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

Δημοσιεύτηκε στις
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

  • she gets 4 out of 6 right and you go on and say she failed... what ???

  • first you tell us no human can tell the diffrence and its proven by scientists, then your assitant prooves that she can clearly hear the diffrence LOL

  • I hate to disagree, but I was just in Santa Barbara Sound Studios listening to source files recorded at 32/96! The studio owner switched between 24 bit dithered and the original source, and while the music itself sounded the same, the space "around" the music expanded substantially. I was actually quite surprised I could hear the difference, as did the 23 Studio Recording students in the room. We were of course listening in the mastering room with ATC SCM-25A Pro Monitors with absolutely top notch equipment. The Nyquist Theorem talks about the limits of human hearing, but does not take into account the steep hard rolloff of the hi-pass filter required for the DA/AD process. That filter has to start the rolloff BEFORE the limits of human hearing and harmonic interaction. I really didn't think I would hear a difference, but in base 24/96 recordings the difference is quite obvious to the trained ear, IMO. Most peoples playback systems suck, and can't accurately reproduce the microphone recordings very well. As you know, Microphones can capture well above human hearing, outside of the electronics that may limit that. Interesting discussion.

  • Audiophile = audio lover! No claim of superior hearing is made. That would be a Golden Ear.

  • I have yet to meet somebody who can also hear the high pitched noise of the old CRT monitors and TVs. People always seemed bewildered when I asked if they didn't hear that annoying, sometimes but rarely nauseating noise, even more rarely with a feel of pressure on the ears. It doesn't come up much anymore, since we all but got rid of that technology, so yay. In medieval times, I probably would've been burnt on a pyre. I just seem to be able to hear that frequency, and I'm bothered by it, no other superpowers as side effect. I dread turning on that old TV in the attic and see if I can still hear it.

  • Still using several cd players here :)

  • Is there any good sounding Katy Perry song?

    • Before anyone gets mad, I wanna disclaim that the reply was a joke about my misinterpretation of his question.

    • no. she sucks.

  • Awesome insight. Thank you for this

  • My jukebox is iTunes with LAME encoder. All songs at 320. No complaints at all.

  • Your comment on hearing is absolutely true. I learned this from Leo de Gar Kulka and Dr. Richie Moore, who could not hear well above 10 KHz.

  • Can't remember the red book on CD standard but wasn't a .wav file but a pcm file. Small detail that does not deter the truth of you video. The Fraunhofer Institute produced an even better type of file called aac, initially adopted by Apple, but mp3 was already the king of the hill.

  • 4 out of 6. and really those are 50 / 50 guesses if you dont count the piss poor 128 option.

  • Great vid, which brings up a different topic that doesn't seem to get covered much. Maybe not the right venue for these questions, but Im very curious as to what everyone is doing. 1. What is the optimal bit / sample rate to track at. 2. What is the optimal bit / sample rate to export stems for mixers 3. What is the optimal bit / sample rate to export stereo bus for mastering after the mix is complete.

  • There's some color grading issue Houston.

  • My ears are shot.... I play bagpipes....

  • Hmm...a 'best sounding recording' of Katy Perry....is that a trick statement?

  • Dynamics and percussion fidelity are the reason I go lossless, not high frequencies. Also, I'm too lazy to go find the compression sweet spot on every record, and storage space has become very cheap since the 90s.

  • Seems like most of the time those who work on the engineering side of things CAN actually pick up the subtle differences... You even demonstrated just that. Just because the general populace can't, doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference.

  • I got 5/6 (Using HD650). It's quite obvious if you know what particular details you are listening for especially with genre you are familiar with. For example in the Classical piece, the details of violin will tell which one is the WAV and in the JAY Z Tom Ford track, the depth and dynamic of bass sound tells very clearly which one is the WAV file.

  • in my amateur experience encoding does color the sound slightly, like 3 % , and it depends on your musical content. Some songs will maybe even gain some perceived harmonics, others will lose them. I can mostly tell on high hats and fizzly parts if they changed a bit, and then again on roundness of sub like a digital 808, if it degraded a bit. it's like when you use bit reduction distortion, it adds harshness and thus more perceived spark even tho it has less bits. I think in the box productions with bright vst synths and such, bouncing straight to wav and then mp3, those are the most cases i find that i notice it.

