音响发烧友无法区分通过铜、香蕉或泥土传输的音频。
Audiophiles Can't Distinguish Audio Sent Through Copper, Banana or Mud

原始链接: 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

一个引人入胜的diyAudio论坛实验测试了听众是否能根据用于传输音频的“接口”——专业铜线、香蕉,甚至湿泥——辨别音质差异。主持人Pano使用这些非常规材料以及直接从CD抓取的音频创建了循环音频轨道。 结果令人震惊:在43次猜测中,只有6次是正确的,在统计上与随机机会一致。听众始终无法可靠地识别原始音频,也无法区分各种传输方法。 Pano认为,虽然这些材料是劣质导体,但它们主要充当电阻器,衰减信号而不是显著失真。受一部关于使用地球作为回线的单线电报的纪录片启发,该实验表明,即使是泥土和香蕉等看似不合适的介质,所引入的变化也难以被大多数听众察觉。结论?昂贵的音频线缆可能无法提供比更简单、非常规替代品更明显的改进。

一篇最近在Hacker News上被重点报道的文章指出,音响发烧友无法可靠地区分通过铜扬声器线播放的音频与用香蕉甚至泥土制成的扬声器线播放的音频。这项实验涉及43次猜测,只有6次正确,引发了评论区的争论。 许多用户质疑实验的有效性和样本量,而另一些人则戏谑地提出了“有机泥土扬声器线”的营销机会。然而,核心观点引起了许多评论者的共鸣:如果不同的材料没有可察觉的差异,那么昂贵的音响线很可能依赖于安慰剂效应。讨论的重点在于挑战这样一种信念,即更高质量的材料必然能改善声音,并暗示高端音频设备市场很大程度上可能基于未经证实的说法。
相关文章

原文

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.'

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.

Initial test results showed that it’s extremely difficult for listeners to correctly pick out which audio track used which wiring setup. “The amazing thing is how much alike these files sound. The mud should sound perfectly awful, but it doesn't," Pano said. "All of the re-recordings should be obvious, but they aren't."

mud experiment audiophile

(Image credit: Pano/diyAudio)

This is quite surprising, especially as we often don’t think of bananas, or even wet mud, as great conductors. However, the tester surmised that introducing the materials into the circuit is just like adding a resistor in series, and they’re unlikely to distort the audio too much, except by lowering the signal level.

After waiting a month for testers to submit their results, the following results were tabulated:

(Image credit: Pano/diyAudio)

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. This goes in line with Pano's conclusion that "listeners can't reliably pick out the original from the looped versions," suggesting that they cannot detect any changes introduced by the loop — whether it's pro-grade copper wire or wet mud from somebody's backyard.

Pano came up with this idea after they watched a documentary, Amigo, where the U.S. Army was setting up a singular telegraph wire in the Philippines. They thought that it wouldn’t work as “you need two wires to complete the circuit.” However, it turns out that the telegraph system used the earth as a return, even through long distances. This got them thinking that if you could send telegraphy signals across the ground, what would an audio signal using the same medium sound like? They then tried various materials like mud and banana, which, although they’re pretty poor conductors, still seemed to introduce imperceptible changes to the signal, at least for the average person.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.