I remember Technics used to advertise with amplifiers that used bamboo somewhere in the capacitors? Always wondered if there was actual bamboo in there somewhere and what the electrical effects were...
Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
11–20 of 153 posts
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#12This seems like a business opportunity. “Ethically sourced organic mud speaker wires for a clean, organic, pure sound.” /s
Forged under blue moon light for perfect electron alignment inside the wires.
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#13While I believe a significant portion of audiophile gear is unscientific nonsense, in this case it’s not clear how adding different materials into the circuit would add distortion or change the audio in any way.
If nothing else it shows those high end $1,000+ cables they buy are nothing but placebo effect.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but if people believe they can hear a difference in their $1000 cables, and they enjoy purchasing and testing them, I'm inclined to let them enjoy themselves. I have a basic hi-fi setup with rational cables, and enjoy the cost savings, but to each their own.
I feel the same way about wine. At a certain point, it's not really about objective improvements, it's about vibes and lore.
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#14While I believe a significant portion of audiophile gear is unscientific nonsense, in this case it’s not clear how adding different materials into the circuit would add distortion or change the audio in any way.
I think the (unstated) point of the article is that if banana/mud can’t be differentiated from copper wire then the audiophile/fool level cable is also nonsense, for example: https://www.audiotherapyuk.com/product/oephi-reference-inter...
I have always said and will always say the same thing:
Up to a point, there's an easily distinguishable sound and detail difference between cheaper and more expensive gear, given that you don't cheat (i.e. put cheaper gear in expensive enclosure), but that difference indistinguishable well before these "true audiophile" level stuff.
For example: I run a pair of Heco Celan GT302s. They are not something exotic. 100W per channel, adequately detailed speakers with great soundstage. The manual gives you a table: Wattage -> Recommended wire gauge. I got a high quality, 100% copper cable (from Acoustic Research, so nothing fancy) at the recommended gauge, and connected them. You can't convince me to get a better cable. It's pointless.
Do I enjoy the sound I get, hell yeah. Do I need to listen to my system instead of listening to the music, hell no. I feed the amplifier with a good turntable (which is 40 years old, shocker!) and a good CD player (which is pretty entry level for what's out there), and that's it.
That set will nail any person who likes to listen to the music to its chair. That's the aim of a good system. Same for personal DAPs and DACs. If you enjoy what you have, who cares!
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#15The classic fable round these parts is Quad (and/or Cambridge Audio?) demo-ing their latest and greatest at a 1970s Heathrow Expo using mains cables as speaker wire.
It’s the least important part of any system and indeed my Quad amp and CA R50s are wired with twisted, braided, brown lamp cable as a nice aesthetic homage.
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#16While I believe a significant portion of audiophile gear is unscientific nonsense, in this case it’s not clear how adding different materials into the circuit would add distortion or change the audio in any way.
If nothing else it shows those high end $1,000+ cables they buy are nothing but placebo effect.
it also puts a market value on said placebo effect...
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#17[deleted]
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
If nothing else it shows those high end $1,000+ cables they buy are nothing but placebo effect.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but if people believe they can hear a difference in their $1000 cables, and they enjoy purchasing and testing them, I'm inclined to let them enjoy themselves. I have a basic hi-fi setup with rational cables, and enjoy the cost savings, but to each their own. I feel the same way about wine. At a certain point, it's not really about objective improvements, it's about vibes and lore.
I also don't need to storm these people's homes and tear up their expensive audio setups. Life is hard, and if you find something to enjoy, I'll let you have it.
That said, think there is value in putting out facts that let people make informed decisions and not spend tons of money on things that don't actually work.
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#19I cant pack wet mud into a tube and run it in the attic and it stay wet. Same with bananas unfortunatly as that would give banana plugs a lot more meaning.
Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the (unstated) point of the article is that if banana/mud can’t be differentiated from copper wire then the audiophile/fool level cable is also nonsense, for example: https://www.audiotherapyuk.com/product/oephi-reference-inter...
I have always said and will always say the same thing: Up to a point, there's an easily distinguishable sound and detail difference between cheaper and more expensive gear, given that you don't cheat (i.e. put cheaper gear in expensive enclosure), but that difference indistinguishable well before these "true audiophile" level stuff. For example: I run a pair of Heco Celan GT302s. They are not something exotic. 100W p…
> Up to a point, there's an easily distinguishable sound and detail difference between cheaper and more expensive gear, given that you don't cheat (i.e. put cheaper gear in expensive enclosure), but that difference indistinguishable well before these "true audiophile" level stuff.
I don't understand how that is cheating. Isn't it a better controlled experiment if the equipment looks the same?