Audiophile or Audio-Fooled? How Good Are Your Ears?

Δημοσιεύτηκε στις 13 Οκτ 2017
In this video, we explore the differences between MP3s, WAV, FLAC (lossless), AAC and whether you can tell the difference? or if it even matters? Discussion on mixing, listening, monitors and audion file formats.
Listening test:
www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
BUY THE BEATO BOOK HERE → bit.ly/2uTQFlo
Mastering Modes of the Major Scale Video Course:
bit.ly/2yhlfD2
The new all-PDF Mega Bundle! Get it here: bit.ly/2jfkyaB
SUBSCRIBE HERE → bit.ly/2eEs9gX
--------------------------------------
My Links to Follow:
GR-tv - gr-tv.com/username-RickBeato
Artist Facebook -facebook.com/rickbeatoproduction/
Personal Facebook - facebook.com/rick.beato.1
Instagram - instagram.com/rickbeato1/
Follow On Twitter - @rickbeato
www.nuryl.com

Σχόλια

  • I'd be interested to know how many times Michelle ran that test. I think you need to run it 10 times or so to help eliminate guessing. Anyway, she'd do a lot better than me. I kept choosing 128 mp3!

  • I'm not sure exactly why, my best guess is I haven't heard proper good quality digital audio files before, but CD's always sound better to me. Without doubt the files on my computer that are ripped from my CD collection sound WAAYYYY better than my directly downloaded music files.

  • And what if you're mixing with Ultrasone PRO 550 headphones?

  • Use the right equipment and you will notice the difference.

  • Excellent presentation, Rick.

  • I can tell the difference but maybe not just by listening to some samples like in the test here. Listen to 320kbit/s music all day on a decent sound system and it grates, but you have to listen to wide variety to tell the stream quality. It doesn't show up as evidently in quiet music (say a solo guitar) but it definitely shows in complicated multi-instrument music with a high dynamic range. The louder it is played, the more the difference. Add to that that much modern music recordings are devoid of much dynamic range makes it harder because both recording are pretty bad to start with, so your Coldplay song here is not a dynamic recording, I can assure you. It isn't the frequencies which are the problem it is the dynamics. I hate the term audiophile because it sounds a bit condescending but your ears get trained and over time you do start to notice how one system sounds different to another.

    • Now Type in Police and look at the difference. So do your test with Synchronicity 2 and then see how easy it is. Dead easy

  • When i was 17 (a long time ago now) all my music was played on a "Dansette" record player, because that was all i had and totally enjoyed the music of every song i ever played. As time has moved on i find my time taken up with,dac,s, bitrates, interconnects, etc,etc,etc Technology has diluted all thoughts away from what should have been the main reason for its enjoyment in the first place the MUSIC. I think sometimes i should ditch the lot and go back to what gave me the best listening pleasure of my life......... Just a thought, sometimes enough is never enough...

  • You realize that, no matter what it started as, after you uploaded it, all of this audio was then re-encoded by whavever codec GR-tv uses, right? So you can't "prove" anything by listening to a GR-tv video?

    • My god, she’s not listening off GR-tv dummy. I have the link in the description from NPR.

  • Dogs have better hearing than humans.

    • True, but I'm struggling to name an album mixed by a dog.

  • Dude I am really surprised at you. Firstly, your test was undertaken using headphones listening in the audio near field. Its impossible to tell the difference in digital detail listening in the true near field audio range. This one of the reasons why the MP3 format is a successful. Amp it up using 10 kW rig and you will definitely hear a difference in the audio quality. MP3 file format compression does not even come close to CD standard. Its tissue thin and the bottom end is glassy. Also what really narks me is how you describe your test subject as having perfect pitch? what the hell that has to do with anything? as if this is some kind of qualification? she has perfect pitch so what. In any case the concept of perfect pitch in humans does not exist dude. Fake news? Blimey mate you can do much better than this to promote your stuff.