  • I prefer flac because you get the sound quality of WAV with the fraction of the space as WAV.

  • I got 4 out of 6 as well woohoo!

  • wouldn't it be better measured on mains rather than headphones?

  • In my view differences in sound are something you may become aware of with time rather than on a first listening. A lower bit rate can sound indistinguishable at first but may grate on you faster. That being said, I figured out 160 KBPS was my cut off point about 20 years ago. It's probably even lower now.

  • Well you bever hear the songs perfectly , thats wgy you remember wrong versiins , akso your Equalizer isnt even set bew perfectly for ecery Song, so everybody hears another "real". Version, with his settings and will think that's the right one, pretty easy...

  • Audio fooled. Tow cables and plexiglass speakers, all for a $100k.

    • It's kind of dishonest to ask to somebody to identify one song at 32/96 HD file or a wav 16/44.1 file. The point is to RECORD at higher sample rates and bit depth, this is what will really make difference in the final/recorded/mixed/mastered file... The MOST of these engineers shown, from Tony Maserati to Greg Wells, prefer to work at higher sample rates (96khz). For a huge variety of reasons/benefits that make the *final product* to sound better - even in 320k mp3.

  • Your asking her to distinguish one garbage sound from another. We have two ears. While standing next to a grand piano and listening to an MP3 you should laugh real hard. One mic yet two magnetic emulators we call speakers? So flawed! A piano bar and the speaker equivalent is grossly overrated.

  • I am 51 and I can only hear up to 17 now so -3 below but if you are trying to tell me MP3 is somehow on the same quality as Flac I have to disagree. Tossing a bed sheet over your speakers is the best way to describe the difference I think, yes you can still hear everything but it's not as crisp, does not resonate as well with a faster falloff, basically the life has been sucked out of it and it sounds sterile. Also if you go below 320 with an MP3 a mushy accent is introduced which becomes more predominate the lower you go. Then again if you are using earbuds off your smartphone none of this really matters now does it. :)

  • The test is stupid, files are compressed when uploaded to the internet...

  • Using Edifier R2000DB speakers, got 6/6 WAV files without guessing. Tip: Pay attention to the dynamic range, highest notes and lowest notes. I couldn't get everything right though, could only differentiate 4/6 times for the 2 different quality MP3 files

  • Also, 18.1khz as your top frequency is horrible

  • You’re a complete idiot or you have hearing loss.

  • I just do some personel test.. I've got the best result hearing to song that i like and song that i often listen.. Seriously,it doesn't have the difference that much but u do notice it when listening to ur favourite song..

  • Ughh.. First of all. What kind of headphones was she using? What kind of dac and amplifier was she using? Are the components high quality enough to reveal the differences between the files? How was the recording done? Is it highly compressed like most of modern music? (Notice she couldn't tell the difference with the Coldplay and Katy Perry songs, which have probably been subjected to high compression, unlike the other four, which she scored perfectly). Also frequency range has nothing to do with timbre, tonality, instrument separation, microdynamics , clarity, soundstage depth, width and height. Sadly a totally predictable video. Don't get me wrong, I love Mp3s but this cringe content.

  • People who say they easily got 6 out 6 in the test. Do the test again and again, the website shuffles them around everytime it's refreshed, so you might have just gotten lucky! ;-) anyways it will be way more scientific if you do the test many times, like at least 10 times. I got 5/6 in my first go, then 6/6 then 2/6... Can anyone consistently get them right? If so stream it please I'd love to see it!

  • I tried recording my music in 32 bit 96k but the recorder just refused... said that even 128k mp3 is too good for me... :(

  • I ve got everything right on my a77x and I did not just guess .

  • I don't believe that any of the tracks showed a huge difference. Saying that, I was shocked to get 6 out 6 on my first attempt. The Mozart Concerto and the Suzane Vega tracks were so difficult that I totally guessed. I'm now over 50 with bad hearing through years of playing live... I'd be just as happy listening to the 320 mp3 as I would be listening to the wave file.

