But aren't we also supposed to use our eyes (and other senses) to listen?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
To make the audio sound more wet, lively and involving instead of dry, uninterested and distant?I am trademarking Mud Cables asap.
The same recordings were offered to listeners in the test. This included the original CD recording as well, though none were identified.The fallacy in this experiment is that instead of hearing to recordings made via the above mediums, they should have made the people listen to the same (any) recording via these mediums.
However, it is a known fact that almost all studios do not use any of the exotic audiophile cables and all recordings and the subsequent mixing go via various equipments and a plethora of regular cables.
The entire conundrum comes at the time of reproduction in our rooms and equipment.
NoneThere is a learning from this experiment but I am not able to identify it….
Anyone get it ?
None
There are also blind test results where all amps sound same
Wonder if we can blind test a blind test![]()
![]()
"So the next time you’re struggling to hear the difference between two amps, consider the possibility that the difference might not be there at all"
There is a thread on the topic regarding DACs…
Now we have removed cables and amps from the equation. we just need to prove dacs and speakers all sound the same, give up the hobby and go for ahuja speakers and amps.![]()
![]()