    • +Rick Beato Well rick you don't have to apologise to me..I'm and old dog at this game as well. Pitch color? name that frequency? give me a break . I would like to see her try... Ya see rick, the clue is in the word compression. Which means - in the case of MP3 format - bits have been removed...and as you demonstrate something like 9 tenths of the have been bitten off. Its a very neat trick indeed. Bang goes your dynamics right there. Plus your top end plus your bottom end. Amp it up...and push some air from the monitors...man its chalk and cheese time. Now that's black and white using your 'pitch color' nonsense. Your don't need a weather man to tell you which way the wind blows. And you certainly don't need pitch perfect ears to hear MP3 losses either ...ordinary ones are just fine.

    • +Rick Beato "has more awareness of pitch color since she recognizes exact frequencies and is able to name them" -- does not follow, sorry bro

    • Why does perfect pitch matter? Because she has more awareness of pitch color since she recognizes exact frequencies and is able to name them. The fact that you don’t realize that shows that you’re not actually thinking rationally. Sorry bro.

  • That's exactly what a vampire would say...

  • it really depends on the song, most modern pop songs use alot of compression, and are mixed to sound loud, whereas the difference between something in 320kbps and 24 bit flac by a band like radiohead for example is very noticable

  • Very interesting points here & I liked the variety of recorded music in the test. I managed to get 6 out of 6 quite easily, but I certainly wouldn't be going around calling myself an audiophile. When I'm out & about mp3's are great, but when at home sitting back & just enjoying an Album. My preference is mostly CD & some vinyl depending on what genre or release date I'm listening to. But I think that's the main point right? At the end of the day, people enjoying & appreciating music regardless of the format or genre.

  • Indeed the Yamaha monitors are crappy. Abbey Road Studios has had B&W series speakers for decades.

    • Dude I have worked in Abbey Road and I can tell you - all the monitors are crap just like most monitors.

  • I would like to turn it around: If the people who are mixing the record can't hear things above say, 15K, wouldn't they just low pass everything beneath that? Meaning: your wav, your 128 and 320 bitrate wouldn't matter because you would be listening to old people's hearing anyway. No wonder no-one can hear the difference between the formats, as there is none. Maybe we would need someone with the experience of those master producers and the hearing of a 10 year old, then I am fairly sure we could hear the difference between the formats ;)

  • i don't understand batsht but i believe you-lol

  • I may be totalt wrong but I hear definitely the difference. But it is more about the ambiance and the detail. When I listen to a lossy sound file for longer periods of time I feel like I'm listening to the music standing too closely to the musicians. The sound doesn't have time to breath. This is especially true in complex music that requires lots of dynamic range. On lossy files I can also sometimes hear the clipping in the frequency range. I mainly listen to older music. Music nowadays are mixed terribly with extremely low dynamic range and sampled way too high. This is why a person cannot hear the difference in new music. Listening Madonna's Holiday or The Doors' The End and you will hear so many small details on the lossless versions. The punch in symbals in Holiday, the guitar in the beginning of The End. Magnificent in lossless. Just two examples though but if you know what to listen for you can definitely hear the difference.

    • I always pick up on the high frequencies sounding horrible, more pronounced on low bit rate MP3. Such as you say, on older records that have a lot more dynamics you can hear subtle sounds that you'd never miss unless you heard a higher quality version. I'm not that old now but I can't hear past about 13k, so it makes less of a difference. It's nice to know you have a top quality recording, even if you can't hear the difference. High quality to me is just CD audio ripped to FLAC. Anything past that is wankery

  • I got 4 out of 6. I missed the pianist and ColdPlay

  • no difference between the 320 and the 128 mp3?

  • Got 4 out of 6 because the loud pop records are the easiest to tell, what with all the high frequency content in them.

  • Would be nice if you placed your entire setup specs in the video and not just the headphones (Sound card vs motherboard sound vs USB external, and the DAC and AMP on said system). Sound circuits can more than cover the difference from high quality lossy MP3 and lossless if they are not perfect. That and it's possible that the MP3 due to psycho-acoustics would sound subjectively more pleasing especially if you do the test without first hearing the lossless file, essentially it could be coloring the sound in a way that people subjectively like kind of like how some people like the way a tube headphone amp colors the music.

