If it were for audiophiles you’d never listen to music

https://www.tomshardware.com/speakers/in-a-blind-test-audiophiles-couldnt-tell-the-difference-between-audio-signals-sent-through-copper-wire-a-banana-or-wet-mud-the-mud-should-sound-perfectly-awful-but-it-doesnt-notes-the-experiment-creator

I almost don’t need a quote here, since that URL gives it all away:

A moderator on diyAudio set up an experiment to determine whether listeners could differentiate between audio run through pro audio copper wire, a banana, and wet mud. Spoiler alert: the results indicated that users were unable to accurately distinguish between these different ‘interfaces.’

I love it. Through the decades I’ve been told I shouldn’t use _____ to listen to music, because _____ is just not good enough, where “_____” would be:

  • a mangiadischi (which, to be fair, is a sure way to scratch your 45s)
  • the compact stereo set I got when I turned 11
  • CDs
  • Sony HF tapes (but hey, look at that)
  • MiniDiscs
  • mp3 files
  • iPods and music bought on iTunes
  • streaming services

I once had a conversation with someone who wouldn’t consider buying an iPod until they could truly test how good the sound quality actually was. At that time I was mostly listening to music on trains or while working, so what I was going for was convenience (plus music on the iPod sounded pretty fucking great regardless), and since then I’ve barely ever just sat on a couch to listen to a full album just for the pleasure of concentrating on the finest details of the recording. So I feel somehow vindicated. From now on all my music systems will be mud-based—I suspect bananas would require more regular maintenance.