In a blind test, audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between audio signals sent through copper wire, a banana, or wet mud

[8bits]

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

This article from Toms Hardware is already a summary of the experiment that occurred at DIYAudio, but here's a description of the experiment:

Pano, the moderator who built the experiment, invited other members on the forum to listen to various sound clips with four different versions: one taken from the original CD file, with the three others recorded through 180cm of pro audio copper wire, via 20cm of wet mud, through 120cm of old microphone cable soldered to US pennies, and via a 13cm banana, and 120cm of the same setup as earlier.

I wonder if audiophiles that believe the whole wire snake oil would be convinced by this experiment, but it's a fun one nonetheless.
One thing I am not sure is the amount of people that participated in the experiment, that would skew the significance of the results a bit.

 

[DanielT]

So no talk of muddy sound even though the signal literally went through mud.

Fascinating test.

 

[kemmler3D]

What I want to know is what amp they used for this? Am I to understand he did the loopback of the DAC's signal at line level through the mud?

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Is the statistical analysis valid? I’m asking because I’ve forgotten my stats

They say “As we can see in the image above, there are only six correct answers out of 43 guesses. We put these numbers in a spreadsheet, which showed that only 13.95% of the answers were correct. Furthermore, we used the binomial distribution formula and determined there’s a 6.12% chance that we’d get the same or fewer correct answers if the listeners were randomly guessing — slightly above the 5% significance threshold many statisticians use, meaning the results are consistent with randomness.”

Why is binomial the correct distribution to use?
Does 6% correct mean the same thing as about a 5% confidence that the results were random?

Also how was the test conducted? It sounds like it was “listen to these samples and tell us if you think it was playing through a banana”. If so, that seems really dumb to me. Surely it should have been an ABX test of “can you tell the two apart” as opposed to knowing which is which.

 

[solderdude]

Would be funny to see what happens when we replace the mains cables with a banana and some mud .... or replace the speaker cables with a flower pot or something.
Willing to bet everyone will tell be able to tell the difference.

 

[Palladium]

Would be funny to see what happens when we replace the mains cables with a banana and some mud .... or replace the speaker cables with a flower pot or something.
Willing to bet everyone will tell be able to tell the difference.

Why not actual poop...

 

[solderdude]

Only when still wet ... could be a steaming experience.

 

[dtaylo1066]

For music were they listening to Muddy Waters?

 

[RandomEar]

You can also compare "original" vs "non-original" (banana/mud/copper cable as a group) and see that 2 answers out of 8 were correct. That is exactly what you would expect for random guessing.

The number of total answers is pretty low for a statistical analysis, though.

 

[solderdude]

For music were they listening to Muddy Waters?

And Harry Belafonte's banana boat song.

 

[DanielT]

For music were they listening to Muddy Waters?

Or given what should be plugged in when listening to:
My name is Mud
My name is Mud
Not to be confused with Bill, or Jack, or Pete, or Dennis
My name is Mud, it's always been (Primus)...

Enough of my silliness. I'll listen to some music from Bananarama instead.

In any case, the test is interesting and not just a Puddle of Mudd.

 

[Palladium]

You can also compare "original" vs "non-original" (banana/mud/copper cable as a group) and see that 2 answers out of 8 were correct. That is exactly what you would expect for random guessing.

The number of total answers is pretty low for a statistical analysis, though.

Well, I can't really care for statistical rigor where these are purportedly obvious as night-and-day differences nobody can ever miss.

 

[voodooless]

It seems you can make this shit up!

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Why is binomial the correct distribution to use?

More "a" correct one to use.

If we code the choice as a binary (correct, incorrect), and we know the expected outcome (1/4 options would be 25%), binomial will work. I can't speak to whether or not they did it right, stats wise or data organization wise.

I would use logistic regression, with the original signal as the excluded category. I think I could get a bit more out of the limited data that way. Given properly gathered data of course.

 

[Defi]

So who wants to join me in my new business venture: audiophile quality bananas?

 

[Ktacos]

I always thought the term audiophile came with the notion that you can't really hear very well.

 

[Robin L]

In a closely related story:

 

[dtaylo1066]

So who wants to join me in my new business venture: audiophile quality bananas?

Let's' test Chiquita vs. Dole vs plantain. Will ripeness matter. Oh my, edible hi-fi cables. Banana bread?

 

[krabapple]

That's just a damn dirty trick

 

[mhardy6647]

Let's' test Chiquita vs. Dole vs plantain. Will ripeness matter. Oh my, edible hi-fi cables. Banana bread?

The bananas are, presumably, all Cavendish. The plantain, however... there you may be onto something!

https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/full/10.1094/PHYTO-07-20-0311-RVW