  • I can't tell the difference. I usually will buy iTunes version if I just want one or two songs. If I want the whole album I get the CD and rip it myself.

  • If you can’t tell 128 kbps you got a problem

  • I scored 5/6.. my miss was the one 320 yeah me!! surprising, i'm 54 and have heard a lot of loud in my time... I dont have perfect pitch, but i do have perfect pitch recall FWIW

  • I genuinely just prefer to own the CD - physical copy, plus I rip it in uncompressed AIFF. Just so I know, for sure, this is how it's intended to sound.

  • Digital sound just sucks...

  • I can totally tell the difference between MP3 320 and WAV. Since you're indirectly calling me a liar, I would like to prove it to you and to the world, bring it on... I also believe that even tough you don't notice the subtle differences, your body can unconsciously "feel" them. (I'm 36 with ruined ears and I'm not an audio engineer neither audiophile) BTW I also can detect difference from 120hz to 144hz display monitors and PWM flickering. I guess I'm just an extremely sensitive guy

  • Well that settles that. I could barely hear what she was listening to, and I got most of them right... easily. Wow. But what's interesting about this debate is that you can never actually 'prove' something 'sounds better'. Guitarists used to take razor blades to their speakers because it 'sounded better'. And the 'warmth' of the vinyl LP is a REAL thing... though the numbers are lower (less information). But that information is delivered WITHOUT holes cut in it (digitization). It's 'curvy'... but then we make it jagged. I believe we can sense these subtle differences... if only on somewhat of a subconscious level.

    • +koningskeizer And I'll remind everyone the only reason you are here is that you think that, if you can't hear something, nobody else can either. You're like a musical ostrich!

    • +koningskeizer You're the one he keeps coming back for more, aren't you? My bet's on making a fool of you.

    • The Hermit Hahaha, dude. Just stop already. You’re making an even greater fool of yourself then you already were.

    • +koningskeizer But yes. That's EXACTLY what I was saying about the ones I listened to: it was EASY. Sorry you're having difficulty.

    • +koningskeizer Glad you were impressed but that really wasn't the point. It's sad that you have so little self confidence that it freaks you out when someone displays a little knowledge, ability, understanding, or even curiosity.

  • How good are your ears? Better than yours ! 😎

  • Excellent analysis. This will stop many absurd discussions with some stubborn audiophiles. Thank you for posting it. Congratulations

  • I know I'm deaf ... If I have a shaker on my left speaker, just sitting in the mix, I cant hear it. I have to keep checking in MONO to hear if it's still there. So it does worry me that I'm missing high frequencies other people can hear that are making my mixes sound horrible.... strangely no one has complained yet ... maybe they are all deaf too ... haha

  • Now I understand why all music is mixed too loud these days. All these old guys have to crank up each frequency :P But seriously though, tell me who mixed Radiohead and Alabama Shakes.

  • The bottom line is what was the original recording recorded in? Bit depth (dynamic range) over sampling rate is the only thing noticeable to the ears. The fact is 24 bit does sound better than a 16 bit transfer of the master tape only when the dynamic range wasn’t snipped to begin with. Perfect example is Why by Ginger Baker. the 24 bit release has more power (oomph) than the 16 bit release which are both 44.1K sampling. Again, depends on the format of the master. As for the extreme sampling rate it is nice to attempt the best digital transfer of the analog master tape but that is the only thing all that data is good for. MP3 is not PCM and like DSD the numbers can not be compared. I'll always prefer the quality that is closest or equal to the master (whatever that may be).

  • Ok, migrating from Catholicism to whatever you're into, Rick. Really enjoying your lessons. Thanks!

  • 4/6 is perfectly consistent with fifty-fifty chance. You should do more tests to get any meaningful results. After only six attempts the errors (uncertainties) are huge. All you can say for now is that she can tell the difference between 128 and the other two.

    • +Philippe Buraud Yes, I meant 50/50 between the two contentious options. The 128 kbps MP3 is the odd one out, but even I could tell that one from the other two. For an experiment like this, where you can use Poisson distribution as a model (see e.g. Durham University's article on Poisson Distribution), the standard error (uncertainty) should be the square root of the count, so the results were actually 4 +/- 2, and 2 +/- 1.4. These are both consistent with choosing between these two options randomly (3, and 3 are both within the error bars).