  • I got 5 out of 6. Wow! I have been a recording/producing/performing artist for the last 45+ years, my last hearing test revealed that I can't hear beyond 14kHz. Go figure. Maybe it's the "cans" (AKG 240 Studio headphones)? 🤔

  • Hello Rick. Firstly, thanks for such a honest video. Also, thanks because a didn´t know that I am not the only one with a notch on my left ear starting from 3.9 Khz thru 4.4 Khz. I am 63 and have been recording in Caracas since I was 26. 14 Khz is my top limit of hearing. I must say that possibly the diference between a 320 Kbps and a 44.1-24 bit wav becomes more evident if you go trough the cumulative process of multitracking and then the unavoidable process of summing all that. I am basically saying that is not the same to listen to a finished mix that has been built on uncompressed formats than to hear a mix constructed with lossy audio formats. Then I think I would be able to tell the difference. Best regards.

  • I got 5/6 of them and i only missed the piano classical recording. That said, i do mix for a living and i'm listening on JH audio Roxannes.... and it was still pretty hard so i totally get your point.

  • This is my thoughts about the different formats. If done correctly, compressed files can sound near identical to lossless, BUT there are variations of quality within the compressed realm of files. Anything that is lossless will undoubtedly be of maximum quality without question, but opting to choose mp3 should be dependent on the quality of the compression. I've heard some stellar 128-320kbps mp3s, but I've also heard some pretty bad ones too. Consider a 128kbps compression done by GR-tv vs one that is done through a DAW...you will likely hear the differences.

  • Well done! Your point is spot on. Your listener likely has a better sense of sound than the average listener. A mixing engineer's skill set is to use their tools to achieve a complex balance - of what serves the arrangement best, achieves an emotional connection to the listener all while achieving a spectral balance (what plays best on a wide array of 'playback options). I may have been distracted, but what was the link to the listening test?

  • That gal picked the quality file 4 out of 6 times, but, there were three choices, not two. Did she ever pick the worst quality file? If we regard the middle option as two points, and the high as three (assuming she never picked the 128kbs mp3?, worth one point?) she scored 16/18. Do you see what I mean? If we say the lowest quality was worth zero, she scored 10/12. The point is, quality does matter for someone who cares. Having pointed that out, 320k mp3s are fine. FLAC is better than an MP3, but both are fine. As a production person, a wav at 16 and 44.1 is a good standard, because we can even sample and pitch shift and time stretch these without much audible loss. It does matter in production. We have the bandwidth now, it is no problem. We have the storage space available. The more we get used to poor quality audio, the less we realize what audio could be. We train our ears and brains by what we listen to. We get used to having small dynamic range. Radio compression is awfully squashed, always has been, but we have choices now, and the tech is easy now. Why not just make the default standard better?

    • +lithiumdeuteride Thanks, I missed that. It seems clear to me that most of the time, a discerning ear can still tell what they are missing out on. Hey, if you are interested, try this: Grab a cd quality file (or higher), and convert it to 128 kHz MP3. Check the files are the same length as they should be. Load both into a DAW and invert the phase on the MP3. Play both files at once. If they were the same, there would be silence. Because they are not the same, you can hear what is in the MP3 which is not in the original. It is a bunch of distorted noise. That noise is what we slam into our eardrums at high volume. It is not that these files are bad, it is that they can be better, and we have the tech to train our ears to notice. We get used to poor quality audio. It is a psychosomatic thing (ed: I meant to say psychoacoustic). Now that we don't have to worry so much about net speeds and HD space... 320kHz MP3 ought to be our minimum standard. Dynamic range matters. We lost that somewhere over the years, and in much the same way Beato does not like quantization of drum tracks and gridding everything, we ought to stop accepting garbage audio files. The bar is just a bit (heh) too low. We can do better. (ed: spelling)

    • She picked the 128 kbps MP3 in the last test (Coldplay).

  • Back to 2005, a teacher of mine answered my question "128 mp3 doesn't sound good". He told me: "Is not about the bit rate, but about the compression quality itself". The years passed and we don't hear awkward cymbals anymore in compressed files. They really improved the compression. Since then I export my projects in 192 just to make sure it'll be ok, but I can consider using 128.

  • You can hear the difference on hi hats, cymbals and double bass. The gap between 320 Mp3s and CD is not a big as between CD and Master Quality. I swear, TIDAL on calibrated Neumann speakers will come up with a huge difference, even for guys from the old folks home. But on over mastered and foolishly compressed "loud!" audio, no one can tell any difference...

