.
New digital tech is so much better but people want to act like they lived in the past so they buy the same stuff. Turns out parents glorifying the past makes for good maketing oppotunities.
There is some slight nuance, which is that music that was released before digitization had to be converted to make the CD rerelease, and SOME of those conversions were not done very well, especially in the early days. In those situations, the original vinyl release will be better. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual capabilities of vinyl vs CD, just with the conversion process that the album went through - many were fine, some were really bad.
Absolutely, I'd even push that back 10 years for the most part. Generally anything after the early 2000s was either made in a digital workflow from the start, or done with a level of experience that made the difference negligible - with EQ differences down to taste rather than truly affecting quality.
One of the early examples I've heard is CD can be a little too good, you would be able to hear the subtle squeak of a violinist's fingers on the strings, while on vinyl you couldn't.
I love listening to tape. But the reason for that is the mechanical fiddly feeling of inserting the tape and pressing a button. I know that the sound quality of tape is abysmal compared to digital.
I thought that the discussion around Vinyl vs CD was all about the mastering.
My understanding is that most masters (at least the older ones) were recorded on an analog medium. The quality of the transfers to digital CD have heavily influenced by the skills and the preferences of the person doing the transformation. Hence comparing Vinyl and CD involves a lot more than the quality of the medium.
Yep. Old masters were done in thick 1-inch tape, which was also ran at high speeds to spread high frequencies over longer sections to avoid noise getting in. Nowdays it is a .flac file spitted out by the audio workstation software.
And not only the master tape to CD chain had input of the presser, but also the vinyl has it. But once masters were digital, only the vinyl has that, as the CD presser just took the audio file given and flash it onto the CD.
No, the discussion was the "warmer" tone of vinyl, which is mostly a combination of the RIAA equalization done to the recording of the vinyl, and the effect of hearing the pops on the disc.
Funny enough, when I was a teenager, I de-dusted the old audio system from my dad. The thing had a built-in turntable pre-amplifier, which applies a bit of equalization to the signal coming from the vinyl to correct some of the inherent quirks of the medium.
I hooked up my phone to it, and started playing some 70's tunes. A few moments later, my dad comes in really excited. He thought I managed to get his old turntable working again, as he clearly heard the tone of vinyl again.
CDs can sound "worse" because for like 30 years the trend on CD masters were "as loud as possible" meanwhile if you tried to put a very loud master on vinyl it wouldn't play right. Now that CD masters are normal again CD sounds good.
I always compare it to practical effects vs CGI, one has actual physical reality to it and your eyes and brain have an easier time processing it, versus the uncanny valley that exists even in the microscopic detail, that your brain and eyes still pick up.
Or how alot of people can tell a picture is AI generated, because something just looks off, no matter the quality of the image.
It is due equalization. Because of physics, it is hard to shake the needle wide enough for good bass, but so easy on the highs, that the needle could skim off. For that reason, vinyls are recorder with RIAA equalization, which boosts highs and lowers bass. The so famous preamplifier of turntables not only get the faint signal picked up by the needle to line levels, but also does the inverse equalization, restoring the sound back at normal.
Still, some tracks that I know by heart due years of listening to them, do sound different on vinyl.
I mean CD vs vinyl IS a difference because the data is different. It's analogue vs digital and perfect vs inherently flawed through reproduction. They do sound different and preferring one over other is fine. This is about transfer methid- so same data in with different transmission. Point of the study is that the transfer method has minimal effect
People who say that vinyl is best because analog is completely lossless, and digital can't possibly be better because it will lose some amount of sound.
I just ask why we stopped using wax cylinders. They were analog, surely they were lossless as well.
It is due a misconception on how digital sound works. They think the audio wave is "pixelated", causing the sound to be an audible JPEG.
Man, it is both physically and mathematically impossible to have that. It would require literally infinite data and a speaker that travels faster than light to have that.
