It just occurred to me, that my objection can be explained much more easily.
I’m sorry if this is too obvious; I just do not know all of your backgrounds…
Effectively, you (@alec_eiffel) are asking participants to throw a 3-sided dice (=Sample A, B & C).
Throw that thing, 3 times (= state your series of preference. Possible outcomes : ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA).
Six possible outcomes. So : a chance of 1 in 6 to get it right. Even if there is nothing to detect at all in the samples.
If we have 6 or more participants, then we are reasonably sure that somebody will get it right. Right as in : according to your expectation or hypothesis.
Even when everybody was just guessing, or when the samples were tampered with in any way.
Concluding : We cannot use this test as stand-alone, it is just not reliable at all.
You then repeat the test with different test tracks; 3 in total. That is good : it improves the reliabilily.
(As long as we all accept, that we should be sensitive for this sonic change in ALL tracks).
For each individual , probability of picking all ‘right’ answers now is : one sixth, times one sixth, times one sixths.
Or : 1/216th, equating to ~ 0,46 %. Or : you need 200 participants, to be reasonably sure of a randomly chosen ‘right’ answer.
Although still not extremely convincing : That does seem a lot better, indeed.
But :do we all accept, that we should be sensitive to the change in ALL three sound tracks ?
If not, you must fall back to the first scenario. The one-in-six one, which certainly has no validity whatsoever…
(Please do know : I’m the worst statistician ever :). In fact, I avoid it when I can…)
(Yes, this was the reason why I originally stated : “I’m not sure if I’m willing to set this up”. It is very difficult perform this task well, while keeping your participants happy… 
)
Finally, a question from my side : what will be the function, of using the the third ‘unknown’ sample ? I do not see a purpose for it, related to your hypothesis.