Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

S.B.G

S.B.G

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Sep 8, 2010
26,914
10,989
Detroit
I just came across this link on Reddit r/headphones of an NPR quick audio test. The story was posted a few years ago but its still worth a look and a fun 6 sample test.

Essentially you listen to 6 different song clips, 3 samples each.
  • 128kbps mp3
  • 320kbps mp3
  • Uncompressed WAV
Listen to them all and select which one you think is the best. Hopefully you can distinguish the uncompressed WAV sample.

I did rather well and scored a 5/6 missing only the last one when I erroneously selected the 320kbps mp3.

For my listening I used the Schiit Magni 3 amp, Schiit Modi Multibit DAC and the Sennheiser HD 650 headphones.

Follow this link to NPR and see what you get and post your scores and the equipment you used to test it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reality4711
Hearing capability is interesting... but it has to do with "sound perception". You will score more if you previously know the tracks, for example. You will score more with the appropriate equipment, also.
I use a DAC, and hear HiRes files of just my favourite albums, because I feel they sound better. There're a lot of situations (and kinds of music) where I couldn't tell the difference vs. compressed audio...
At the end, I'd like to point that hearing capability changes continuously because it's a psychological process. In spite of the convenience of compressed audio, the only scientific fact you can surely affirm is that there is MORE INFORMATION in an uncompressed file (and sometimes you can feel the difference).
 
^ IMO, Apple Music at 256 kbps is indistinguishable to my ears. All of that extra details, soundstage, imaging and depth perception are 100% identical to that of a 16 bit 44.1 KHz lossless. Also, a lot of the hi-res files I demoed we're definitely mastered or edited differently than their CD counterpart. Alas, if I convert those hi-res files to 256 kbps m4a, there's no difference in sound thus I only buy them for their better mastering rather than hi-res format
 
I scored a 50% with a pair of Shure SE535s plugged into a Chord Mojo.

On the three I didn't choose the WAV files, though, I DID choose the 320 files. Didn't choose any of the 128 samples.

I have similar results from all the tests like this I've taken, which is why I favor streaming Apple Music and Spotify at their highest resolutions, rather than Tidal or lossless via a dedicated DAP.

I wonder if 320 is the threshold. I think I remember ripping some of my CDs at 256 VBR, so I have some files that are around that bitrate as opposed to 320. I wouldn't mind a side-by-side of those.
 
Sometimes I wonder if the method of compression has more of an effect than the bitrate itself. For example, I remember hearing classical flute tracks on Spotify that were supposedly 320Kbps, yet I could hear distortion when the flute reached the highest notes, however, in the 256Kbps tracks on iTunes (of the same recording), I did not hear the distortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: niploteksi
ThisBougieLife said:
Sometimes I wonder if the method of compression has more of an effect than the bitrate itself. For example, I remember hearing classical flute tracks on Spotify that were supposedly 320Kbps, yet I could hear distortion when the flute reached the highest notes, however, in the 256Kbps tracks on iTunes (of the same recording), I did not hear the distortion.
Click to expand...

Too much compression and maxed out output levels are evil.
 
ThisBougieLife said:
Sometimes I wonder if the method of compression has more of an effect than the bitrate itself. For example, I remember hearing classical flute tracks on Spotify that were supposedly 320Kbps, yet I could hear distortion when the flute reached the highest notes, however, in the 256Kbps tracks on iTunes (of the same recording), I did not hear the distortion.
Click to expand...
Yes, I feel AAC sounds better than MP3 at same bitrate.

But I must keep saying that the only scientific evidence -in a strong sense- is the bigger amount of information in a lossless sound file. The psychological approach is biased by media convenience, (and there's a lot of truth in it!)...
Know what? I can tell different bitrates in some music due to vibrations of my wood desk! (Speakers, of course).
I feel real difference with HiRes files with speakers; with (good) earphones difference is subtler.
Perhaps listening to music is not just hearing through ears...?
 
Interesting. I Consistently picked the 320Kbps version except for the Suzanne Vega track where the uncompressed WAV sounded noticeably clearer. I have some new headphones on the way so I wonder if they'll change my results much.

