# "Audiophile or Audio-Fooled? How good are your ears?"



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

Well, this ought to stir the pot some. Watched this fairly short YT video the other day and whether you agree or not, many of his arguments seem to be based in science fact (aging, compromised hearing, etc.). Makes you wonder if going to the trouble of hi-res is worth it? 
Some fairly reasonable discussions among the comments for that vid as well. Surprising. 

https://youtu.be/YgEjI5PZa78

Listening test is here...

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality? : The Record : NPR


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

I got 2 wrong on my phone outside in the rain listening to only the first 5 seconds of each. So I would say there is difference.


----------



## ab12c3d4 (Sep 18, 2017)

got 2 right, listening through my altec lansing computer speakers, in a quiet room. I'm 49. was harder then i thought.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

ab12c3d4 said:


> got 2 right, listening through my altec lansing computer speakers, in a quiet room. I'm 49. was harder then i thought.


When?


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

I basically guessed at them, and got 4 right. I'm 52 years old, and Currently have a head cold. on top of that, I used a set of earbuds I found in my junk drawer in the garage that probably came in a happy meal, or a box of cereal....
Its hard to argue with science, but there are many "golden ears" that will tell you they can distinguish between the 320 file and the wav. (as well as different RCA cabling, Amplifiers, ect) I would suggest that any who get 6/6 on this have gotten quite lucky with their guesses as well.
I have listened to many, many 320 files, and wav files, And I, for one, simply cannot hear the difference, even though I know its there.
I agree with his statement about the listeners "experience" with music, though. To many people, its just "background noise" to fill the silence, and they could care less, as opposed to those who listen intently on a regular basis. Perhaps that coincides with the reasoning that Meca, and Iasca judges are not chosen for their "ability" to "listen" well, but are "trained" to listen well


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

3 right with $10 Panasonic headphones on a PC. Out of the 3 I did not pick wav, I chose 320kb. Very difficult to tell the difference and I had listed twice to each sample. In a running/moving car... fogetaboutit!


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

I got 3/6, and the wrong ones I picked 320kbps....except for the Coldplay song where I picked 128. Is it just me or is there some major clipping in that song? I picked the one that sounded least clipped, which would make sense because the lower bitrate probably filtered some of that out.

Tom's Diner was really tough and so was the Jay-Z one. Honestly though unless I was closing my eyes and really concentrating on the sibilant sounds and snare/hi-hat I couldn't tell a difference. If someone just played those tracks and asked me if I heard a difference I would probably say no. It would be a more interesting test if they asked you to sort them, or randomized them so that some were all the same file and you had to identify if there was a difference or not.


----------



## schmiddr2 (Aug 10, 2009)

Here's the thread from 2 years ago: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...omparison-between-320kbps-128kbp-mp3-wav.html


----------



## JimmyDee (Mar 8, 2014)

I remember this test from a few years back...

This time, I only got 2 right.
Listening on my desktop PC with Bose Companion 5 speakers.
49 years old. Still consider my hearing to be pretty good.

Oddly enough... I picked 128k most of the time!

I've done a similar test in my own vehicle, where I listened to a song on CD, and then an exact same song at 320kBPS MP3, and the MP3 always seemed to sound better.

Maybe a righ resolution file would sound better in an engineered sound room, with high-end audio equipment... 
But in a car, with road noise and glass and plastic everywhere, I don't think there's an advantage. 
I run with 320k MP3 in my vehicle.


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

i got 3 wrong, no excuses here though, just hearing loss


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Like mentioned, this has been done before. 5/6, I got the X&Y number wrong and I'm 54. Just my opinion, but in these type of tests, it's easier to tell the difference if the original recording is more dynamic. Its tougher when the original is recorded loud.