  • I remember Betamax had audio qulity than VHS so I bought it ka chunk$

  • audiophile R_us cleaner bass tones show up on higher megahertz on a really good amp and large speakers mostly its true 320@ 44htz its ok for most people, to get best 24bit digital or true to life, lossless loses best of your bass tone

  • Nine out of three people have trouble with fractions.

    • 36.4% of all statistics are made up.

    • Karl Hungus 1/100 people forget about improper fractions

  • There's a couple problems with that test. First as some have mentioned, there wasnt a lot of information in half the samples. You can notice the difference in something with a heavy drum track much easier than a section with some vocals a few light instruments. Second is that most people (consciously or not) will equate a louder track to sounding better. That means the 128k mp3 could actually sound "better" even though there's missing information just because it's louder (compressed dynamic range).

  • Michelle is using an Audio Technica headphone but please let me know what model. Looks like an M50X. Thanks for the video. Well done and to the point.

  • I can tell the difference between a real poncho and a Sears poncho

  • I took the test and noticed some of the songs are bad picks since they are simple to encode (low entropy). But of the ones that were good examples to test I picked the mp3 almost all the time which signifies that there was a difference and I could hear it but I subjectively liked the mp3. Likely this is due to my whole life listening to lossy formats like mp3 and therefore familiarity primes me to like the "signature" of lossy formats. Also this is a badly designed test. A better test for pure detection rather than subjective and easily influenced preference would be an abx test. Take a lossless sound and have the subject pick it out from a short list. Also, while I have those exact headphones (in black) I noticed a difference in detail, noise, and response between them driven off my phone, laptop, desktop motherboard, and desktop PCIe sound card. While my phone is unimportant since all phones sound bad and have high noise floors. The reason I can discern the lossy vs lossless is likely that my sound card is vastly superior to any integrated sound solution despite being a normal enthusiast/gamer grade unit (about < 100 cad). Audio people use usb DAC boxes for this reason since the also work in laptops and don't require a free expansion slot. My setup due to space and portability concerns uses a sound card rather than a usb sound box which sounds good but costs more per unit sound due to shielding being needed (mine is half shield). If you plugged the m50x into the motherboard I'd be shocked if you hear the difference between lossy and lossless since the sound source would be horrid and also maybe too weak for the 38ohm driver while my Xonar AE dedicated sound card is good to 130ish ohms and has a swappable amp if that's too low or the amp is too hissy. Please mention what DAC you used, it makes a huge difference especially on high end head phones since they tend to have higher impedance and also be far more detailed than the average motherboard sound circuitry can provide. The m50x is about on the edge of what I'd drive off a motherboard without an amp. Please provide the full chain not just the speakers as the DAC and amp are just as influential as the drivers in your speakers. A bad source sounds worse than a lossy file by a massive margin.

  • Would there be a noticeable difference between a 320kbits file versus a 1411kbits file ? I'm super new to music production so I have no idea lmao

    • He's saying that: no.

  • I used to respect you. 4 out of 6 is not indicative of a noticeable difference? You're using a $100 pair of headphones on a shitty PC audio card? The inability to hear high frequency equals diminished ability to hear compression? that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard! you're an idiot with an agenda

  • These samples were largely awful. The Classical piece seemed poorly recorded, but the piano gave away the correct answer. On the Jay Z track it was the bass.The coldplay song had intentional distortion and sounded recorded through a pillow. I picked the one that had the least crackle distortion which is common for MP3, and it turns out I was looking for the most distortion. Awful song. The Katy Perry track had a single high db digital bass drone through the whole bottom end with autotune over the top. 320kbps is indistinguishable for that test. The neil young track had drone violins through the whole thing and sounded very muffled on all 3. The Suzanne Vega track is essentially spoken word. If the encoding is VBR, which it seems like it is, you can completely get away with it. Garbage in - Garbage out.

  • True on learning what to listen for in mixes. The outside mix of underlying ambient noise is the macro level of how I know where I'm at and where to go next, and not be squished.

  • Speak for yourself I still listen to music from my over 2,000 cds collection in addition to listening to music through my Spotify and deezer apps.