    • The were 3 choices, so the random chances is one/third not fifithy/fifthy.

  • This video is pointless if the viewer can't hear them as well. Thumbs down.

  • This is what ive been thinking all along. FLAC is overrated AF. Just stick with m4a, ogg 160kbs and you will be fine.

  • I'm a Stereophile not an audiophile.

  • Well Rick I learned something new. Apparently MP3 is not inferior to Wave... Rick wears his mythbusters suit. Also, if Beato is your real last name, dude ... that's like soo convenient, BEATo - you were made to be a musician XD

  • And are you shure the equipment headphones, amps, speakers etc can play back the high pich? I for shure have speakers that can and others that cant. Most speakers stop at 20 kHz. Others over 50 kHz. Edited: I have done sone reserch, i actually dont think those headphones can play higher than 20 to 23 kHz. She has an impossible task.

  • Great video, and great conclusion :) A few years ago I did some double-blind tests and realized that I can hear the difference between mp3 and WAV, so I switched to encoding with flac, just to be safe. But like you say, it doesn't really matter, all that really matters is how good the music sounds. If you know how much quality is _deliberately_ lost during the production process, you care a lot less about the final file format :D

  • Sadly these audiofools don't "believe" science or facts in this matter. This is often the case with someone who "believes" (creationists rather believe in an old book written and assembled by dozens of ancient clueless people). In this casse its even worse, because there is scientific proof and physical rules and low frequency science is rather simple withot skin effect and so on. The more money these people have the more they believe in BS- why is that ? There are studio and producing legends and companies who tell them lies and when one wants to enlighten them they sometimes get angry....

  • Good points, but....The test was too short, no one listens to music like that..Over time you would hear the quality or degradation of various instruments in a regular track.

  • I was played 8 tracks in MP3 320k & CD, and picked everyone out. At the time I was told no one had got all of them right. The music was classical and the differences for me lay in the reverberation and room sound. The test was set up by a seller of audiophile gear, I'm not sure what this says about your test.

    • Well, if the dude was trying to sell you something, it tells me you should get someone impartial to test you as well ...

  • Got 6/6 with Samsung in-ear headphones. No perfect pitch to help me out, but still I find that you can pick out richer textures in the uncompressed files. Hard to explain. Then again I don't feel like the difference between the sound qualities entices me to pay for a service like Tidal that offers .wav file streaming. Seems like a waste.

  • So, do you see Tidal as a pointless service?

  • well I was born in 1937 and I can't hear a damn word he talking about I think he said he wants to pee with music I do too.

  • It’s complicated. So many variables it’s nuts, but since most people are listening to poorly mastered, brick-walled pop music on tiny earbuds or bass heavy headphones or Bluetooth or computer speakers ...nope it doesn’t matter. A better bitrate of a track that’s had the dynamics mastered out is pointless. I also say that through earbuds, even great ones, a 256, maybe even 128 kbps fite is going to be just fine for slot of things. But if you have a decent home stereo set up, a compressed file will never match full CD or better quality, never, you can hear the difference if you are really soaking it in. If it’s just playing while you converse or party or whatever it probably doesn’t matter. But again, your equipment, your set up, your source, the mastering, so many things effect whether you can tell or not and listening to a fraction of a track is never going to be a good indicator.

  • I’ve blind tested this several times, and it’s very material-dependent. Most times I can’t hear the difference with a quick listen (or even with serious listening), but on some recordings it’s really obvious. Also, when using a sinc-filter it’s easier to tell sometimes, because you can AB it pretty fast. In addition to that I can hear a difference when AB-ing 24- and 16-bit files, don’t know why but 16 sounds a bit more like a record to me (sometimes). When it comes down to it the difference will be minimal most of the time, but try this with some old blues records or something and it can get quite obvious for some reason ...

  • Michelle is cute

  • You again.