EDIT: With my new H.ear On 2s, using wired connection, I was able to get three of six correct. I still got the Suzanne Vega one easily and was also able to make out the difference with the Jay-Z and Niel Young tracks. I still ended up picking 320Kbps on the other three. I was actually surprised I got the Coldplay one wrong, I could hear a lot more going on in the 320Kbps one than in the WAV one so I'm not sure what was going on there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: S.B.G
I've played around some years ago with an audio file recorded at 44.1 Khz and 16 bit. I compressed it to MP3, AAC and MP2. I could clearly hear the difference of the files, but the MP2 file at 256kbps was best. Even though MP3 at 320kbps was also rather good.

I imported the original into an Avid ProTools session and converted the MP2 file back again to .wav 16bit 44.1Khz because ProTools can't read different formats in one session. I then moved them to the session window and cut and pasted them so many times under and above each other that I could not remember which was which.

The original MP2 file that had been converted should have some disadvantage because of converting them first into MP2 and later back into .wav

On my headphones there was a difference between the files. But the 256MP2 file confused me. Some parts were perceived better as the original and some parts seemed equal and some parts were not as good. But the original confused me the same. So I could not make out which was which. In the end I found that beating drums and wood seemed to sound better on MP2. But that violins sounded superior on .wav.
Does it mean that MP2 compression is as good as 44.1Khz at 16bit of even 24? Or 96Khz or higher at 32bit? No. It is your perception and the equipment that counts and even your mood. And in the case of files on internet also the Jitter.

Later on when I was the proud owner of a HighRes audio player I found some 192Khz 24 bit files did not sound as good as some other HighRes files. And I wondered why. So I did some research on the recordings. It turned out that the files which 'lacked something', had originally been recorded at 44,1Khz 16bit.
They still sounded very good but for a mix into 5.1 multichannel the technician transferred them to a higher bitrate..... this is done because to achieve a better quality after the mix is ready. The recording I had was a stereo file created from the 5.1 mix.
 
I selected 320 three times, 128 twice, and uncompressed once. More or less no different than random picks.
 
Despite the reports, I can easily pick out a good 24-bit recording from its 16-bit brother via a blind A-B test. Of course, not all 24-bit recrodings are discernibly different, and one has no way of knowing until they're purchased, so I don't tend to upgrade 16-bit recordings that I already own, but I've been very pleased with most of what I've purchased.
 
They say most listeners can’t tell the difference in audio quality, can you?

www.npr.org

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

A hi-def test for your ears (and your audio equipment): Listen to these songs and see if you can tell the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed audio file.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

I like to buy the my music in the best format and have always been getting CD and ripping to the music app but recently been listening to Apple Music lossless and I like it but that test above was hard to tell And if i’m honest I was guessing on some. Makes me wonder if I should just buy itunes purchases over CD.

My ears are 42 years old.
 
Most people can't tell the difference between high-bitrate MP3 and CD quality so I wouldn't worry.
Then there's the high-res debacle that seems to polarise opinion as well.

Above and beyond 16/44.1 CD quality, any huge objective improvement in sound quality will be due to differences in the masters, because 16/44.1 is perfectly adequate for human ears, as defined by the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. The best thing that the high-res fad has done though is it required the record companies to re-digitise their old tapes using newer and better equipment than they had in the 80s when CDs were first made. Consequently, modern high-res captures of especially 90s and earlier analog recordings [have the potential to] sound way better than the original CD, if we discount the detrimental effects of the war on dynamics, but that's a different tale.
 
Last edited:
MajorFubar said:
Most people can't tell the difference between high-bitrate MP3 and CD quality so I wouldn't worry.
Then there's the high-res debacle that seems to polarise opinion as well.

Above and beyond 16/44.1 CD quality, any huge objective improvement in sound quality will be due to differences in the masters, because 16/44.1 is perfectly adequate for human ears, as defined by the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. The best thing that the high-res fad has done though is it required the record companies to re-digitise their old tapes using newer and better equipment than they had in the 80s when CDs were first made. Consequently, modern high-res captures of especially 90s and earlier analog recordings [have the potential to] sound way better than the original CD, if we discount the detrimental effects of the war on dynamics, but that's a different tale.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting to know. Would you count iTunes purchases as a high quality MP3?