  • hi ,i like your video in the end we need the beutiuful detail of a sound ,and a god machine to leson the god music, is up to as, how we start to leson music ,i remember my old audio casette ,i remember my colection of music albums ,how many of us leson a album of a band ?music is a way of life ,my favorit player is sony MZ-R50 and belivet or not i m using this player now ,so yes music is a way of life and is important how we leson music

  • There is a big difference between Mixing a record and Engineering a record. They cannot be compared. NS10's were designed to be flat (very little color) so an engineer can do his magic. Auratone's are usually close by. Most songs I engineered were not engineered on 12" or larger room speakers. They were used for producers and others who wanted an out of the studio experience or a club like experience. The NS10 and Auratone volume while engineering was never loud. It's amazing what you can hear at low levels..

  • No difference for the average listen through average gear.

  • I am an audiophile & if you really are unable to hear the improvement of FLAC files vs mp3 - UR deaf

  • I think if Rick shaves off his sideburns he will get a few db more on the high end of his hearing range. They are acting like a sound baffle and absorbing high frequency sounds.

  • how to rip super audio cd files to my computer so that I can play them back through a high quality DAC into my audiophile stereo system?

    • You need an old PS3 to successfully rip the SACD content as a general consumer.

  • Well, from what I remember, when mp3's first came out (80's somewhere) when I first heard music in that format, I thought, wow, this is the future of music, how depressing. What kind of idiot thinks this format sounds good? I will stay with cds. When I was finally forced to go with another format, I opted for the aac format because it sounds nearly the same as a cd. (I experimented burning cds with many other formats, but of course most players will not play these other formats so they are useless.) I will have to confess the quality of mp3s has gone way up so they do sound good too but I will stay with the aac format since the music I purchased from iTunes is in the aac format and when I convert my uploaded cds on iTunes they also become the aac format which is the format needed for most phones (mp3s will also work on a phone).

  • Nice video and great test (link). Love this technical factual stuff. I used 3USD gaming headset, and didnt expect to hear the difference between 320 and Wav, but I actually did on three occasions. I got 3 out of 6 correct overall, but the thing I feel is important is I knew I didnt get the three I didnt get. I guessed them (Vega, Mozart, Perry). The three I got right, I was pretty sure was either 320 or Wav. My general experience is that lower overall sound image (Idk what its called, I only know the sound it makes when it LIES) recordings does good on high compression like 128kbps (Vega in test), whereas Coldplay with its fuller use of sound-ranges sounds bad on 128kbps. In my humble opinion, being an "Audiophile" its not only a question of being able to hear or distinguish high end frequencies. Its also about being able to hear many sounds at once or in extremely rapid succession. Being an "audiophile" usually also means that one do actually have audio equipment that is capable of reproducing extremely high quality audio (also not just reproducing high frequencies) and when you get used to listening to music in extreme clarity, I claim you train your ears and brain to be better at hearing sounds. Distinguishing them. Hearing more frequencies simultaneously. Maybe listening to 128kbps on Beats headsets with "megaBassBoost" (or my Gaming headset) equally makes one poorer at hearing sounds? If I produced music, I would release in the highest possible audio quality. There is a chance the scientists you mention in beginning of video did not do their tests on Audiophiles. Its also possible that even though it may be correct that the general population may not be able to hear "quiet frequencies adjacent to higher frequencies", this is exactly what an Audiophile can. By training or by chance idk. If by training, anyone with normal hearing will become an audiophile in the future if everyone releases their recordings in the highest possible quality from now on...

  • I picked out the wav file on every single track except the Suzanne Vega. Uncompressed wav just has more space whereas 128 kb sounds very closed off. 320 kb is definitely closer in experience to wav than 128, but although subtle, there is still a definite discernable difference.

  • Great topic! I was teaching in a sound design program for many years and we did hearing test in class comparing 44.1 kHz WAV files with 320 and 128 MP3's. the result: most of the 20 something year old students were able to tell the difference between 128 and 320 but not between 320 and the uncompressed WAV audio. So go figure!