  • That is a very young looking Murray Perahia. Was this a digital recording of an analogue tape original? This can make a huge difference. I recall running tests on digital copies of old analogue recordings vs DDDs. In the purely digital sound you could hear each individual member of the choir, whereas on the same DDD recording trumpet sounds would break down at the extreme edges. However, with the ADD recordings the sound was more natural and did not break down on the high trumpet notes, etc.

  • i hear original tunes in my head ..does make me a

  • audio fileles are fake..makin money for nothing

  • and she guessed 4 lol

  • Science

  • I did this test when I was ten and got a 6/6

  • It's totally irrelevant if some pro mixing guys can hear high pitched sound or not, or what kind of speakers they use - as long as they don't start lowpassing anything they can't hear. :) I've also been able to tell wav from 320kbps MP3, in favor to CD quality wav. For some people audiophilism is a hobby about no compromises - just for the sake of it. Why would someone choose version of recording that you know you are missing something that you actually can hear. I listen primarily to vinyl LPs though.

  • not sure about that but i definitely do here the difference between 128 kbit and 320kbit....

  • what's perfect pitch got to do with it

  • I still use the NAD CD player I got in 1996 or 7

  • I feel better,thank you. I was afraid I had damaged my ears standing in front of speakers at maybe 100 DB for decades. That's so unfair anything but my hearing !

  • What do you think of The Shaggs, Philosophy of the World? Could you transcribe Foot Foot

  • Rick, I think it could really be great to make a 'how to: home studio' relative to different budgets/musical ambitions (students in first years of music school/production begginners; pros; superpros; etc)... And mention DAW's, soundcards, midi, etc. I don't know, I just feel it would be really helpfull, as in to get the knowledge of someone I can trust. Thank you!

  • I got 4/6 with Bose QC-35, but I'm outside and 100 meters from heavy construction...

  • OK. I've been hedging around the issue for awhile. I don't go to concerts or loud places, in general. Not so much as others, and, when I did, not nearly as much as others. Anyway, I'm wondering and angrily disturbed by how much the attack of high and low frequencies with ambulances and boomblasting expedites the hearing loss. I cover my ears whenever I see an ambulance coming through. Ofcourse, there seems little I can do to avoid bass frequencies; I live in an apartment. I would like to hear what others have to say about this. Also, do you think that something should be done about it? Yes. I make "sound pieces." I avoid headphones to minimize the damage gear, and take complete control for any sounds that I'm responsible for that could damage my hearing. I can sing in a high pitch, but even that hurts my ears.

    • I think you need to relax, man. That's what I think. Seriously, it might be that you're wired a bit different to other people, but hearing damage is caused by total energy received...so while a passing neenaw might be really loud, the time you're exposed to it is very small, the effect on your hearing mechanism is extremely small. Do whatever makes you feel good, but I suggest you're unlikely to be affected by things that we all encounter daily or we'd all be deaf.

  • wow, got the 4/6 she got right as well. wonder why...I think WAV is a bit overkill unless an artist specifically tells you to listen to the highest quality. Listened to a deadmau5 song in wav format that blew me away

  • Thanks to you I had to take the NPR test, and because I answered their question about how I listened to it, I had to take it again, and again. For some songs, there are certain distinguishing features that, even on Bluetooth headphones with further compression, make it easier to distinguish: cymbals, bells, 's' and 'z', etc. There are songs for which, as you say, 128 kbps is just fine; but because I don't want to have to re-encode a file after listening to it because I don't like how trashy it makes Rob Hirst's cymbals sound, I just set the rate to 320 kbps and call it good. Of course, back with my first mp3 player, they recommended trying 64 kbps, because look at how many songs you can fit in 16 MB + 32 MB external card if you encode at that rate! It was 128 for me back then, but it didn't take long for memory sizes to increase and allow for 320 to be my rate of choice.

