At a certain point, your sound quality is going to more affected by the placement of your furniture over any real and perceived improvement in audio equipment. It's like g*mers who splurge on some graphics card and gaming monitor but completely cheap out on the cable.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
49 points (100.0% liked)
technology
24239 readers
289 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a clickbait article to make the reader feel a sense of superiority. The forum thread is linked on the article. It's not a real blind test. Secondly the title is just a straight up lie, it's not that they couldn't tell that the sounds were different, they could not determine the original sound.
The test includes 4 unmarked 30 second clips of various songs. 1 clip is the original file, 1 clip is the file looped through a copper cable, 1 clip is the file looped through a banana, 1 clip is the file looped through mud. If this were a serious test, the original sample would be labeled so that people would know what the reference point is. Secondly, how would anyone be able to tell the difference between mud and banana? Do you know what a banana sounds like?
The forum post was just meant to be a silly game and the article treats it as a serious test.
I have 4 printing of the Mona Lisa. One printing is the original, one printing I dipped in water, one printing I dipped in apple juice, and one printing I dipped in piss. Can you spot which Mona Lisa was dipped in apple juice and which one was dipped in piss? The Mona Lisa is already pretty yellow, which yellow is the correct yellow?
I’d pick scientology over an audiophile
The wire isn't generally something that's focused on though, is it? Like everyone knows those gold plated cables are scams. I thought the quality of the audio or the speaker/headphones were the big focus.
Also, sample size of nine people and two of them failed to fill out the survey correctly lol
AFAIK they're still running the cable scam and middle-aged dentists with more money than sense are still falling for it.
This is why I pack my left ear with mud and put a banana in my right ear. The copper wire is used to scoop out my brains for the embalming.
Put a banana in your earrrrrrr.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Cool, what range can you get out of sending audio signal through mud?
Encrypted audio sent through the ground or through water could be useful for secret messages, not gonna be many trying to listen.
not gonna be many trying to listen
Someone forgot about the mole people and the secret Tibetans living in the hollow earth
I got a DAC/headphone amp, and replaced all the 192KBs files in my library with 320KBs. Nothing sounds tinny, and I've been happy. I've never looked into it further, and feel no need to.
Music has been one of the most important aspects of my life as long as if can remember. Every memory and thought I have has a song attached to it. I wired built in speakers throughout my house so I can always play whatever I feel like.
I can't imagine giving a shit about wire composition or watching a waveform for unperceived errors. That sounds more like a mental illness than a hobby.
I Also mostly listen to music in my ten year old car, which has a dogshit soundsystem, so I guess I'm not an audiophile.
watching a waveform for unperceived errors
I read about a test where supposedly audiophiles were played samples of CDs ripped with different players and then proven to be identical bit by bit, played back on the same system, where supposedly they still insisted they could tell which CDs were ripped with the better player, and tbqh I believe it.
Sounds like we have very similar sensibilities, including the limits of what we care about. I also mostly listen in an old car, and I took the plunge and upgraded the speakers with some better coaxial speakers than the stock ones. It was an absolutely great return on investment if you don't mind a beginner-friendly car project. Easy job to complete in a couple of hours and the customer service techs at Crutchfield are very forthcoming with knowledge and assistance.
I PUSH MY ~~FINGERS~~ BANANAS INTO MY ~~EYES~~ EARS
This sounds damning, until you realize who the merchant who sold them the copper is.
god fucking damn it
The audiophiles: "It all sounds like shit compared to my extruded ruby core cables with quantum disentangled untwisted pairs"
Is being an audiophile anything close to the same as having ear or musical training though? Any random schmuck can say they like flac files but I wouldn't expect anyone other than a well trained musician, sound engineer, or musicologist to actually be able to discern the difference between them and a 256 kbps mp3, and even then how significant would that actually be to them?
They call me Dr music because i can hear the difference between a wav and a crunchy 144p music video on youtube from 20 years ago
Basically nobody can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac. Or 256kbps and 320kbps mp3.
I prefer flac because it works as an archive you can easily render from or use as a wav if needed. In theory repeated re-encodings could introduce artifacts down the line, I don't have to think about that with flac. Plus the people releasing flacs tend to be nerds, they do good rips. It's more likely that an audio quality issue will be something like ripping from a CD with scratches or a hole or ripping from dusty vinyl, only doing one pass, etc.
Ear training is more about hearing pitch, and here I think it's probably a difference in timbre, and I think a major difference with the more standard flac vs mp3 version of this test is dynamic range. Music training would probably help a bit more with dynamics than this specific type of timbre distinction.
But the reason it's salient is that "audiophiles" pretend that they can tell a difference and use fucking spectrographic analysis or whatever to point out "imperfections" in a sound file, but it's all made up and the vast majority of them can't really tell by listening. So it's about contesting their claim, I guess.
Fuck yeah man give me that banana sound
that's why they used to make telephones out of them
Flashbacks of Garry's Mod banana phone remix slop just hit me.
Cellular, modular, interactiveodular.
FLACbros lose everything! ~~3gp for the win~~
As a self proclaimed audiophile, i fill my ears with wet mud for maximum frequencies
I guarantee the sound difference would be evident on a higher power set up. The obvious problem with that is why would you be listening to music at a high enough power level that it would be noticeable.
um akshually