  • I am 48 and can hear up to 17.5kHz. I have been in construction and trades. Grinders, jack hammers, hammer drills and welding equipment have done me in. BUT I can still hear up to 17.5kHz. I have test equipment to back this up as I rebuild reel to reels and cassette decks. I can tell a lot of things in quality although most that say they can are full of it I agree. Understanding what your listening to is a big part of "hearing" what your listening to! I can also hear the wow and flutter at times on my Yamaha YP-D8 table, trust and believe it's low! I have checked it and like the lady you had I have damn near perfect pitch, being I like analog this makes life tough!

  • But we have 5.1 SACD and 4.1 SCAD and DTS 5.1 and BluSpec CD's and 24bit CD. CD in 24bit is better than MP3, CD's are still being sold they are still good.

  • This is like comparing Coke with Pepsi in winter time. At the end of day, RC Cola has more bubbles but Orange Fanta recedes in the palate at a slower rate. And yes, I’m 59 3/4......

  • Remember, whenever you are on a Math examen, tell your teachers: 3,14 equals PI ( 3,141592...). Because it doesn't matter what comes after that 3,14, because you are not going to use it... This video was as lame as saying that people can't tell the difference between 30, 60, 120, 240 hz on screens ( Which is lame because many people have prove that you can actually tell the difference - Even that girl got it right 66% of the time, and miss the other 2 times, most probably, because she is used to hear those songs on her phone or mp3 - Like "Speed of Sound" she says she "love it"... ). Just because you are not able to hear what's beneath those frequencies, doesn't make them less important. ( Remember "Number Pi" next time).

  • but it's not only how high the frequencies goes, In the listening test that you took as a example you cant just listen to the upper frequencies. you have to take the complete sampling into consideration, or maby to explain it in a more understanding way for some, you must really listen to the complete soundpicure, listen for when the music blooms, It's depthts, it's ritchness, it's pauses and the subtle but big differences in the different audio formats, when I use my full range in-ear dual speaker headphones I can clearly tell the differences in that test.. and remember that we do have a hearing that can be compaired to 320kbps or about 11.someting micro seconds. and remember all those people you mention even if they are in their mid-life and up they do have young trained pro's sitting att their mixing desks that probably is in their mid 20's or early 30's with college or masters degree in audio, and they do have a complete hearing and is dependent on it as a living... just sayin..

  • Rick, what you are saying is called Presbycusis. Its just a natural occurrence where humans loose spectrum with age. I see so many people then fussing over MQA and FLAC when its inconsequential. If they sound different its more a different master rather than more sound out of the medium.

  • explains a lot can't stand it that music sounds flat without nuances needs a black woman's voice for backup.

  • I got 6/6 correct with a fiio K3 and AKG 7XX I just recieved today. Lovin it!

  • Have a lot of friends who are professionals DJ and all of them keep repeating that same history "never use a mp3 unless u want to embarasse yourself, the right way is FLAC or WAV because at your home with your soundsystem u will never be able to tell the difference but with the soundsystem of a big party it will for sure report to others that u are using low quality music file" so can anyone answer me if indeed make some difference or not, for DJ purposes

  • I still use my CD player. Listened to some Miles today.

  • This is great. Brilliant!

  • you need to test it on LSD mate!

  • Thanks for this. It's encouraging as I'm trying to learn audio mixing and rapidly approaching 50 but can't easily detect anything over 14K.

  • Sorry Rick but if anything your girl there proved just how wrong you are. On headphones, with a tiny snippet of a song of unknown original recording quality she did a remarkable job of picking the highest resolution recording. For those of us with truly high resolution stereos the differences are truly striking the better the original source material is recorded. On my system I can't listen to any 128 mp3's. As you climb past 192 some crappier original recordings are tolerable. 320 is, of course, better. But why would anyone choose to lop off resolution in any music they care about? It's not that processors are taxed anymore with high sampling rates. And for those with the ears and the equipment to extract the detail it is VERY important to capture it all significantly beyond what we can discern thereby knowing we're hearing every nuance there is to hear.

    • Ok, send me your 6/6 screenshot. Do it twice in a row. Put up or shut up. You’re full of shit bro. You know how many 6/6 screenshots I’ve received with the thousands of comments? Zero.

  • 320kbps is a fine rate, but SAY NO TO JOINT STEREO!! Encode both channels discretely, you can thank me later!