  • More information and fidelity is better than less. Also, this test was done using headphones and Bose headphones at that. Try the test with high quality near fields or good speakers. Sounds effect on us is more than just our ears. You can feel the qualitative difference in high quality recordings vs heavily compressed ones. This difference can be felt as well as heard in a way that headphones cannot reproduce. That is, the whole human body exposed to the full spatial and aural effect sound can have on us is qualitatively different than the effect it has on our ears alone using headphones. Although headphones are good for canceling out background noise they nonetheless cannot deliver the full effect that sound has on us the way that speakers can. The effect of standing near large high quality speakers listening to music vs hearing the same music with headphones is one example of this. As far as technically speaking.The more faithful to the original sound and its effect when heard is the holy grail of sound recording and reproduction if not producing pop recordings. Speakers and a system that can deliver sound that is an exact reproduction or as close to the original as possible is the only way to deliver a sound experience that is as close to the original as possible. Like for example being in the same room as a quartet or acoustic instruments are being played or someone is singing etc. As an example, large Church pipe organs. Sitting in a large church, hearing the organ, feeling the vibrations and frequencies, could only be reproduced artificially and digitally with fidelity via a Kurzweil synthesizer and a sound system with speakers, sound cannons and precisely placed tweeters. Its fidelity to the original church pipe organ was so great they played both the pipe organ and Kurzweil side by side and it "fooled" an entire audience of sound specialists and professionals.

  • I blame Coldplay.

  • Did the test and picked 320k almost every time instead of uncompressed, sounded like it had a bit more low end, though after and listening again you could hear there was more to the uncompressed wav, it just seems if one focuses you can focus on the wrong thing trying to guess. 128k though, was pretty obvious for what it was.

  • I got 3/6, not too bad lol

  • I have quite a few records that have annoying TV deflection frequency (just over 15 kHz for NTSC and PAL) feeding into the music... so, yes people that mix the records are sometimes quite deaf.

  • Would be interesting to repeat your test with a large sample size, 100+ and perhaps include a subset of people who can hear high frequencies, as well as a subset of self-reported audiophiles and compare their score. But I generally agree. As long as all the recording and mixing is done at a sufficiently high bit rate, dropping it to 320kb/s at the end will be just fine.

  • i use KRK Rokit 8's and i got 2 out of 6, but i picked the 320kbps.. Then i used headphones and got 3 right. i think Neil young was the worst sounding and hardest for me to differentiate. 2nd hardest was suzanne with just her vocals. it was neat to hear the amount of reverb on her voice and each sibilant. any thanks.. that was cool.

  • Brian Wilson of Beach Boys fame made World class music, whilst being almost deaf in one ear. He would probably have failed this test.

  • you need to get some suntan: your face is green/blue.

  • I can definitely tell the difference on the stereo from 320kps to 16 bit 44.1khz but from 16bit 44.1khz to 24bit 96Khz it really depends on how it was recorded. From 16bit 44.1Khz to 2.8Mhz DSD I can instantly hear the difference. In a pair of headphones things become a bit harder due to the quality headphones. It would take a 1200 dollar Focals to truly start to hear major differences. For walking and general day to day my 350 dollar JBL's seems to be just fine but I'm interested in buying the focals soon.

  • Wise

  • I understand not wanting to provide 24 bit files, as that was never a music standard, but all music should at least be available in CD quality. No matter how you rationalize it, 320kbps mp3 files are a step down, and you come off as smug and condescending to say otherwise. If people want to buy CD quality, give people CD quality. It's honestly stupid to not provide a product people are asking to buy. I personally will not buy music if it isn't on a CD or in a lossless format, if for no other reason than proper preservation of the music.

  • Another flawed explanation. Bitrate has nothing today with frequency response. A 128kbps MP3 file can have frequencies of up to 22Khz. The reason 128kbps doesn't sound so good is because it's of a much lower resolution i.e. there isn't enough information for the DAC to reproduce the original sound. To be able to listen to higher resolution audio files e.g. 24bit/48Khz files, you need high end audio all the way from the source > dac > amp > speaker/headphone. Most consumer grade audio equipment are unable to produce higher detail present in such files and that's why so many people assume there is no difference between a 16bit/44Khz/320kbps lossy file with a 24bit/48Khz-96Khz file format.