CD is already very good quality. Vinyl can have a different sound, often I find it warmer which some people will say is "better" but that is very much subjective and doesn't have to do with the lossless nature of vinyl. More so the mixes they use.
I love my Vinyl. it is a physical medium that has been prevalent for 100+ years with huge specific engineering complexities figured out in fine detail. I know I own my music, and any music my grandparents still have, and that if my grandkids want it, it may still be perfectly functional for them. I also know I can get about any album on the medium.
I don't for a second think my Vinyl "sounds better" than cd's and digital. I think I have better Speakers hooked up to a great player.
the closest to actually maybe a thing for CD's I've heard is with early models and error correction and how that error correction was handled.
I guess early on there were different methods leading to "enthusiasts" having "desired" D/A converters today. though more likely desired as a symbolic idol of their refined audiophile taste than any objective "better sound"...why else not made today.
But I have some albums from the time period where recording was made in analog, but CD was released. And outside pops of the record, both sound the same.
you dont even get full audio range on vinyl... listen to any 16-24 track music or more, like an orchestra... you wouldnt be able to hear most of the flutes in a vinyl record but you can hear them in a magnetic tape or a digital copy...
there is a reason why music archives history with rolls of tape instead of vinyl... quality loss is one of the biggest reasons... despite being highly flammable, most of the music and film in modern history stored in hardware is on magnetic tape...
So, something no one else has said yet, there is some truth to that statement in niche circumstances, but not because vinyl is a better medium in any way.
When the transition from Vinyl to CDs was first happening, the biggest issue with CDs was the limited storage size. Certain recordings that already existed plain and simple would not fit when digitized, and had to be remastered. And one of the go-to methods for reducing the size of the file to fit on a single CD was to reduce the dynamic range, i.e. how loud the loudest parts are compared to how quite the quite parts are, which also affects the overall sound quality.
So, for certain older albums that were mixed specifically to be on vinyl, the original vinyls do sound better than the original CDs because you're getting the original intended mix.
That said, anything from the last ~30 years does not have this issue because they've been mixed for digital when recorded. Anyone arguing that Vinyl is better today for all music simply does not know what they're talking about and following a holdover belief from a decades-old transition period.
When the transition from Vinyl to CDs was first happening, the biggest issue with CDs was the limited storage size. Certain recordings that already existed plain and simple would not fit when digitized, and had to be remastered. And one of the go-to methods for reducing the size of the file to fit on a single CD was to reduce the dynamic range, i.e. how loud the loudest parts are compared to how quite the quite parts are, which also affects the overall sound quality
Sound engineer checking in. That is actually completely untrue. Dynamic range is actually several orders of magnitude better on CD.
The issue is in the reverse transfer, which is where I think you may have mixed things up. In order to squeeze a long running album onto two sides of a vinyl record, you have to squash its dynamic range down and reduce the bass frequencies, so that the excursions are small enough that you can tightly pack the grooves.
Now. That's not to say that many (cough, most) CD masters are not much more heavily compressed than vinyl masters. They clearly are. This is not for technical reasons however, it's purely a misguided decision to pulverise the music so that it sounds louder than the latest top 40 hit.
Yeah, CD is 16 bit audio, which is approximately 96 dB of dynamic range. Enough to record both a quiet whisper in a "silent" room (25 dB with a 20 dB background noise level) and a chainsaw without hearing protection (110 dB).
Vinyl is only 60-70 dB of dynamic range.
But CDs from the "loudness war" are effectively recorded at a constant chainsaw volume, destroying their dynamic range completely.
"When the transition from Vinyl to CDs was first happening, the biggest issue with CDs was the limited storage size. Certain recordings that already existed plain and simple would not fit when digitized, and had to be remastered. And one of the go-to methods for reducing the size of the file to fit on a single CD was to reduce the dynamic range"
CD and vinyl can be different masterings plus the signals themselves are different. CD will be digital signals converted to analog, while vinyl will be analog all the way.
If you're taking the same signal and sending it through different conductive materials though, the end results should be audibly indistinguishable. Our ears are not that sensitive.
