The problem here is that no one but the author and associates hear these comparisons "live." What others heard were recordings of thest comparisons. The recording process eleminated the very subtle, but audible, high frequencies that are associated with "airy," or "transprent" sound. I tried to download the PDF offered, but it turned into an advertisement. We do know that the signals that were recorded were line level (not speaker driving level) and so were relatively low level (a volt or two) from whatever source and into a high impedence input of a recorder or preamp. That kind of signal is reltively immune to resistance in the line. The resistance offered by a (damp) banana or mud (by definition wet) is relatively low. If the experiment was conducted on signals driving loudspeakers, there would have been a huge difference between copper and mud as conductors. Also, in conclusion, the author opines that steel or iron would have sounded as good as copper or other well known metals. It is well known that ferrous (containg iron) conductors tend to "smear" transients due to their ability to be magnetised by the current flowing through them. Of course, this may all have been an April Fool's joke. If you beleive wire constrution details (material, configuration of the conductors, etc.) do not affect the sound passing through them, visit me and I'll give you a nice demonstratiion of the truth. Cost is not a factor, it's rather arbitrary at this point in the marketpace. No matter what the product is, the closer you get to perfection, the more difficult and expensive it is to produce the object. Look at the products available. Some seem to be concentrating on cosmetics. A wedding ring will always cost more than a wrench. Enjoy the music!
