How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

[pavementtune]

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecor...-audio-quality

my hearing is baaad.
I guess some of you hear 6 out of 6 correct?
Wondering how common it is to be as deaf as I am.


and another one
http://test.tidalhifi.com/

results, pls.

[The exploding boy]

3 out of 6 on the first

3 out of 5 on second.

Complete luck though. I hear zero difference in any of the samples be it the first or second test. My headphones are worth like 70$ which makes them not great but not awful either.

Anyway, that never mattered to me unless we're talking really low quality. But say 190kps and up, i don't hear it and even if i could, it wouldn't be enough to give a fuck. I always thought there was a lot of twattery involved when it comes to sound quality. I mean maybe there's like a small % of the people who hear it and to who it matters but i'd be willing to bet for 90% of people they cant hear the difference enough for it to matter. And even then, like "oh no, that cymbal is like a tiny weeny bit not as crisp sounding as on that lossless sample...can't listen to this shit omg"...like...fuck off.

[noyen]

6/6 on the npr test. i listened to only the first few seconds of each sample and thought i could tell right away. suprising. some of the compressed versions actually sounded a bit "better" but i still noticed differences. like toms diner. thing is, i think compressed audio usually sounds fine and i dont think theres a real quality advantage if youre trying to save dats space or bandwidth. they all sound pretty fine for listening.

[Sonic Johnny]

I listen to everything at 320 CBR big whoop wanna fight about it

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by The exploding boy

But say 190kps and up, i don't hear it

pretty much. I can hear if a file is in 126 kbps, but I'd guess the difference between anything higher compared to 320 is mostly lost on me.
Maybe if I'd try it at home with a higher quality system and even better headphones, I might have a chance, but in general my hearing got a lot worse the last few years.

Got 4 out of 6 on the first test, second 3 out of 5. but besides 3 examples it was more like a vague guessing than anything else.

I wonder how the people who purchase pono files would do in this test...
for me it wouldn't make much sense obviously, I'm fine with 256kbps (amazon mp3s.)

[redbreegull]

I got 3/6 and 3/5. I'm listening on $100 open air style headphones. I wonder if I would do better if I could plug my computer into my nice speakers.

Originally Posted by The exploding boy

But say 190kps and up, i don't hear it

I also agree with this. A truly low quality mp3 is obvious to me... very tinny and grating with no nuance or gentleness. But most of these were hard for me to be sure. I did hear a difference in each song, but it was difficult for my brain to figure out which one was "better."

hard to say though, I almost certainly have hearing loss to some extent from hundreds of shows without earplugs and thousands of hours of listening to high volume music on headphones or in the car. I also have a problem with chronic ear clogging cause I have shitty sinuses.

It was also easier for me to hear the difference on the tracks with "real" instruments as opposed to electronic ones but I chalk this up to what I am used to hearing. Hotel California was the only one that was apparent to me without any second guessing, and also the one I am the most familiar with. This sort of validates my listening habits, which is generally that I will only buy something lossless if it is something I love and am familiar with. I guess it is obvious, but after you know a song well, I think you can appreciate it more in higher fidelity. Vinyl vs. digital formats is more important to me because personally I think vinyl makes the sound seem closer to that of live music.

[redbreegull]

there really are so many factors though, older music tends to be quieter and less compressed to begin with, so I think that is easier to hear as well. most music from the last 2 decades sounds too compressed to me even in hi-fi

[Mooney]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

there really are so many factors though, older music tends to be quieter and less compressed to begin with, so I think that is easier to hear as well. most music from the last 2 decades sounds too compressed to me even in hi-fi

you're conflating two different types of compression, though - dynamic range compression and digital compression. the 'loudness wars' started with engineers mastering songs with reduced dynamic range so they seemed louder on radio and would stand out and get more attention. this still continues because a lot of new stuff is mastered to sound best on cell phone speakers, shitty $5 ear buds or on car stereos, none of which can properly reproduce full dynamic range.

[Mooney]

http://www.goldenears.philips.com

i'm almost done working my way though the Gold Level of the Philips golden ear challenge, but the fact that I am deaf above ~15kHz is making the high frequency extension tests extremely difficult.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Mooney

you're conflating two different types of compression, though - dynamic range compression and digital compression. the 'loudness wars' started with engineers mastering songs with reduced dynamic range so they seemed louder on radio and would stand out and get more attention. this still continues because a lot of new stuff is mastered to sound best on cell phone speakers, shitty $5 ear buds or on car stereos, none of which can properly reproduce full dynamic range.

for sure, but you don't think less dynamic range and the presence of clipping makes it more difficult to discern the amount of digital compression? maybe it doesn't, I'm not sure. it's just something I think I have noticed

[vixnix]

I listened with my computer's in built speakers and just picked the ones that sounded the least revolting, and got 2/6. The test told me I could blame my tools and should try again with headphones haha

[Disco King]

Only did the first test. 2/6. The spoken-word one, I got right by fluke. The only one I knew for sure was the Coldplay one because the cymbals made it pretty obvious.

I know nothing of sound quality. Couldn't tell you what makes the remastered Pumpkins CDs sound any different from the original releases, for example. I don't even fully understand what mastering is. Like, I understand the concept of mixing, but mastering, *shrugs shoulders*

[The exploding boy]

Originally Posted by Mooney

http://www.goldenears.philips.com

i'm almost done working my way though the Gold Level of the Philips golden ear challenge, but the fact that I am deaf above ~15kHz is making the high frequency extension tests extremely difficult.

i wanted to do this but this goes on forever...i guess ill leave the page open and continue tomorrow.

[Mooney]

Originally Posted by The exploding boy

i wanted to do this but this goes on forever...i guess ill leave the page open and continue tomorrow.

you can create an account and it tracks your progress so you can continue where you left off.

[Cowlishaw]

Can only tell difference when I've listened to shit a million times.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

The Coldplay track really needs some serious de-essing.

are you referring to the hiss and shrillness? this is a product of loud at any volume, yeah?

[LaBelle]

3/6 on the first test
3/5 on the second

I have pretty cheap and crappy headphones tho so I'm sure the differences I noticed are mostly a product of me knowing they should have a difference in the first place.

[slunken]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

are you referring to the hiss and shrillness? this is a product of loud at any volume, yeah?

i noticed a lot of brickwall-esque distortion and crackling in the uncompressed wav and 320 versions

[Mooney]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

are you referring to the hiss and shrillness? this is a product of loud at any volume, yeah?

he's referring to sibilance, and i believe it is volume independent. generally more an issue dealt with in recording/mixing than a symptom of compression.

[slunken]

Originally Posted by slunken

i noticed a lot of brickwall-esque distortion and crackling in the uncompressed wav and 320 versions

Originally Posted by Mooney

he's referring to sibilance, and i believe it is volume independent. generally more an issue dealt with in recording/mixing than a symptom of compression.

yes

and to clarify for non-readers (there are a lot of you), this is in reference to the coldplay tracks

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Mooney

he's referring to sibilance, and i believe it is volume independent. generally more an issue dealt with in recording/mixing than a symptom of compression.

I had no idea there was a word for this, cool. But the problem is Coldplay and not me, right? Cause even turned down low I can hear that shit more than I should

[yo soy el mejor]

Originally Posted by slunken

yes

and to clarify for non-readers (there are a lot of you), this is in reference to the coldplay tracks

wut? i can't read!