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

i got 6/6 in a snowstorm driving in an open air jeep wrangler with 40" mud tires. oh, and a shelby mustang revving at 6000 rpm. oh, forgot the harley next to me also revving at the same time. listening through some walmart $5 earphones falling out of my ears from the bad fit. :laugh:


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

WOW, I did this again, and then I looked at my results from doing it last time. Inconstant, yet still only got 3 right. LOL

This time however, I only picked correct and 320kbp tracks though, so I feel I improved, yet for some reason, I didn't get a single one of the ones I got correct last time correct this time. So, I really must say that as far as "my" hearing goes, and the quality(or lack thereof) of my computer speakers, I just can't seem to truly "hear" the difference between 320kbps and WAV. Though this time I will say that I am proud of myself for not picking a single 128kbp file like I did last time, so perhaps I have learned a little something from being a member on this forum.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Getting better! This time I got 4 wav and 2x128. 
But maybe the bad setup helped, ipad in hand in the bathroom :blush::laugh:
I'll wait a bit and try again with my headphones


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

These tests do not really give any really valid comparison because differences in file formats are only relative to the recording quality of the master.

If the master was not recorded using a high resolution format, then this test is really invalid. 

These particular tracks were not of highest quality to begin with so changing the file format is not going to reveal much of a difference.

A couple years ago, I took a CD of Tin Pan Alley - Stevie Ray Vaughn and played it back to back with a download of the same track from HD tracks.

I still found that the CD sounded better. It had more information, notes carried longer, there was an audible difference. 

That difference could have been attributed to the input circuitry on the head unit, or cables, or electronics in the computer, So even that test was not a fair comparison.

With that being said, I still run CD's.

Iv'e never liked the quality of MP3s. To my ears, there is just too much missing information.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

I think the whole test is biased/flawed to begin with, unless you regularly listen to those audio tracks/artists. I only got 3 but I _had to_ guess so technically I got 0, here's why. There is a psychoacoustic aspect to all of this "testing". Our ears work together with our brain to form the sound image. If one is not intimately familiar with a particular sound as in how it is really supposed to sound (in this case perhaps compared to the CD track), then the mind can definitely play tricks on the "ears". When I listened to those tracks, it was the first time I had ever heard 5 out of those 6. The only one I had heard, I had only heard it a couple of times on MTV I think it was (Tom's Diner). 

Take for example the sound of a very close family member that you may have grown up with for 18+ years or whatever, such as one's own mother or father or brother or sister. If you were to record them talking and test _your self_ samples of their voices in an uncompressed or lossless or other High quality type of file vs a 128kbps mp3 , I would bet that you would be able to pick out the better quality recordings nearly 100% of the time even after just 1 listening take. The same goes with songs that we have heard over and over and over and over. If I were to listen to the CD track of any of those artists because I wanted to for some very weird reason (LOL) for a few _years_, I bet I could do much better. Distinguish between 320kbps and wav? Nah not necessarily and highly unlikely. But between either of those and 128kbps mp3? Pssh hell yea. there's _a lot_ more to it than just "_can you hear the differences between these random artists' mp3 and wav files_?"

Try this: test _yourself_ with uncompressed wav files or flac's of _your_ favorite artists and the same songs in 128kbps mp3s by having someone else randomly play them to you. If you can hear the difference in _your_ favorite songs from _your_ favorite artists, I think _that_ is what matters most, because let's face: what are _YOU_ going to be listening to on _YOUR_ sound systems, whether home, mobile, or elsewhere?

Then there is also the question of the gear playing the end sound, whether it be headphones or speakers. Many times the loss in sound quality appears it the very high registers of the music spectrum and if the transducer, what ever kind it may be, doesn't have the resolving ability to begin with, or something in the chain is compromised, then it changes the playing field as well.


