this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
905 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
81162 readers
4192 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I thought audio quality was more to do with the source and the destination. If you have a shit needle on a record or a speaker made of wood then its gonna sound like ass.
I never once thought it had anything to do with the cables. Unless they were frayed or damaged in some way.
But i am not an audiophile, i record my own music and mix etc, but never worried about cable quality before.
Exactly this, the cables never mattered. They're the least significant part of an audiophile system and I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a crappy cable and a good quality cable. People get good quality cable for durability rather than sound quality.
As long as its not too crappy. Otherwise you’ll wonder why you’re picking up radio.
I heard one guy talk about the importance of cable shielding and connector material and shit once, but the ones I actually know just talk about the other hardware (speakers, mixing pults, lots of terms I couldn't recite).
Even more than the actual contact with the media, the entire system breaks down at the ears. If your ears aren't well-trained, then you don't even know what to listen for. You might think loud bass is good, or booming drums, and never notice that you can't hear any mids.
So in a blind test like this, some people just might prefer a sound that this experiment has little impact on, so they wouldn't be able to notice any differences.
A well-trained ear might be able to detect differences between them, but still not have a real preference. Besides being able to hear all the different frequencies, you have to know what the instruments sound like in real life to know if those frequencies are reproducing accurately. Again, if you don't what it's supposed to sound like, you really don't know if ANY change in components makes a positive or negative difference in the natural sound, you only know the difference relative to your personal preference.
TL;DR: This "experiment" doesn't prove anything. It's just funny.
Interesting, do you know where I can buy a set of trained ears? - Audiophiles, probably.
Everything you said is wrong.
Only noticing the distortion you care about is fine. If you don’t notice it, it is necessarily irrelevant. You are not a computer, analog audio signals are not a digital transmission of data, where errors make the data unreadable.
An original recording was provided. The re-recordings are supposed to sound like the original. They’re not testing microphones, or whatever processing the audio engineer did, the sound of the original instruments is irrelevant.
Speakers are made of wood, the good ones are at least.
Unless your referring to the actual drivers, then yeah wood wouldn't really work in that case.
Well, paper is a very popular material in speaker cones, including high-end