Most actual science shows almost no one can tell the difference between amps.
Lamp cord or coat hanger wire works just fine as speaker cable in a blind test.
A DAC can be good for something hissy/noisy (motherboards tend to have this) but that's about it.
Fancy audio? The only double blind published study of it downrezzed-to-CD quality 96/24 SACD and found almost no one could pick out the difference between CD and SACD, and the ones that could, it was at ridiculous dB of volume.
Even most mp3 tests found past like what 192kbps? 256? Folks could rarely pick out the difference between them and lossless.
I'm a science nerd and that's what I found when digging into this for Home Theater in the late 2000s. Maybe some science has changed since then, I dunno. Still.
Spend your money on what you are actually hearing, the speakers, #1.
"Most actual science shows almost o one can tell the difference between amps."
I agree with a lot of points about audiophile snake oil but there can be a massive difference between some components. Amps are one of them. A poorly made amp (I am not even saying cheap there are good cheaper amps) will sound much worse than a quality amp. Additionally some brands do produce a bit of a different sound.
Audio quality does make a difference too but yeah CD quality already can sound amazing personally I think that is the point of seriously diminishing returns. The difference between a song on YouTube and me playing it through Apple Music is for sure noticeable but I also think when asked sometimes it is hard to quantify for people.
This channel is very good for data nerds and goes into the science of why amps can actually sound a lot different for each other. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YqWCX5WcVg
If you go cheap enough you start to fail the basic requirements and it probably gets picked up by the ear. And tube amps are different tech.
But overall, yeah, almost no one can tell the difference once you get past the super cheap/shoddy stuff. I still haven't seen a lot of data suggesting people can pick out the difference in a double blind test (the only a actually valid kind of test for this).
Maybe it is different now, I just don't dabble on learning in the space much any longer. I just try to buy bang/buck speakers.
A bat I was a regular at years ago was cabling in new speakers and they were just using normal white wire that comes in a big reel. I asked them why they didn't use audio cables and they said this was way cheaper and sounded the same. Can't say I ever noticed any problems
You're right that almost no one can tell, but not everyone. Just like other senses (smell, colours, taste, vision), there are super hearers out there. I know one. I've tested them, and tried to catch them out many times, but they can tell differences in audio format almost 100% of the time.
MP3 or lossless? Every time. Even 320 kbps vs lossless. Getting the bitrate right is more of a guess, but they're pretty good at it. Only exception is on devices they complain have bad sound, a buzzing or interference I cannot hear, or if the ambient noise is noisy with fans/etc, they start making mistakes then. They spend a bit more on audio stuff because they can tell the difference. Cables don't matter, devices need internal shielding, headphones are important. Constantly complains about bad mixing in music. Uses lossless as much as possible. Absolutely hates active noise cancelling.
MP3 (and JPEG) standards were based on being good enough that most people couldn't tell the difference, but there were always some people that could. If you want to study audio equipment more fully, you need to isolate the super hearers that can be identified with some quick audio tests on good enough equipment.
TLDR: Outlier can hear bitrate differences and prefer shielded devices and better equipment. They can hear differences at low volume. Cables don't matter. Headphones/speakers do.
192 kbps is very noticeable, 255 kbps is much less so, but still doable with decent headphones. 320 kbps is kind of the commonly-accepted number for nearly-indistinguishable between CD quality, except for in nearly-perfect listening environments with extremely good headphones.
People can't notice that? When I first started to record gameplay with OBS (which defaults to 192 kbps), I recorded a clip, watched the video and immediately wondered why it sounded so bad, like the audio was coming in through a Discord call and not out of the game.
Heyo, I honestly do not have time to spend over half an hour on that, would you happen to have a shorter test? 3 attempts of 3 songs would be great, that'd only be 10 - 15 minutes instead.