----------



## brad1981 (Oct 15, 2013)

So irritating. I posted my experience and results but I was already logged out unknowingly by the automated thing. Prompted to log in. Logged in but it's too late. My comment was lost. Sometimes this site really pisses me off


----------



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

What I found interesting is the part of the video where Beato discusses engineers, who they've recorded and then...their ages. We know that age affects hearing and that no one is exempt from age. Therefore, it's safe to assume that learning how to listen becomes even more important as you get older. That is, if you want to continue to enjoy well recorded music into your 70's and 80's. 
On top of all this is the assertion (that I agree with) that sound quality is ultimately very subjective because no two sets of human ears are made/wired identical. 
I seriously doubt we will ever see any complete resolution to the question of what constitutes "audiophile" as there are just so many contributing factors and influences. That might be for the best too.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

brad1981 said:


> So irritating. I posted my experience and results but I was already logged out unknowingly by the automated thing. Prompted to log in. Logged in but it's too late. My comment was lost. Sometimes this site really pisses me off


That has happened to me a couple of times after taking a painstaking amount of time carefully wording a comment and checking all the spelling etc.

Now, with long replies, I always take the time to copy the body of what I wrote just in case that happens.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

The question you have to ask yourself is "Are Hi-Res files worth it to YOU?" I'll probably never jump on the wagon but this is a hobby so how far you go with it is on you. The only person you should strive to impress with your efforts is you. It's all gravy after that.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> The question you have to ask yourself is "Are Hi-Res files worth it to YOU?" I'll probably never jump on the wagon but this is a hobby so how far you go with it is on you. The only person you should strive to impress with your efforts is you. It's all gravy after that.


I agree! And my answer is NO.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> The question you have to ask yourself is "Are Hi-Res files worth it to YOU?" I'll probably never jump on the wagon but this is a hobby so how far you go with it is on you. The only person you should strive to impress with your efforts is you. It's all gravy after that.


Pretty much applies to this entire hobby... could I spend $1,000 on a pair of speakers or will I be just as happy with a pair of $300 speakers. For me, I know I would be happy with the $300 pair. 

I have a bunch of high res files on my flash drive, sitting in the garage with the engine off and quiet, yes there is a noticeable difference, in some tracks, certainly not all. Driving along with the road noise, nope, not something I can notice. Which is why 75-80% of my music, if not more, is somewhere between 128 and 320k mp3's


----------



## avhound (Sep 15, 2017)

You got 2 out of 6 correct!

If you did well on this and were listening through built-in speakers, you either have extraordinary ears or got lucky. If you had trouble picking out different versions of these songs, we give you permission to blame your tools. The speakers on your phone, laptop or tablet weren’t made for anything resembling hi-definition audio. Plug in a pair of headphones and try again.
then my son walks in and says "Dad you won't be able to hear the difference with the laptop speakers"(well at 54 i tried) now i get to use his Head Phones ATH M50x's
now i did not memorize, check setting or which artist i picked correctly. so now the Phones.
You got 3 out of 6 correct!

Despite its bad rap, the MP3 is actually a remarkable feat of engineering, and pretty good at filtering out mostly the sounds you can’t hear. Depending on the quality of your headphones, you might be able to distinguish between the two MP3s, but you’re unlikely to do better without an amplifier or a digital audio converter.
Ok iam going in my Western Room and crank up my home audio and feel Pink Floyd since i can not hear a thing 
actually it's kinda funny when i kept starting, stopping as fast as i could between the three part tracks listening to the air and hiss differences to make my determination for they all musically sound so identical.
I believe whether it's the Supreme's, CCR, Outlaws, Boston, Elton, Stevie Ray, Bad Co, or Dean Martin it is how music moves me and takes me back through time. I Thank God i can still hear (some what) now these fargin eyes.


----------



## DPGstereo (Jan 16, 2013)

.

6/6. Unfortunately I noticed a longer load/play time between each versions on my MacBook Air, so that suggested which one was the larger file. 