  • MP3's suck ass compared to a wav or vinyl copy

  • not sure if it has been mentioned yet but when you're talking 44.1khz vs 320kbps, you're referring to 2 seperate measurements. More accurately, it should say 320kbps vs 1410kbps. That's the bit rate for cd quality wav files. Keep in mind that most audio wav files and mp3 files over 128k are 44.1khz.

  • for me 320kb is to my ear the gold standard, with electronic music you can get away with 225kb, but 128kb is really clipped to my ears.

    • Depends on the format, MP3 is a dinosaur by now and better alternatives exist. OPUS becomes very hard to distinguish at 96kbps...

  • Thank you for making this video. I was going through a crisis. Now I can chill and enjoy music.

  • Interesting sociological implications....💫🤪

  • im 52 and i got 4 out the six it sounds richer to me rounder sound

  • Dynamics. That's where the uncompressed audio wins. That and ease of separating instruments and timing.

    • Paul Tasker - Agreed

    • Yeah, especially with some songs the bass sounds recessed in 320kbps compared to uncompressed.

  • I have active speakers that go up to 50 Khz ! ! !

  • And people confuse "hearing a difference" with quality difference

  • WAV = best , especially live shows . You can definitely tell the difference of mp3 and wav. When it is a live recording . Sorry just don’t agree.

  • I do not care about compressed music, but I can tell which is CD and which is Vinyl. I can also tell which Vinyl is remmastered and which is org pressed. And it is enough for me to enjoy good music.

  • What you don’t experience can save you tons of money, which you can save or spend on things that you do care about. If you don’t notice a difference; great! Such is life. People tend to not know or care unless it’s something that they’re interested in or passionate about. Otherwise it doesn’t exist.

  • so old deaf people pick out music, that explains a lot.

  • but you CAN tell..... ok most people dont have the audio eq to NOTICE but yes you CAN

  • 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.

    • Rick Beato I agree they cant hear the difference, because there is no difference to hear. Untill you show me that the equipement can play back the frequences we are takling about I cant take it seriously. Wery few headphones and other hifi can play theese high pich. And you play it straight of the nett to. The test confirm that it is all a guess. And as I said it is impossible. We agree it is impossible to hear, but I say it is impossible to hear because the most of the listeners do not have the right hardware. Even millions of playbacks i guess that it is played on a simular number different equipement. There is no significanse in theese numbers. Can I Ask you directly. What is the freqency range of the headpones you used? Best. Regards Andreas

    • The test has been done over 100 million times and 29.7% got 2/6 and 25.8% got 3/6. They were the highest percentages. Only 1.6% got 6/6. That means people can’t tell the difference.

  • I can't hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless, but that isn't the point. Lossy is trendy while lossless is timeless, which means it can (theoretically) be transcoded infinitely across lossless formats without losing sound quality to stay relevant among changing industry standards in formats and hardware. But after transcoding in lossy a few times, noticeable quality gets lost.

  • I really don't think that music reproduction should judged by just measuring frequency response. It's true that MP3s reproduce all of the useful frequency response as compared to larger files however I don't think that while most people are listening to there favorite music there trying to figure out what frequency are being played, instead there listening to the melody & the dynamics of what is being reproduced in the song. This is where you separate MP3s from 44.1-16 bit & higher; you get more subtle detail, & a more defined bass response. If you are playing higher resolution files, you also must have the DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter) to reproduce the desired bit & sampling rate, otherwise an MP3 will not sound much different than the resolution from a CD. When I stream music from Tidal, which is 44.1/ 16 bit & I use the DAC that is in my computer, the sound is compromised, relatively the same frequency response but not as much musical impact or dynamics. I then invested in a very good Oppo BD-105 Dac & CD/DVD player. I made this unit my digital front end. When I would stream the same songs through my computer, & use the Oppo as my DAC instead of the one built into my computer, what a difference in sound quality! More dynamics, more detail in the mid range, more bass extension...etc.; all with the same approximate frequency response. When played through a good system & all thing being equal, Higher resolution music files sound better & more realistic than compressed files. IMHO.

    • Agree. If you just use the pc soundcard you won't notice the difference. If you use good dac you will. Even a 150 pound dragon fly red is a massive upgrade on the inbuilt system.