  • I strive for a Berklee Production degree 😓

  • What do you mean nobody uses CD players anymore ? I not only use top of the line CD players to listen ro my 5,000 plus CDs,I also still own & operate multiple turntables to play my album collection I stopped counting 15 years ago at 10,000 ,I also stream but with streaming your musical opportunities are severely limited as to what pops in your head ,meanwhile browsing 5,000 CD titles artists come to mind that wouldn't be thought of streaming ,j thought I'd stop using my CD and vinyl collections once streaming became HiFi quality but I found very quickly my listening sessions became shorter and very limited in artists .

  • I'm sorry, but the difference between 16bit, 44.1 and 320, 44.1 is like.. day and night...even on crappy 50 euro headphones + laptop jack out without additional audio interface.. Can't not believe you are serious..this is soooo sad.

  • Since some people can tell just release it in uncompressed files. All it does is just take up more room and can sound better. So for my money give me ucompressed.

  • If you were ever wondering if your video made a difference...this one did. This explanation helped me understand my band issues and sound issues live and in studio.

  • I wonder how much longer mp3s will be necessary in today's world of terabytes rather than gigabytes. There's only so much music you can listen to and while it might be possible to have say 50 000 mp3 files on a drive, how many people would listen to ALL of them? This is personal preference but I'd rather have a smaller (but still large) number of WAVs.

  • She recognized the sound signature from the first track, then identified that signature in the subsequent tracks. But really, the first one was the most telling, she picked the track she enjoyed the most.

  • This explains all the new music sounding like crap........

  • my god i was right with the questions... well...

  • I don’t know how well my ears work but at 45 I seem to hear things way better than my wife.

  • I sill use CDs. My three boys (17, 15 and 13) love CDs. They love buying CDs both new and 2nd hand. I just had to buy them new CD shelves and one of the boys has already got too many CDs to fit on the shelves. When they get new CDs they always listen to them on my full hi-fi set up before listening to the music on their Bluetooth headphones. CDs are very much alive and well in our house. :-)

  • Sound is created of a mixture of soundwaves. Two waves can actually become a new vawe. A high pich wave wich you cant hear infuence the waves you hear. This is common for nearly all types if waves. The discussion seems a little off when it is about just pich and not hearing high Hz.

  • What would be the relevance of perfect pitch for such a test? None, I'd say. Otherwise, interesting video. People in their 50s or 60s who have been exposed to a lot of music for decades have "rock and roll ears." Hearing loss is a real thing. Loud music is hard on hearing.

  • I got 5/6 of them. Didn't get the Coldplay one, but I knew which one was the 128kbps.

    • i have no education in music production but i GUARANTEE you i hear the difference between 128kbps and 320. 110%. 27 years old. not sure about the .wav files. i know that i can hear a slight improvement from mp3 to flac. perhaps not in 100% of the times.

  • 42 years old, mild tinnitus, still got 6 out of 6. Honestly thought I'd do much worse.

  • 5 out of 6 recognized. Hmmm, my ears are still working. Good to know! :P

  • TRUTH!!! I've had this argument waaaay too many times. Unfortunately I have destroyed my ears over the years, but the science is sound.

  • easy to tell 44.1 and 48khz aswel . 44.1 sounds dull

    • 48khz ftw 16 / 24 bit, some converters sound fuller, with 24bit not so bad 16bit this old toccata card was really fat back in the day, the future will go 96khz more over double 48khz , have some gear with fixed 44.1 but use the analogs instead fuller. ,+Kormoš Igor

    • not really. depends on your mic input quality and source (internet social media/FLAC on your HDD). I used to mix in 96khz/24bit but went back to 48-44.1/24 since it saves some space and it still belongs to studio quality range.

  • Nobody can hear the difference between MP3 and WAV on a regular music track. Anyone who says they do is a stupid fool. Still, the way to go for a serious music lover / collector is lossless format like FLAC. Not because of quality but because you always have the original source intact from which you can make other modified versions. For example if you have a vinyl rip, you can "clean" it (remove the crackles and pops) and save it back without losing quality, and you can do this multiple times. Or if you like a song and want to tweek its EQ (bass/treble), you can do it and save it back without losing quality. With lossy formats like MP3 you can't do that since every modification will require another save operation that reduces quality each time you do it.

    • i am a stupid fool - but at least I don't have cloth ears