I just did a comparison listening to _Stevie Ray Vaugn - Tin Pan Alley_. Listening through _Beyerdynamic T5P_ headphones. 
1. _Apple Lossless_ format on _iPhone_, eq off.
2. _HD Tracks_ DSD 2.8MHz on_ Fiio X7 Mark II_, eq off.
Noticeable improvement with the DSD...crisper highs, more noticeable reverb, deeper bass, overall better sound. I was surprised. However, how much do I attribute improvement to _Fiio X7_ player over _iPhone_?
Tried Rush - Tom Sawyer...not much of a difference between _iPhone_-lossless vs. _Fiio X7_-48/24.

Will take many more hours of comparison to prove any justifiable advantage. Probably will come down to Re-Masters having a better mix. But if thats what we end up with over..win-win.

Over the years I've been told by recording engineers that there is more that can be done with 16-bit before we need to worry about 20-bit. Now we are talking about 24-bit and 32-bit. I think we've all heard 16-bit recording that we could say to ourselves "that's good enough". Others recordings, not so good. 

Read a great article *The 24-Bit Delusion* at _*mojo-audio.com*_
Not crazy long, but an interesting read.

24-bit makes more since to me than 192KHz. Seems 192 sample rate seems way-overkill?

16-bit = dynamic range of over 96dB, 65,536 steps 
20-bit = dynamic range of over 120dB, 1,048,576 steps
24-bit = dynamic range of over 144dB, 16,777,216 steps

44.1KHz = 44,100 sample times per second
96KHz = 96,000 ....
192KHz = 192,000 .....

44.1/16 = 28,901376 potential sampling points
96/20 = 1,006,632,900 or 33 times more than CD quality.
192/24 = 256 times the resolution of CD quality.

Grows exponentially...

I read that experts say the finest DAC chips, resistors and power regulators are not capable of greater than 20-bit capacity. Say, yes the chip can decode, because software does exist, but the output from their DAC has capacity for less than 20-bits of resolution and dynamic range.

Article said...When people claim to hear differences between 16-bit, 20-bit and 24-bit recordings, it is not the difference between the bit depth that they are hearing, but rather the difference in the quality of the Digital Mastering. Most 24-bit recordings are mastered with less than the 96dB dynamic range of a 16-bit recording. Only needs to be so loud between quite and maximum volume.
So they commercially market 24-bit recordings by filling some of the _Most Significant Bits (MSB)_ with 1's and some of the _Least Significant Bits (LSB)_ with 0's to pad the overall volume up to the target level. Could have released a recording of identical performance in 16-bit, but say naive customers insist on 24-bit, so the record companies trick them by centering 16-bit of dynamic range in a 24-bit frame. $$$


.


----------



## carguy75 (Jun 22, 2019)

I tried this test today in post #1 and only got two correct by using some Logitech G430 gaming headphones connected to my PC. The headphones uses some software to mimic 7 speaker surround sound so the sound was digitally altered on all the samples; so they mostly sounded the same to me except for test #3 with the piano, that was very clear to me and easy to identify. The rest of the sound tracks sounded the same(or similar) to be honest. 

My PC motherboard does have a Realtek ALC892 sound chip that does a great job of digital audio conversion so that may be why that all the compressed audio files sounded the same and close to the uncompressed WAV audio files. 

Interesting test that shows that many of us really do not need hi-res audio files to enjoy music with decent modern sound chips that convert compressed audio files.


----------



## captainvideo (Sep 15, 2020)

I didn't take the test, mainly because I'm almost 70 years old and my hearing isn't what it used to be. I was a high-end audiophile for about 15 years back when I was single and my search for the holy grail got to the point where I lost sight of what high end audio was about. I was so focused on the sound of the hardware that I completely missed out on the enjoyment of the music itself. If I heard the slightest aberration in the sound I went nuts and wouldn't rest until I found out the cause, which I usually did eventually. I finally succumbed to the reality that my quest was bigger than my budget and I had other things that required my money like a family and a mortgage.