They are quite well priced versus HD tracks which are often over $20
 
With increasing age, hearing of higher frequencies starts to disappear. That's why there is no difference between high-bitrate mp3 format and wave format.

How far can you hear a mosquito as an adult? but how far away did you hear them when you were little?
 
JamesMay82 said:
That’s interesting to know. Would you count iTunes purchases as a high quality MP3?

They are quite well priced versus HD tracks which are often over $20
Click to expand...
The AAC codec used by Apple is actually considerably more audibly transparent than MP3. It still isn't measurably CD quality, but for most people there's no discernible difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMay82
MajorFubar said:
The AAC codec used by Apple is actually considerably more audibly transparent than MP3. It still isn't measurably CD quality, but for most people there's no discernible difference.
Click to expand...
thanks although I'm feeling annoyed that I'm now falling into the "most people" category! Getting old sucks! think I'll maybe keep buying CD's out of principle. I must admit people are giving them away these days
 
When I said most people, there aren't 12 year olds out there with their (comparatively) brilliant hearing saying that MP3 and lossy audio sucks. In fact among that age group, Spotify (which doesn't offer a lossless service at all, still) absolutely is the #1 way they consume music, commonly through lo-fi earbuds, and they think people who buy physical media are some kind of neanderthal werdos. So it's way less about age, and more about the actual type of music, and what to actually listen for.

And there's definitely a strong argument that if you're scrutinising the audio so microscopically listening for faults and differences, that you've absolutely missed the point of listening to the music.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BotchQue
JamesMay82 said:
They say most listeners can’t tell the difference in audio quality, can you?

www.npr.org

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

A hi-def test for your ears (and your audio equipment): Listen to these songs and see if you can tell the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed audio file.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

I like to buy the my music in the best format and have always been getting CD and ripping to the music app but recently been listening to Apple Music lossless and I like it but that test above was hard to tell And if i’m honest I was guessing on some. Makes me wonder if I should just buy itunes purchases over CD.

My ears are 42 years old.
Click to expand...
When I see this 'test' and I see that I am supposed to ask myself if I can hear a difference between Niel Young's Harvest recorded in pre-digital times, then I wonder if I should even bother.

Because it will be hard to hear a difference in audio high-res or not if the recording was analog. Also it would be nice to know where the music came from. Was it an old fashioned LP? Or was it from the music library of NPR and maybe first record from the LP to tape? Because that would contribute to even more degradation. No problem for radio however. The quality of such a tape is perfect for broadcast. But it would interfere with the quality of the original. Only when it comes from the original master it may be different.

The fact that many people can't hear a difference in high res or standard res or low res is in my opinion largely caused by such issues. I remember an audio test for professionals where the test contained audio marked as high res and low-res. The audience could not hear a difference between the high-res and low-res audio of recordings such as from Patricia Barber. Wich was 'proof' that it was impossible to hear the difference. Even professionals could not hear it was the conclusion.

Until.... Jim Anderson and award winning technician learned about the test and revealed that the particular recording of Patricia Barber was originally never recorded in High-Res. It was later upsampled after the production to create a multi-channel recording. And of course you could not hear a difference because the high res was in fact normal cd resolution. As recorded by Anderson himself.

Such mistakes are repeatedly made by the ignorants. And I don't see any value in this NPR test. I advice you to discard it.
 
S.B.G said:
I just came across this link on Reddit r/headphones of an NPR quick audio test. The story was posted a few years ago but its still worth a look and a fun 6 sample test.

Essentially you listen to 6 different song clips, 3 samples each.
  • 128kbps mp3
  • 320kbps mp3
  • Uncompressed WAV
Listen to them all and select which one you think is the best. Hopefully you can distinguish the uncompressed WAV sample.

I did rather well and scored a 5/6 missing only the last one when I erroneously selected the 320kbps mp3.

For my listening I used the Schiit Magni 3 amp, Schiit Modi Multibit DAC and the Sennheiser HD 650 headphones.

Follow this link to NPR and see what you get and post your scores and the equipment you used to test it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
Click to expand...
Just a thought.
Should the question be "how well can you hear audio differences"?
eg:- no change in the quality but detectable differences!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back