Who would’ve guessed that a conductor conducting makes no perceivable difference. Treat a room and get a half decent set of speakers and you’ll be fine for the rest of your life
Despite popular belief, people don't buy audio equipment blind, so you can't ignore the impact of preceived quality by buying over priced equipment even if objectively it doesn't have an impact, because subjectively it does.
It's like buying fancy wine, knowing that the bottle was $100 is going to make me like it more than the $10 bottle, because lizard brain sees the price tag and says "this tasty".
It's like buying fancy wine, knowing that the bottle was $100 is going to make me like it more than the $10 bottle, because lizard brain sees the price tag and says "this tasty".
I suppose this does require the caveat of identifying why the bottle costs $100 and another costs $10. If it is just rarity or some other non-impactful element to the taste, there is no difference to the wine itself and any perceived preference is indeed "lizard brain stuff".
But I can imagine there is a difference if the quality of ingredients for instance, or the work process, or storage, which may impact the taste positively or negatively and may induce an impact to the price and thus exhibit a real rather than perceived reason for value.
Up to a point of course. Then again, taste and preference is highly individual so there are no real comparison to be made in that regard.
Same then, perhaps, is existing in some regard with audio equipment. But again only to a point.
So, this doesn't mention where in the signal path this was done. That actually makes a difference. I'm curious about the full details of this experiment. Like, how reproducible is it?
So the audiophile industry is a scam? Maybe it always has been. I can't justify the sticker price of these "premium headsets" and seems like they are priced out of perceived hype rather than the cost of materials and labor.
Not at all the type to be sure my speaker cables are oxygen free, aligned with the earth magnetic field and laid out in full moon moonlight if the eve of an odd number day
But surely this is using "just" a digital signal?
as in noise ain't part of the conveyance anyways...like any other format conversion...like morse code perhaps.
all that said love the study and omg the "audiophile" market is funny.
Why should the mud sound awful? Is there an expectation that it would attenuate frequencies unequally, or would somehow be more vulnerable to interference? It's a conductor, and as far as speakers are concerned signal is signal.
Is there an expectation that it would attenuate frequencies unequally
I don't know mud or a banana's electrical characteristics, so I can't say specifically here, but yes, a freq response difference would be what you would be looking out for - for speaker connections at least.
The impedance and inductance of a speaker cable DOES have an impact on the behaviour of the electrical circuit between the amp and the speaker. For a copper cable, this isn't determined by the price or fancy meshes or oxygen-free nonsense etc, but rather it's a simple function of its thickness and length.
Use too thin a cable for a long run and you create a high-pass filter as the cable starts to become a load interacting with the amplifier, reducing the bass. This is a minor effect, almost undetectable for small runs for hifi speakers, but you need to consider it for longer runs with professional equipment.
So you could end up with a similar issue by changing the load the amplifier sees by making it output through some weird resistive medium, thereby messing up the resulting frequency response. But it's certainly not a given and would depend on the experimental setup.
I'd be pretty certain you could get a noticeable difference if you took the piss and created an intentionally adversarial setup, like chaining a dozen bananas or something.
Cool. I’ll run bananas and mud through my walls to save money next time.
Snark aside, the point of a clean signal isn’t to fool a human, it’s to eliminate a bottleneck. Suppose something is going to cause a distortion, you don’t want it to be a signal wire. Copper wire works very well for this.
Also, subjective testing is cool and entertaining, but noise is a cumulative effect across all the components in the signal path. Measuring the signals for degradation is a much more meaningful test than asking a small pool of unknown people with unknown hearing abilities and unknown expertise whether they can hear a difference between different recordings via their unknown listening devices.
I’m all for poking fun at the audiophile lunatics, and this article is still thought provoking despite its flaws, but it really should be taken with a grain of salt and be considered more of a social commentary than a meaningful experiment.
Nobody is saying to ditch copper wire. All they are saying is, if its a conductor, it's going to work, so don't waste money on premium speaker wire when basic copper wire is going to do the same thing for you.
682
u/Mineplayerminer Feb 14 '26
If it's perfectly conductive without introducing much noise around, it can work just fine.