Fast forward to decades later and I'm married with two kids and four grand kids and my home theater setup is in the basement with a furnace fan and heat pump water heater in the same room plus a server rack in another room for a lot of background fan noise. The only place I can listen to music with no intrusive noise is in my car, and even then I have to deal with road noise. I've gotten to where I don't criticize anyone's taste in hardware anymore (unless they start raving about Bose) because now I just feel that if it sounds good to you then that's all that matters. 

That being said, all of the music files I listen to in my car are all in flac format on SD cards. Hey, at my age I'm allowed to be anal about some things.


----------



## Gary S (Dec 11, 2007)

Ok, so I assume that the question of this thread is, can Hi Res make a difference in sound quality?

The answer is yes, but with several caveats:

It only works at high volume, mostly, in my experience. Basically, CD or lower quality sound can sound gritty when turned up too loud... how hi res works is, it's less gritty, so on a hi end system, you can turn it up louder without it hurting your ears - and that increases dynamic range, and helps with the *Fletcher Munson Curve*

Basically, there is more information in these recordings and our brains can hear the difference.

You may have to have a very good sound system to hear it. So, lol - no, you are not going to hear it from phone speakers! You need a high end home system, hi end $100.00 + headphones, or possibly a good car system. TV speakers, cheap ear buds, phones, sound bars, clock radios, and those stupid wittle Bose cubes are not going to make the cut.

It's also dependent on the quality of the recording and the studio mix. I'd say half or more of the hi res tracks don't sound any better than CD, this is why.

Don't pay for tracks - official music videos, including those on Youtube, DVD and Blu-ray, are a minimum of 48khz. sampling - this is above CD quality, and if everything is just right (again, recoding, mixing, your system), it can sound amazing.

I'll admit, I was brainwashed for many years by the lie (Sony) that CD sound was as good as it gets. I'm embarrassed to say that I only learned six years ago that Hi Res is for real (it's been available for decades, but has become more accessible to the general public in the last 25 years)). Now I am going crazy building sensuround home theaters and sound quality cars, it's brought me back into hi fidelity.

So yes, Hi res can sound better, but everything has to be just right.


----------



## kattan_tha_man (Feb 2, 2021)

PPI_GUY said:


> Well, this ought to stir the pot some. Watched this fairly short YT video the other day and whether you agree or not, many of his arguments seem to be based in science fact (aging, compromised hearing, etc.). Makes you wonder if going to the trouble of hi-res is worth it?
> Some fairly reasonable discussions among the comments for that vid as well. Surprising.
> 
> 
> ...


I listened on a cheap pair of headphones hooked to my laptop. Got 3 of 6 right, but the 3 I missed I picked the 320kbps mp3. If it was my music and on my home or car system I think it would have been easier.


----------



## jtrosky (Jul 19, 2019)

A "sample size" of 6 songs - and only 3 choices for each song is way too small to make any conclusions, IMO. It's like a multiple-choice quiz. Way too easy to "guess". You would really need many more songs and a better way to determine if someone can _really_ hear the difference vs. guessing. Maybe test each song twice - and only consider the answer "right" if they get it right in both cases - or something like that.

Personally, in a car, I'll use 320k .mp3 or .flacs. Way too much ambient noise while driving to worry about it. My 256gb thumb drive has plenty of space, so I'll use .flacs when possible. But I definitely have some 320k .mp3's that sound better than some other .flacs - so like the video suggests, I think that the original recording quality is more important here. 

In a true test, I'd be willing to bet $$$ that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between 320k and .flac - _especially_ in a moving car, while also actually concentrating on driving.

To me, getting the "tonality" of the tune right is way more important in a car.


----------



## Mikky'Drippin (3 mo ago)

Between 320KBPS and FLAC I perceive no difference.

256KBPS depends on the song. Lower yes.

This on good headphones and amp+DAC
And good audio setup too.


----------



## Speedhunter (Feb 21, 2020)

You are year and a half late....


----------

